Rate of Evolution Metrics Observed

eldavojohn notes an article up at Science Daily on research demonstrating that smaller animals with warmer blood evolve faster than larger, colder animals. From the article: "Across species from fish to mammals, they found that rates of protein evolution showed the same body size and temperature dependence as metabolic rate. Specifically, their mathematical model predicts that a 10-degree increase in temperature across species leads to about a 300 percent increase in the evolutionary rate of proteins, while a tenfold decrease in body size leads to about a 200 percent increase in evolutionary rates."

Another finding...

[markov_chain]

Using the estimated rates, scientists projected evolution to have started about 6,000 years ago. ;)

Re:Another finding...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://independencebaptist.org/6,000%20Year%20Old%20Earth/6,000_year_old_earth.htm [independencebaptist.org] it has been proven!!

Better term is drift...

[highacnumber]

Using the term "evolutionary rate" is pretty misleading: whats happening is that the genomes are changing faster, but almost all of that change isn't from any selective pressure. Its mostly "neutral drift", things changing randomly in a way that does not impact the fitness of the organism.

Re:Better term is drift...

[toganet]

Thank you -- I'd mod you insightful if I had points. My biggest pet peeve with the so-called debate around evolution is the notion that there is some sort of directionality to it. Popular media tends to reinforce this by using phrases like "more evolved."

Re:

[mollymoo]

Mutations may be random and directionless, but evolution tends in the direction of greater fitness.

Re:Better term is drift...

[Jonathan]

Er no. And I speak as a professional evolutionary biologist. Selection is only a teeny, tiny part of the evolutionary process. The problem is that the evolutionary biologists that have written for the general public, such as Gould and Dawkins (neither of which are particularly famous in the actual scientific community) studied evolution in the old-fashioned, non-molecular sense (and I do mean *studied* Even Dawkins, who is still alive, hasn't actually done any science in years; it's so much easier to write for the general public than for peer review). Anyone studying evolution in the modern molecular era realizes that drift and molecular drive are far more common than selection.

Re:Better term is drift...

[Iron Condor]

despite all the evidence we have that life has evolved, we've never actually seen it happen,

This is a lie.

You, "ConceptJunkie", are a liar.

Re:

[Torvaun]

Viruses. Bacteria.

Re:

[Daniel Dvorkin]

until someone actually sees evidence of one species literally and directly leading to another, we still can't say it's a settled "fact"

Knock yourself out. [google.com]

Correlation, not causation?

[2nd Post!]

I wonder if this has to do with survival rates; shorter lifespan vs longer lifespan, more active vs passive animals, more energy vs less energy?

Re:Correlation, not causation?

[king-manic]

I wonder if this has to do with survival rates; shorter lifespan vs longer lifespan, more active vs passive animals, more energy vs less energy?

I think it's about generation time. Larger animals tend to live longer, reproduce less, and have a much larger generation time. But there might be some subtle link between higher body temperature and a more readily mutable genome. As chemical reactions occur more often and faster at higher temperatures, thus the mutation rate would be higher.

Small + Warm = Tasty!

[billstewart]

There are a few reasons that there's more evolutionary pressure on small warm mammals. One is that they're tasty and lower on the food chain than bigger animals, so the non-fittest end up non-surviving because they get eaten. Another is that a given area can support a lot more small animals than large ones, and especially more sprey animals than predators, so there are more of them around to evolve and to compete with each other as well as to avoid getting eaten.

There are small predators as well - weasel

Re:

[PMBjornerud]

Definetely about generation time.

Evolution is very very good at adjusting parameters. The (approximate) age at which you die is exactly the kind of biological parameter that evolution would set to the best possible range. If it had been a survival advantage to live to 500, you can bet we'd do just that. We die to make room for the next generation, and we die as soon as possible because faster generation time is a long-term benefit.

A turtle can live to 150 and a rabbit maybe 10. I am sure the longevity of th

Re:Correlation, not causation?

[discontinuity]

Larger animals tend to live longer

I can't say on a general scale, but the exact opposite of this is true for dogs. Small dogs like terriers can live upwards of 20 years, larger ones like mastiffs are lucky to hit 10. I have a feeling there are other exceptions as well, but I'm not familiar with what they might be.

IIRC, average heart rate and/or metabolic rate is a better predictor of average life span for a species than is size. Not sure if that explains the disparity among dogs. It just happens that large size tends to correlate to slower metabolisms/heart rates when looking at many species.

Also, dogs are a bizarre case since they are so radically inbred. Very little natural selection going on there. There was a PBS special on dogs about 6-12 months ago (the Nature series, I think) in which they point out that two very different dog breeds (e.g., a mastiff and a terrier) have more DNA in common than the average human cousins.

My first thought...

[SatanicPuppy]

My first thought was metabolism...Warm blooded animals generally have a much quicker metabolism than cold blooded animals; that whole endothermic thing takes it out of you. Animals with faster metabolisms also tend to have shorter lifespans...The parts wear out quicker. Breeding cycles vary so much by species, it's hard to say anything there.

I haven't done any actual study on this; this is just my off-the-cuff reaction. Seems like it may play in though. Wonder if it applies to the big slow warmbloods (e.g W

Re:My first thought...

[Billosaur]

I think you have to factor rate of reproduction into this. Whales and elephants don't breed often; that would retard the propagation of genetic changes. Smaller mammals like mice and rabbits tend to breed very often, allowing them to propagate genetic changes faster and more often, making it easier for them to weather (no pun intended) changes in the environment. I don't know how this would factor to "cold-blooded" animals.

Choose Your Own Joke!

[apparently]

Whales and elephants don't breed often; that would retard the propagation of genetic changes.

Look asshole, maybe to you a whale/elephant hybrid is "retarded", but to me, it's "fucking awesome".

or, (if you prefer a less vulgar joke)

Man, I really gotta start watching the Discovery Channel more often. I always assumed that whales and elephants didn't breed at all, but "not often"? Wicked!

Re:

[Lord Ender]

For future reference: You NEVER want to follow a vulgar joke with a less vulgar joke. There's just no point in it.

Re:

[CastrTroy]

This is the exact reason that they test genetic propagation in fruit flies. You can go through very many generations in a very short period of time. Trying to do the same thing with mammals would takes many times longer.

Re:Correlation, not causation?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Nah, it's just that smaller animals take less time to Design.

Re:

[charlie763]

As the temperature of substance increases so does (by definition) the average kinetic energy of each molecule of that substance. If the substance is a fluid the molecules will tend to collide with each other at higher speeds and more frequently as the temperature increases. I wonder if this has anything to do with the rate of mutation. I think a strand of DNA would be more likely to mutate in warmer mediums than in cooler ones.

But... but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is just a theory! I live in Kansas and my teacher was forced to tell me that!
 

theory

[HelloKitty]

that word theory. i'm not sure it means what you think it means.

Re:But... but...

[toriver]

Yeah, thankfully evolution has not been demonstrated; if it had, we would have stuff like multi-resistant bacteria and animal breeding (which is nothing more than guided evolution).

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to learn more about how the Sun revolves around the Earth...

Re:But... but...

[Dr. Manhattan]

Three things.

• You don't really believe in creationism. How do I know? Because you don't put your money where your mouth is [homeunix.org]. Nobody does.
• Um, yeah, mutations can and have been observed to add information [talkorigins.org].
• Here are a lot more than a handful of examples for you to dispute [talkorigins.org].

Re:

[GreyPoopon]

Evolution is just a theory! I live in Kansas and my teacher was forced to tell me that!

I know you meant that as a jab at Intelligent Design, but Evolution (as is traditionally discussed) is indeed in the scientific sense just a theory. It is a logical explanation that can be tested. Remember that we are talking about evolution on a macro-scale. I think only the most dimwitted people would deny that organisms evolve or adapt at a micro-level. You can actually watch and see that happen. Fruit flies are a

Re:But... but...

[MrKevvy]

It's very important for students to come to an understanding that there is a difference between the incontrovertible fact that 2 + 2 = 4, and the likelihood that birds are one branch of an evolutionary path from a distinct group of dinosaurs. One is intrinsically true, whereas the other has some exceptionally convincing evidence, but too many alternative possibilities to be solidly provable without a time machine and a very dedicated research team.

There are always alternative possibilities, such as Last Thursdayism, the hypothesis that the universe was suddenly created Last Thursday with fully-grown and mid-development life, all of our memories implanted, light and other radiation travelling between stars/galaxies, etc... anything that would give away that it was recent covered up. How? Magic of course. Can't disprove that... hey, it's magic. It is not based on any confirmed evidence, predicts nothing and is unfalisifiable because all of the evidence was magically covered up or is unavailable, so it fails as a scientific theory, as does YEC/ID, Raelianism, panspermia and everything else.

Here's an example of a scientific theory's use in prediction and falsifiability. Humans have 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. All great apes including chimpanzees have 48 chromosomes in 24 pairs.

Prediction: A chromosome fusion occurred in the distant past after human ancestors had split off from our common ancestor with chimpanzees, specifically:

1) Two chimpanzee chromosomes would be found that had the same banding fingerprint when laid end-to-end as a human chromosome.
2) The same human chromosome would have two centromeres because it was a fusion of two chromosomes that each had a centromere.
3) The human chromosome would contain a telomere inside it, in addition to the ones on each end.
4) All of these extra bits would be in the same order as they would be if there was a fusion, ie the extra centromere would be closer to the end than the extra telomere.

This is nicely falsifiable. If such a banding-matched chromosome wasn't present, or if didn't contain an extra telomere or centromere inside it, or they were present but in the wrong order, this would have presented a problem for common ancestry. So why were they all found to be as predicted?

Have a Google and read about it. I'm sure you'll find plenty of creationist sites that mention this too with rebuttals that are about as scientific or relevant as "Nuuuuh! Does not!" Not being able to make testable, falsifiable predictions such as this one, they can always throw dung from the sidelines.

Re:

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

It's very important for students to come to an understanding that there is a difference between the incontrovertible fact that 2 + 2 = 4, and the likelihood that birds are one branch of an evolutionary path from a distinct group of dinosaurs. One is intrinsically true, whereas the other has some exceptionally convincing evidence, but too many alternative possibilities to be solidly provable without a time machine and a very dedicated research team. Students need to know the difference.

I hate to break your b

Re:

[edwdig]

No, evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. It is one of the most solid scientific theories (which is different from the common usage of the word theory) known. In other words, it is one of the best established conclusions of science to date.

Small scale evolution is proven. Plants & insects splitting into strains that can't cross breed, maybe some small noticable differences. That stuff isn't too hard to reproduce.

But an ape evolving into a human, or a dinosaur into a bird can't be proven

Life span?

[moderatorrater]

Have they accounted for the fact that higher metabolisms tend are related to the life span and reproductive rates of a species? If a species has two generations for every generation of another species, that'll tend to influence the evolution as well.

Correction

[Hoi Polloi]

Excuse me, that is Intelligent Design Metrics thank you very much.

dinosaurs

[halfelven]

So that means the dinosaurs (huge cold blooded reptiles) were an evolutionary dead end?
No wonder they disappeared.

Re:dinosaurs

[MightyMartian]

Except that the evidence has tipped heavily in favor of dinos, or at least a large number of families of them, were, in fact, warm-blooded.

Re:dinosaurs

[nuzak]

> So that means the dinosaurs (huge cold blooded reptiles) were an evolutionary dead end?

Dinosaur Spokesman: We had a good what, hundred, two hundred million year run? How long you human critters been around? Two mil? Odds on making it to three?

Re:

[jackpot777]

Dinosaur Spokesman: We had a good what, hundred, two hundred million year run? How long you human critters been around? Two mil? Odds on making it to three?

--- Mammalian spokessloth/person/elephant: We've been crawling around this rock, or swinging in the trees, for over 200 million years already [earthlife.net]. And we don't let a little thing like hot iridium dust get in the way between us and world domination. [thumbs hairy snouts at fossils] So nyer. [/thumbs hairy snouts at fossils]

Re:dinosaurs

[jmilne]

So that means the dinosaurs (huge cold blooded reptiles) were an evolutionary dead end? No wonder they disappeared.

Dinosaurs weren't reptiles. There's more and more evidence that shows that they were warm-blooded. And dinosaurs didn't really disappear. They just look different now. Step outside and look at all those feathered things flying around. Those are modern dinosaurs.

Re:

[E++99]

And dinosaurs didn't really disappear. They just look different now. Step outside and look at all those feathered things flying around. Those are modern dinosaurs.

By this method of classification, plants ans animals should be called "modern bacteria."

Re:

[porcupine8]

This really came as a surprise to me when I toured the new evolution exhibit at the Chicago Field Museum last year. When I was a kid (in the 80s), the line was that dinosaurs branched into two evolutionary paths, reptiles and birds. Now this exhibit plainly states many times, "Dinosaurs were birds." Not being quite as into dinos as I was when I was seven (and obsessed), this was news to me.

Re:

[Kingrames]

possibly, bigger animals live longer or reproduce less often, and that means bad things for the species.

Perhaps this concept could be applied to other similar situations, like Copyright law or the term of office for those in power.

Re:dinosaurs

[Waffle Iron]

So that means the dinosaurs (huge cold blooded reptiles) were an evolutionary dead end?

During the extended sunless period after the K-T boundary impact, most any animal that wasn't a scavenger found themselves at an evolutionary dead end.

Re:

[Dragonslicer]

So that means the dinosaurs (huge cold blooded reptiles) were an evolutionary dead end?

Everyone knows that reptiles would be ruling the world now if it weren't for that meddling Chrono.

Re:

[Jugalator]

So that means the dinosaurs (huge cold blooded reptiles) were an evolutionary dead end?

Actually, there's a theory that if it wasn't for a possibly pretty huge meteroite impact that destroyed the environment, dinosaurs like the Troodon [wikipedia.org] could have evolved further into a form of humanoid reptiles.

Humans have lower body temp than most mammals.

[eht]

Interesting to note that humans have a lower body temperature than most mammals, actually that's one of the reasons we can get leprosy and almost no other animal can carry it, armadillos being the exception, it thrives in cooler temperatures.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

I'm not sure most is the right word. Our temperature is similar to other primates, higher than whales, lower than horses, rabbits, sheep, cats and goats.

I couldn't find any really comprehensive tables, but there are a few numbers here:

http://www.aquaticape.org/bodytemp.html [aquaticape.org]

As a bonus it looks like it's a site debunking some sort of aquatic humans idea.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

Adult horses have a higher temperature, and younger mammals tend to be warmer than older ones, so ponies are probably higher than humans.

Pink ones especially.

Re:

[moderatorrater]

Flutterbys have a metabolism that's off the charts.

*pulls out some chest hair to feel like a man again*

Re:

[smellsofbikes]

I'd never considered that. You'll also notice that leprosy damage is greatest where the body is coolest: fingertips, toes, nose. It could be that this is just circulation-related: areas with the worst circulation recover more poorly, fight off infection more poorly, because of less access to blood-based nutrients and defences. But that makes me wonder whether either temperature or circulation quality is causative, or just correlated.

Re:

[WormholeFiend]

Interesting to note that humans have a lower body temperature than most mammals

So, we're evolving into lizards?

Re:

[gardyloo]

"In Soviet Russia leprosy gets YOU.".

or

"Old humans have a lower body temperature than most mammals, actually that's one of the reasons we can get leprosy" in Korea.

      Sorry. I wasn't quite understanding what your point was until I translated it into proper terminology.

Captain Obvious

[Prysorra]

1. Smaller animal..... 2. Shorter lifespan..... 3. More generations..... 4. More chances of mutation..... 5. Stronger mutation pressure (warm blood homeostasis) 6. Duh.

Actually....

[Prysorra]

That's not a problem. Those 150 year old parents can have great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren. ....great!

Re:

[Perl-Pusher]

I have a newt that is 22 years old. They can live to 60 in captivity.

Re:

[zippthorne]

Yeah, but newts are just people that have had spells put upon them by witches. As I understand it, some even get better.

fater metabolism means...

[mr_mischief]

more cell division, shorter lifespan, and more more abundant reproduction. All of these mean mutations collect in the population faster. Bacteria evolve much faster than mice, BTW, and they're not warm-blooded since they have no blood. Yet, they reproduce at a much faster rate and the mutations add up faster.

I didn't read TFA, but TFS tells us nothing common sense and a basic high-school understanding of biology couldn't predict as a hypothesis. That someone has gathered evidence to support the hypothesis empirically is pretty cool, though. Even what seems apparent should be tested, or it's not really science.

Re:

[smellsofbikes]

A large part of the reason bacteria have a higher rate of mutation (and, as a result, evolution) is because they have much poorer error-correcting systems in DNA replication and DNA->RNA->protein. Eukaryotes (animals and plants) have several different DNA polymerases, some of which have significant error-correction capability, both while replicating and transcribing DNA and for proofreading DNA that is still double-stranded. Bacteria, aka prokaryotes, have a different set of polymerases, that have m

Re:

[king-manic]

This also implies something I've thought about in the past, which is that (at least in mammals) it is the males that are responsible for mutations, as the sperm are the product of a long line of cell divisions of the course of the male's life, and the eggs are formed while the female was a fetus, and then put in suspended animation until they are ready to be used. I'd be really interested in experimental exploration of that.

I vaguely recall some mention of studies into this in university. Despite the eggs b

This explains everything!

[jollyreaper]

notes an article up at Science Daily on research demonstrating that smaller animals with warmer blood evolve faster than larger, colder animals.

Well, that explains why Republicans don't believe in evolution; it occurs too slowly for them to notice.

Re:

[spleen_blender]

History doesn't seem to be their forte either.

Re:

[ScentCone]

Well, that explains why Republicans don't believe in evolution; it occurs too slowly for them to notice

You know, the funny thing is that I don't personally actually KNOW any Republicans that don't consider evolution to be an obvious, plain-as-day fact. It's possible that you're confusing "Republicans" with "religious crazies." Much like many people confuse "Democrats" with, say, "Communists" or "Wiccans" or something else that suggests you're painting with the wrong-sized brush. I'm neither, by the way,

Re:

[2short]

"I don't personally actually KNOW any Republicans that don't consider evolution to be an obvious, plain-as-day fact."

Three of the presidential candidates said they didn't believe in evolution. None of the others painted the question as ridiculous. I don't confuse Republicans with religious crazies; I myself know Republicans who are not. I correctly identify the Republican party as ready and willing to pander to religious crazies, and have it's policies shaped by them.

Re:

[ScentCone]

I correctly identify the Republican party as ready and willing to pander to religious crazies, and have it's policies shaped by them.

Which is unfortunate. Just about as unfortunate as having their opposing party's platform bought and paid for by George Soros. Same type of problem, different manifestation.

Re:

[ScentCone]

If you don't think there are mainstream republicans who don't believe in evolution...

I didn't say that. I said that I don't know any, personally. Which is another way of saying that all of the Republicans I peronsally know understand evolution. They are also all highly annoyed by the attention that the religious crazies get, and thus by the pandering that candidates do. Just as I imagine that many Democrats are annoyed by their candidates' slavish pandering to MoveOn.org's more rabid loons. It's the sam

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[ScentCone]

actually we're annoyed that NONE of the candidates (or currently elected congressdroids) are pandering to moveon.org's positions

Oh, come now. MoveOn gets to refer to the commander on the ground in Iraq as betraying his country, and perhaps ONE dem in congress refers to that as a "poor choice of words?" That's pandering with a capital "P," out of fear of getting the same treatment themselves. Remarkable.

Re:

[quag7]

And my theory is they're making shit up to appease that wing of their constituencies and that they aren't creationist or intelligent design fans at all.

Can you imagine how refreshing it would be if a candidate introduced himself at the first debate by saying:

"My name is Quag7, and I believe that the best explanations currently available for our origin are Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and the Big Bang. I do not believe in ghosts, UFOs, stigmata, or bleeding statues. I believe in literacy, science, and edu

This just in:

[farker haiku]

These findings are void in Kansas. ;) /sorry Kansas, you'll be the butt of jokes forever

This explains a lot!

[StefanJ]

My college buddy's ferret had a fever once. Before it was over she evolved wings, grew a sixth digit on each paw, became super-intelligent and built an interociter which she used to summon a rescue saucer from a race of hyper-sapient star-ferrets.

Re:

[ajs]

My college buddy's ferret [...] became super-intelligent and built an interociter [...]

Glad to see MST3K isn't dead. Speaking of which, have any of the Film Crew DVDs been any better than the first one (which made myself and my co-workers want to claw our own eyes out)?

Re:

[dpilot]

What's really scary is that I saw "This Island Earth" before MST3K. But then again, I thought the movie was pretty silly even before MST3K.

Re:

[ajs]

I did too, but I didn't remember it very well. Here in New England we had a show called Creature Double Feature that was just a Saturday afternoon double movie on a UHF station that was usually a 1950s-1970s horror or scifi lineup. It showed a lot of stuff like that, and they all started to blend together at some point.

Re:

[wezeldog]

I, for one, welcome our new mustelid overlords.

"Predict", not "Demonstrate"

[R2.0]

A computer model, or any model for that matter, doesn't "demonstrate" anything, other than the fact that that model will give those results with this input. By definition, a model isn't really the phenomenon it represents. Models "predict", it's only by measurement of the actual phenomena is a prediction or hypothesis demonstarted to be true/accurate.

This is why a lot of folks are uncomfortable with the "fact" that global warming is caused by human generated greenhuse gasses - the only "fact" is that comp

Re:

[MightyMartian]

I'm not going to get dragged into a climatology debate here, but you don't have to wait for a few thousand years to confirm this particular claim. I would assume a reasonably good sample of extant small mammals' (not all that hard to find) genomes, compared with the baseline of larger ones, or of other small animals like reptiles and insects, ought to do the job.

Re:

[MightyMartian]

I'm not talking about testing over a short period, I'm talking about doing a molecular survey (ie. a molecular clock) to determine if the claim has merit.

As to how the article is written, let's remember that science journalism isn't exactly known for getting things right. One would be best served by trying to get a copy of the original paper.

Mechanistic models can do both

[Per Abrahamsen]

> A computer model, or any model for that matter, doesn't "demonstrate" anything

A mechanistic model can be used to demonstrate non-obvious system effects in a complex system, by combining well understood simpler models.

Empirical models, on the other hand, works only for prediction.

The caveat when using mechanistic models for demonstration purposes is of course twofold, are the simpler model really that well understood, and are there any factors missing from the system description. Both caveats obviously

We all know...

[grumpyman]

smaller got eaten by bigger, and generally, hot is tastier than cold.

Misleading

[ucblockhead]

The rate of *evolution* is determined more by how much environmental pressure an animal is under. The more successful an animal is in a particular niche, the slower it will evolve. This is really talking about the mutation rate, and thus the rate of genetic drift. This says that the sort of random changes to proteins that don't effect the animal's phenotype will change faster in smaller animals.

It *does* mean that smaller animals can evolve faster if under lots of evolutionary pressure. Note that since smaller animals tend to breed faster, this is already the case.

Thank You

[huckamania]

I was trying to figure out what was wrong with the summary and, to a lesser extent, the article.

It's rare to see such a sensible and informative response on slashdot that is not accompanied by flamebait or ego stroking.

Re:

[tgibbs]

The rate of evolution can reasonably be expected to depend upon the mutation rate, selection pressure, and the generation time. It is certainly possible to set up conditions in the laboratory in which the mutation rate is limiting. I'd like to see the actual paper to see why they concluded that the mutation rate is limiting in the wild.

So if your wife is a fat ice queen

[SlappyBastard]

Don't expect her to change anytime soon. Got it.

Finally we have proof!

[Jugalator]

Finally proof that politicians and world leaders are shape shifting alien reptiles!

I just knew David Icke [wikipedia.org] was on to something with George W. Bush and Queen Elizabeth II.

Coelacanth

[flyingfsck]

Sooooo, if the Coelacanth had no change in the past 400 million years, how long did it take to evolve to point is at now?

Re:

[Dr. Manhattan]

if the Coelacanth had no change in the past 400 million years

No change? Gee, except for the fact that the fossil were freshwater fish and the modern ones live in the ocean. [wikipedia.org]

To quote from Wikipedia: "It is often claimed that the coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years but in fact the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record. However, some of the extinct species, particularly those of the last known fossil coelacanth, the Cretaceous genus Macropoma, closely resemble

Ultracold Environments

[MenTaLguY]

Since it was a topic of discussion recently, I wonder what the implications of this would be for hypothetical life in ultracold environments, like Titan.

So how did we get here?

[trybexus]

I knew from the article this would turn into a creation vs evoloution conversation. But this really does bring up a rather intresting question. If large species take longer to evolve then how can it be possible that human beings "being rather large in comparison" be more advanced then smaller animals, who first of all have been on th eplanet alot longer then upright standing . Is it simply a matter of brain mass. Would it not make sense that they would have evolved to have oposable thumbs before us?

Re:So how did we get here?

[porcupine8]

a) It doesn't seem to be a creation vs evolution conversation; I haven't seen anyone argue for creationism yet.

b) Like many posters, you're forgetting or don't understand how evolution actually works. Humans are not "more evolved" than other animals. Every species that is currently still in existence is the pinnacle of evolution for its particular environmental niche. If that environment changes, the species will either die out or evolve further to survive in the niche.

The main evolutionary advantage humans have is our brains - they have allowed us to become more adaptable without evolution than many animals, and survive and thrive in many environments and through envrionmental changes. In order to have such a complex brain, it has to be of a certain minimum size, and our body has to be of a minimum size to support it. A brain as complex as ours most likely simply could not evolve in a mouse - but we couldn't live in the niches mice do, for a variety of reasons. Opposable thumbs have helped us as well - but would they be an advantage without the other advantages we have? What would a mouse *do* with opposable thumbs, without the brain structures to use them intelligently? Would they be an evolutionary advantage for a mouse at all? Or take a dolphin, who has one of the brains closest to ours in the animal kingdom - what would a dolphin do with opposable thumbs (assuming it evolved some fingers at the same time)? They wouldn't help it swim, which is one thing it has to be really good at to get food and escape predators. In fact, a dolphin with hands instead of fins would probably fare worse than other dolphins, because it couldn't swim as quickly and adeptly. What is an evolutionary advantage to one species can spell doom for another species.

Re: So how did we get here?

[Black Parrot]

I knew from the article this would turn into a creation vs evoloution conversation. But this really does bring up a rather intresting question. If large species take longer to evolve then how can it be possible that human beings "being rather large in comparison" be more advanced then smaller animals, who first of all have been on th eplanet alot longer then upright standing . Is it simply a matter of brain mass. Would it not make sense that they would have evolved to have oposable thumbs before us?

Upright posture and symbol-manipulating brains aren't signs of "more" evolution, merely different evolution. Evolution isn't goal-directed, so set aside any notion that other species aren't "there" yet.

If we were to assume that evolution had a goal, we would have to conclude that that goal was to produce beetles [wikipedia.org].

Re:

[Ksisanth]

Why should standing upright or having opposable thumbs be considered more "advanced" or, as the implication here seems to be, a goal of evolution? Why would four-legged (or limbless) animals *need* to be able to walk upright? What survival advantage would opposable thumbs confer on, say, a rabbit? Are they having a hard time without them?

Re:So how did we get here?

[Tack]

No. Dawkins explains this nicely in his book Climbing Mount Improbable.

Re:

[Bellum Aeternus]

You assume that humans are "more advanced" - how anthropocentric [wikipedia.org] of you. That's your mistake. Please define more advanced? We don't hold up to radiation like cockroaches do. We can survive without a head like they can either. We're not immune to the many, many diseases that rats have evolved immunity to. There's so much we cannot do naturally and we assume our over-sized brains make us better. They don't, they just make us smarter - which I do enjoy. It's our technology that gives us an edge, not our evolut

Re:

[king-manic]

This does enplane why fat Americans don't seem to change. Loose weight and evolve!

Let me enplane individual organisms do not evolve. Even very very large ones like the average American.

Re:

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Perfect! Force overweight Americans to spend all of their time emplained in a DC 9. That would encourage them all to lose weight fast. and if all they have to eat is airplane food, it shouldn't take long.

Re:

[stranger_to_himself]

I think evolutionary intertia is a good term. I reckon though that the inertia probably comes from large animals generally having fewer offspring, so the cost of birth defects in offspring is much higher. Small animals have lots more offspring, so they can afford mutation rates to be higher. Although this is also evidence-free speculation.

Re:

[king-manic]

Could it be that the more cold-blooded animals do not evolve as a species because they evolve as individuals?

Phenotypic variation is not evolution. Most complex animals show some geneomic expression variation through out it's life. In fact your expression of a lot of hormones and cellular products will vary immensely until you are very dead. It's not just a reptilian thing.

Re:

[Peyre]

That's good, out-of-the-box thinking, but it's not quite right. As others mentioned, individuals don't evolve; groups of individuals evolve. Individuals do change over time, but evolution refers to changes more at the genetic level, which can only take place in groups. My first thought on this is that the data may have been affected more by rates of reproduction--insects evolve much faster than humans because their generations are much shorter, for instance. But there may be something else going on here

Re:

[Doctor Crumb]

Changes in physical characteristics as an individual ages are entirely unrelated to evolution, which is tied to reproduction in groups (as already pointed out). Because individuals (even reptiles) generally reproduce when young, anything that happens to them after that is basically ignored by evolution.

Re:

[moderatorrater]

That's true only to a certain extent. Just because an individual isn't reproducing doesn't mean they don't effect evolution; just look at ants or bees for an extreme example. In the case of humans, a living grandparent can be a very large advantage in terms of knowledge and their physical presence.

Re:

[porcupine8]

As an example to back up the other responses, that's like suggesting that humans don't need to evolve as a species because when we hit the age of 13 we get secondary sex characteristics. Your genes still cause all that (with some environmental modulation, of course) - it's just that different genes are expressed at different times in your life. You pass on the gene for pubic hair to your kids, but they won't have any til they're 13 just like you did. The lizards may have genes that provide more defense late

No we will look like these guys

[Perl-Pusher]

Gray Alien [mactonnies.com]

Re:

[Black Parrot]

"Evolution happens" -> (then a miracle of logic occurs) -> "evolution exhaustively explains origins and incidentally there is no God"

The miracle is in misinformation rather than logic. No scientist thinks evolution exhaustively explains origins (or even the narrower topic of biological origins), and evolution says nothing about the existence of any gods.

The fact of evolution does show that certain evolution-denying cults have at least one false claim in their creeds, but that's a far narrower conclusion than what you suggested.

Nice troll, though.