Evolutionary Dead Ends

[TCallens]

So I've been doing a lot of research about specie extinction lately, and the overriding trend seems to be a group overspecializes in something that makes them successful. If you look post-mass extinction animals, they are always basic/primitive organisms. This really gives me doubts about the future of man. It seems we have over-specialized in technology and complex governing systems.

Anyone who understands chaos theory knows complex systems ALWAYS fail. Is mankind to suffer the same fate at the dinosaurs? Just something that kind of scared the heck out me.

Has our reliance on social order and modern living doomed us to extinction? Not even the Dinosaurs were "too big to fail".

Edited August 26, 2012 by TCallens

[Darwin Ahoy]

Seems to me that we have over-specialized in populating the planet. That would be what scares me.

[Boesse]

I don't think that's true in the least. Humans are super-generalists: we live everywhere, can make anything with our hands, and eat everything. If that's not a generalist species, then I don't know what is.

[TCallens]

I don't think that's true in the least. Humans are super-generalists: we live everywhere, can make anything with our hands, and eat everything. If that's not a generalist species, then I don't know what is.

But we are losing the skills that make us so adaptable by relying on the work of a select few, and a giant, complex social structure to deliver our most basic needs. Example: My grandfather built a house out of trees he cut down himself. My cousins (his grandchildren) have no idea how to work a saw. They rely on a system that employs them to an end(and they couldn't eat without it) instead of being an animal that can adapt to any condition.

[Auspex]

Were "the game" to change suddenly and drastically to select against technological know-how and favor more fundamental skills, I would expect natural selection to impede but a single generation (in addition to whatever population crash caused by the crisis-causing event). Man the animal is still, fundamentally, and adaptable generalist.

[Xiphactinus]

Were "the game" to change suddenly and drastically to select against technological know-how and favor more fundamental skills, I would expect natural selection to impede but a single generation (in addition to whatever population crash caused by the crisis-causing event). Man the animal is still, fundamentally, and adaptable generalist.

Agree completely! While technology has made our lives easy, it has nothing to do with evolution. Compare a human to another from 1000 years ago and we're the same physically. Maybe not as strong today, but healthier. As Auspex said, within a generation we'd be fine.

[Auspex]

Culture may define what we do, but, in an evolutionary sense, what we do does not define what we are.

[erose]

Great comments parsing out the reality of evolution. Our survival could have nothing to do with our "adaptive" abilities and everything to do with one odd gene that may have never been required until the point in time it is needed. Thinking of something like disease resistance...

We are still a young species ["]http://sci.waikato.a...volution.shtml] at maybe 250,000 years. Unfortunately long before we might actually go extinct I believe we will have either made life on earth miserable or gone through at least a handful of major population crashes. Between overpopulation and man-made degradation of the ecosystem we are heading for one of those crashes. You might apply chaos theory to that but evolution is different.

Edited August 26, 2012 by erose

[Auspex]

Perhaps a little too successful, by all the evidence.

[Shellseeker]

I second the concern about 8 billion and growing as a species. The idea that any event could eliminate that entire population in all of it's very diverse niches, is far fetched.

An event as cataclysmic as those events proposed as eliminating the dinosaurs is far less likely to eliminate humanity. There are self-sustaining populations still existing in both polar and amazonian remote regions.

[jpc]

I agree that we are the ulitmate generalists, but at the same time, we are also the most domesticated species around. If things did force us to return to something like the stone age (think Afganistan) we would survive, but many would fall on the way... it would not be pretty. The overpopulation of the planet by human beings scares me a whole lot more than other apocolyptic scenarios.

[Auspex]

Then there is Peter Ward's Medea hypothesis: LINK

[t-tree]

Maybe we are doomed to extinction one day but....

This Scottish Proverb is worth remembering.

Be happy while you're living,for you're a long time dead.

[AgrilusHunter]

Then there is Peter Ward's Medea hypothesis: LINK

Ahh, Rare Earth, easily on my top ten least enjoyed books list. I forced myself to finish it for the sake of future arguments.

[TCallens]

All really good points, and I am inclined to agree that society and biology, though related, play different roles. I guess my main question is, have we over specialized in solving problems with our brains/intelligence, and lost our ability to survive as animals? In case of massive geologic upheaval or comet impact, could we scratch a living out of the rocks, or would the loss of clean water and sunlight spell our doom?

I personally think we are too stubborn to die out anytime soon, but all top of the food chain animals have gone extinct, the small opportunist insects and small mammal like animals always make it.

[Auspex]

There are humans on Earth right now who are scratching their living out of rocks, so H. sapiens has the capacity to carry on. Were there a collapse of the technological infrastructure, whatever the cause, I would anticipate a massive reduction in population over a generation or two, but not extinction (just the end of modern life as we know it).

[ashcraft]

After the next mass extinction, populations of humans will survive. These distinct groups will speciate rapidly, filling available niches. This is what happens to groups of survivors following any mass extinction. The key is isolation, nowadays humans are homogenizing, and in my opinion, rapidly approaching Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Lose the technology, and isolate groups of humans from each other for a hundred thousand years, and you will see change.

Brent Ashcraft

[TCallens]

Is it possible that after a mass extinction that humans would undergo

After the next mass extinction, populations of humans will survive. These distinct groups will speciate rapidly, filling available niches. This is what happens to groups of survivors following any mass extinction. The key is isolation, nowadays humans are homogenizing, and in my opinion, rapidly approaching Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Lose the technology, and isolate groups of humans from each other for a hundred thousand years, and you will see change.

Brent Ashcraft

So do you believe humans would become a different species all together, better adapted to their environment? Or have we reached the pinnacle of animal advancement, physically speaking?

[AgrilusHunter]

... but all top of the food chain animals have gone extinct ...

Depends on the food chain. Even with the industrial power of man against them sharks are still on this planet. They have been at, or near, the top of their food chain long enough to note the passing of geologic time.

[Trevor]

Nice topic TCallens. In my The Chance Of... topic it is sort of like this. I hate most technology except this computer which allows me to go on the forum. I know technology will always fails and it will only take one mass natural disaster to see that happen. I love nature and try to learn survival skills and I am in BoyScouts so I learn good skills. So many people I know would be screwed if something like that happened. You always need to know how to get back to the basics and need to know technology cant save you from a crisis only you can. Only the simple things that have prevailed for millions of years will survive, but humans will also survive because before long after a crisis those survival skills will kick in.

[AgrilusHunter]

Or have we reached the pinnacle of animal advancement, physically speaking?

Species evolve across a fitness landscape. Imagine this as a complex mountainous landscape with many peaks and valleys. X and Y on this landscape walk through all possible trait combinations while Z is the fitness of that trait combination. Obviously this is only a three dimensional example, in reality species 'walk' through trait space that is massively multidimensional (mathematically speaking). Through evolution, species attempt to maximize their fitness by reaching a peak on this landscape, occasionally species even jump to another nearby peak. However, species rarely jump large distances across this landscape, they are locked in by the initial evolutionary steps of their first ancestors. It is impossible to say that humans have reached a pinnacle of animal advancement. More likely we are coming close to maximizing our local fitness as a pure generalist.

The first post of your thread seems to ask if a species can 'walk' downhill on this fitness landscape by losing certain behaviors, therefore making themselves less fit. I would argue that none of the behaviors you are describing (sawing, shooting, driving, hunting, reading, typing, etc.), either modern or ancient, have been proven to be genetically based. Evolution acts on genes and genes alone. That is to say, its unlikely that a person who can use a saw and one who can't are different on a genetic basis. Instead, I would expect evolution to select for survival traits associated with metabolism, disease resistance, etc., etc.

Also, chaos theory does not postulate that complex systems will always fail. Complexity theory, better known as chaos theory because of editors and Hollywood, postulates that complex systems are characterized by certain patterns. One of these patterns is repeated 'landslide events' or destabilizing events. These don't necessarily mean system failure, and can even result in a positive outcome for the system.

Edited August 27, 2012 by AgrilusHunter

[TCallens]

I guess the part I'm not convinced on is the fact that we are still generalist. And I believe a landslide event could seriously jeopardize our survivability, even if the "catastrophic" event were self inflicted (nuclear war for example).

Primitive humans may have been pure generalist, but modern man has become specialized in changing the world around himself to suit his needs. our appendix is for the digestion of things we can no longer eat because of our manipulation of food supply. I'm putting forth the idea that we've put all our eggs in the basket of altering our surroundings. You could even argue that we over specialized in being a generalist. Our phenomenal success could be our downfall. Over developed frontal lobe, under developed instincts and physical fortitude.

Not saying anyone is wrong. But it seems like a possibility to me.

[AgrilusHunter]

... You could even argue that we over specialized in being a generalist. Our phenomenal success could be our downfall...

Though you might be arguing with yourself.

I too enjoy a good post-apocalyptic scenario, but I doubt very much any of them are a possibility. Besides, who's to say that the hero of a truly post-apocalyptic world wouldn't be the engineer with the ability to get the information off a broken computer, reboot a data server, or restart a power station.

Edited August 27, 2012 by AgrilusHunter

[TCallens]

I pretty much agree with you. I'm a firm believer in the "Captain Kirk/Odysseus" model of cleverness and determination being able to overcome most obstacles. If something were to happen that would wipe out humans, all but the most simplistic organisms would perish too. If not all life.

[AgrilusHunter]

I pretty much agree with you. I'm a firm believer in the "Captain Kirk/Odysseus" model of cleverness and determination being able to overcome most obstacles. If something were to happen that would wipe out humans, all but the most simplistic organisms would perish too. If not all life.

Agree to agree