Bob,

I asked a pulmonologist one time how some athletes could run for kilometers without being winded or hold their breath so long under water. I was told that they develop an increased lung capacity. If this is done from generation to generation in that family, it will eventually become an adaptive trait. That is evolution. No different than a lizard with a better camouflage pattern surviving over less effective patterns.

Bob,

I asked a pulmonologist one time how some athletes could run for kilometers without being winded or hold their breath so long under water. I was told that they develop an increased lung capacity. If this is done from generation to generation in that family, it will eventually become an adaptive trait. That is evolution. No different than a lizard with a better camouflage pattern surviving over less effective patterns.

@Remi Cornwall: ... epigenetics (I think) is the study of these Lamarkian mechanisms.

Here is another view of epigenetics that may interest you and @Remi Cornwall: Epigenetics could be broadly defined as the sum of all those mechanisms necessary for the unfolding of the genetic programme for development [from:]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5847725_Epigenetics_A_Historical_Overview

The keyword here (relative to the question for this thread) is unfolding.

See, also:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234161933_Epigenetics_in_Sports

More to the point, Lamarkian mechanisms from a epigenetics perspective are considered in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252321227_A_post-genomic_view_of_behavioral_development_and_adaptation_to_the_environment

@Remi and @James A Green, here it is

19:28 hrs on 31 December 2016.   Here, 2016 is getting closer to 2017!

Article Epigenetics: A Historical Overview

Article Epigenetics in Sports

Article A post-genomic view of behavioral development and adaptation...

I believe that the rules of evolution in a broad sense should include the intelligent changes of humans by themselves. The change of the rules has to be made by the observation of the changes that will come in the future or by the predictive study of these changes.

Dear Bob Skiles,

Biological evolution - natural process of nature, accompanied by a change in the genetic composition of populations, the formation of adaptation, speciation and extinction of species, ecosystems and the transformation of the biosphere as a whole.

Evolution - The development, continuous process of gradual quantitative change someone that district, prepares a qualitative change..

Social development - a change in society, which leads to the appearance of new social relations, institutions, norms and values. Characteristic features of social development are three features: irreversibility, orientation and regularity.

Regards, Shafagat

True, and only a proud person does not believe it.

Dear Bob

It is true,, I believe that , so I agree with Aleš Kralj

Regards 

Thanks for sharing. Yes, I believe so, in agreement with the majority of the colleagues. And, maybe, the rate of this evolution is greater than that of other intelligent, somehow, species, due to the human involvement. In a manner of speaking, a kind of chain reaction.

Regards 

yes but that development will be very slow and regards some minor changes as i think

In one word, Yes.

The answer is "Yes". Increased human involvement will accelerate this evolutionary process and determine some of its directions toward specific targets in comparison with other species as mentioned by most of previous answers.

Best wishes and happy new year for all RG colleagues.

SM Najim

Dear @Bob, yes, evolution is never-ending-process.

Nature is powerful. And we are just parts of it. Our pride (mostly unauthorized) can greatly hurt us.

Dear Bob,

a very good question!

Anyway, most of all will answer it with "Yes" and that is correct.

Answering it with a deeper content:

"Non-Intelligent Species" will never have the chance to reflect the effect of any own behaviour on the ongoing evolutionary adaption of their organism and surrounding."

but:

"Intelligent Species" will have the chance to reflect their own behaviour in an overall context"

That means, they will more and more influence their own evolution and speed up any adaption to their surrounding. The only question might be how quick this recognition of correlations will have an influence on the development of ethics and responsibility.

With best regards

Michael

Dear Mr Skiles ,

I always say we are in the process (of evolving )  certainly not there yet :) 

Very little understanding about anatomical aspects , yet I was told the brain matter and cognition.

Do rules apply ,YES ,  I am sure nature knows her responsibilities pretty well . We may change social/cultural/technological/esthetics , yet can't stop it.

We have reached a  beautiful time when we can appreciate nature for having given us the ability for subtle differentiation, i guess this is a mark of fitness (to some degree)

Changing genetics - cloning , botox , chemo ...

I would hope so.  The political upheavals of the last few years and the murderous behaviour of so many really points up that humanity is still 'work in progress'.

We still have a long way to evolve! 

Dear Bob:

I think in the situation you describe evolution laws still apply, at the biological, psychological, and social levels. But humans have a much greater capacity than other species to modify their environment and thus (deliberately or involuntarily) influence their own evolution. 

In my view the idea of evolution applies beyond the pure biological sphere. Piaget argued that knowledge development is in part an adaptive process. Anthropology shows that the same is valid to societies. One of the functions of Culture, for example, is to adapt society to its environment. 

Yes.

We can refer evolution as a ‘change’ but not ‘static’.

Evolution is a process of development depends on adaptation of organisms to particular type of environment. Whatever the variations observed in organisms are accumulated gradually for their adaptations in new environments. Darwin about evolution, simply in his words ‘decent with modification’.

Changing environments through modern human beings as well as activities of animal kingdom and effect of those changes act on organisms that inhabit in the area and alter the life-history traits and behavioral tactics. These strategies allow individual to decide between alternative phenotypic tactics depend on situation.

Evolution keep on works as there is continuous variation. The diversity and complexity of organisms what we are observing around is because of evolution. We can scientifically define evolution as modification in the genetic composition of populations through generations.

Dear Bob,

Thanks for sharing and Happy New Year to you and all RGers!

Species typically compete, adapt, and survive in the changing environment, which is the essence of the evolution process. It is certainly related to humans as well. However, I have a doubt as far as “survive” aspect is concerned. The environment changes being created by humans bring aggravated threats of self-extermination.

The collective human intelligence is more and more fighting with the unanticipated consequences of our own prior environment changes. The uncertainty lies in the fact that we are competing with the nature. It is not clear as to how far we can keep going this way. May be some self-imposed limitations would be a wise measure moving forward in the evaluation process. Perhaps, it would be a pinnacle of the human intelligence.

Yes, it applies!

As we grow, experience, achieve excellence, we reach to next stage of evolution.

Dear Bob,

Life is changing into a person, but I think that evolution refers to changes in successive generations of a specie. Yes, the changes are a reality.

Dear Prof Schwarz ,

I guess evolving (as a herd- sorry ) is society based may be cultural per se. Evolving as a specie that is bit more internal deals with mutation . This survival is nature dependent (Darwinism ).

Dear Bob,

hanks for the invitation.

I agree with the placement of  Pierlorenzo Brignoli 

Regards.

I think evolution is continuing, in physical traits and in societal trends too. People are living longer and growing taller, for example. These changes result in part from genetics, but also from increased knowledge, in particular, in matters of nutrition and environment. Better nutrition leads to taller and stronger people. Humanity becomes increasingly aware of what is beneficial and what is detrimental. So clearly, evolution occurs thanks to more than just genetics.

I'm suggesting that Darwinism can also be social. Mankind evolves also via mechanisms that society creates.

This may be wishful thinking, but I believe that peoples all over the world are generally "awakening," being less enslaved to unsubstantiated, dogmatic, formula-think ideas of the past, and demanding more of what makes direct sense to themselves, from their governments. The vastly improved dissemination of information, direct to people, unfiltered by local governments, thanks to the Internet, is the facilitator for this evolutionary trend. As people are better able to obtain information direct from multiple sources, it becomes increasingly difficult to lead the lemmings over the cliff. It becomes increasingly difficult for people to be made to "believe in fairy tales," when so many of their peers are likely to be dismissing the old formula-think. (As in, "What? You still believe in that old nonsense? Come now!")

And I believe that this trend is accelerating, causing some violent reactions that are now well-publicized by the news media. Again, social Darwinism. Same basic rules. Mutations, such as new trends or fads, followed by natural selection. The fittest survive, the unfortunate ones die off.

The two most popular answers are describing Lamarkian evolution which does not occur in humans or any other animals.

Fitness occurs when the genetic make up matches the environment. Since we are interfering with our genetic make up by perpetuating the lives of less able people by medical advances and now more directly by gene therapy, we have moved to un-natural selection. 

Another form of un-natural selection is eugenics, which, following the Holocaust, is now considered unacceptable, as is discussion of the natural and un-natural effects which may have resulted in different races developing mental and physical characteristics. So I won't discuss them.

One important fitness characteristic that is important is when a male is attractive to females. He can then father countless children whereas the maximum a woman can produce on average is limited to single figures. Thus an alpha male can spread his genes even if they are not to the advantage of society.

Humans are not simply the product of genetics and an 'alpha male' is not a seperate species but a fabrication of society not biology.

Eugenics is not discredited because of the holocaust it is discredited because it is bunkum dressed up as science.

Medical interventions extending the life span and quality of life of humans is not 'interference' with our genetic make up.  The development of humanity, 'evolution' by any other name is as old as human society itself.  Even now extinct and seperate species demonstrated compassionate medical interventions as seen in the Shanidar Neanderthal fossils.

Lamarkian evolution is now extinct, evolution passed it by and its last great adherent was Stalin.  

The rule as such may be dependant on various things this evolution. When you have knowledge, you start seeing a new phenomenon and that observation may change the rule. My view would be that it all depends on the conditionin while a human is living.

"... Mendelian genetics supplanted the notion of inheritance of acquired traits, eventually leading to the development of the modern evolutionary synthesis, and the general abandonment of the Lamarckian theory of evolution in biology."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

Natural selection, despite being true, is a pretty nasty theory. It seems that most here are unwilling to face that fact. It is partly derived from an equally unpopular theory of Malthus. Species produce far more babies than is required for survival and those young animals are culled by Nature. We have prevented that culling and now face the prospect of a booming population of humans which is wiping out all other species.

May be it is not correct to split our Intelligence form other ones, since others can have what we haven't got, to uderstand, for instance. With globalization and spread of comunications, are still human able to understand risks on a different global and in so wide time scale? Intelligence not necessary is a supreme tool. As many other tools can be too fine to understand . Extinction has happened in the past many time.

@ Alastair

You remind us of important aspects of evolution, and about the certain truth and "nastiness" of natural selection ... about which I (and likely few of the scientists, here) have little doubt.

Nevertheless, the question I seek to address is whether or not "intelligence" (which I define for this purpose as "the ability to control and direct the genetics" of one's own species) may alter (if in any way, what way) the way in which the rules of evolution (for example, since you said it, natural selection) may affect that species.

In other words, have humans gained the intellect (mastery of sufficient knowledge) that (for example, through genetic engineering ... and possibly in other ways) we may exempt ourselves (individually, or as a species) from (or have already unknowingly and unwillfully thwarted) the operation of natural selection?

Have we oh-so-clever animals escaped our tether to the skirts of Mother Nature ... managed to run willy-nilly beyond Her "harsh-but-just" oversight (rules) and managed to "skirt" (escape) the reach of Her just "punishments" (the lash of her keenest switch: "survival of the fittest")?

Has/will our (exponentially increasing) level of knowledge/intelligence placed us on a different standing with our Mother Nature? Are we (our species) children-of-Nature who are maturing into adults? Or, is it more likely that we are heady adolescents (drunken on too much knowledge consumed too quickly to assimilate safely), even now, already rushing toward our inevitable doom (for example, like lemmings toward an unseen cliff ... like adolescents in possession of their first keg of beer ... or like Artur pointed-out, the students at Harvard who becoming aware of the "meaninglessness of life" are shocked into a deadly 'Sad Socrates Syndrome')? 

Dear Wolfgang,

I have always surmised that the answer to the "incredible shrinking human brain" conundrum must certainly lie in the old axiom (usually applied to muscle development ... but probably apt to explain a lot more things in nature ... even brains ... and, especially, stored knowledge): "use it or lose it."

It is believed by most who have studied the human brain that we use perhaps only about 10% of it's full capability at any one time (at the best ... and by the best-of-us). I believe we got such out-sized brains through the quirk of a mutation. The huge brains gave our ancestors a decided advantage, and [likely because the surplus brain has caused us few offsetting disadvantages, and only a moderate extra cost, in terms of evolutionary fitness] it is taking "nature" [natural selection] a long time to recognize we have a lot more than we need [like an old rent-controlled couple of tenants who one had a large family of children, and now, fortunately still occupy much more spacious apartments than they actually need ?] and make a gradual downward adjustment [to a level more suiting what we actually/presently need-or-use].

The process of vestigiality probably began resizing our over-sized and under-utilized brains in the first generation after their parents received them. We have only gotten knowledgeable-enough, lately, to notice [in the nick-of-time? before we become too small-brained to realize what it means ? whew! *hee*hee* ;) ;)].

Voila! "Use-it-or-lose-it!" 

Best regards,

Bob

PS - have you ever observed a species of snake that has vestigial legs ... obviously descendants of lizards whose offspring found themselves in a new environment where smaller legs (and eventually no legs) provided an increase in fitness ... "Assessment of vestigiality must generally rely on comparison with homologous features in related species. The emergence of vestigiality occurs by normal evolutionary processes, typically by loss of function of a feature that is no longer subject to positive selection pressures when it loses its value in a changing environment. The feature may be selected against more urgently when its function becomes definitively harmful, however if the lack of said feature provides no advantage and/or it's presence provides no disadvantage the feature may not be phased out by natural selection and persist across species. Typical examples of both types occur in the loss of flying capability in island-dwelling species."

PPS - ***joking*** I hope my current lizard-sized-brain stops shrinking before it turns-into a snake's brain ... or something smaller, yet? ;)

PPPS - those [men] who may have trouble with accepting the concept of vestigiality should stop contemplating their navels, and cast their gaze a bit higher ... to contemplate why human males have nipples (and vestigial mammary structures) ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

Dear Bob

It is true saying I believe with that

"like adolescents in possession of their first keg of beer"

Great metaphor!  

Most adolescents of course survive that experience well and it forms part of their 'evolution' into adulthood.  

We slipped the surly bonds of nature thousands of years ago and have indeed evolved (in the social rather than biological sense) into a truly unique species.  Part of that social evolution allowed us to develop science and we have now tamed some of 'nature' and manipulated our own life spans and quality of life.

That however is no less natural than the activities of any other animal from protist upwards.  All living things control their environment just as their environment controls them.  This is of course an imperfect symbiosis, all to often the environment gets the better of those living in it but it is by no means rare that the organisms get to change it.

We, as the current masters of our litle bit of universe have more control than any other animal extant or extinct but we are far short of total control.  We have changed the weather but we don't control it.  We have extended the life span but we will never be immortal.    

We know vast amounts about nature, far more than the people of Pompeii but should another big volcano go off we can do nothing except run for it.  

In effect we are still an organism living in a complex environment that shapes us far more than we can shape it.  To paraphrase Clint Eastwood  "a mans gotta know his limitations"

If humanity went extinct, what species would replace us?

Could another species someday replace us as Earth's dominant intelligent life and, if so, which species? To answer that question, we need to understand just what intelligence really is. And why, from an evolutionary standpoint, an organism would even want it.

 Once we understand those things, we can start speculating about what the next intelligent, human-like species will be on Earth...

What makes intelligence uniquely human? This isn't an easy question to answer, as plenty of animal species show remarkable levels of what we would think of as intelligence, particularly our fellow primates, cetaceans like whales and dolphins, and even elephants.

 Let's run through some of the potential criteria for human intelligence...

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5780020/if-humanity-went-extinct-what-species-would-replace-us

I think it is sharing the "emotional bond" that may help to demonstrate better survival rates.

If reset happens then , there is a - Shiva Hypothesis !!!

@Mr Skiles , I guess it is not shrinking shrinking but a brain for better response , well connected. Big brains is not the only reason for being a genius (you know who ) .

As well as the Shiva Hypothesis there is also the Fermi Paradox to worry about. Fermi asked if there are so many habitable planets in the Universe, why has no one contacted us yet?

Could it be that in all the planets where life began, they followed a similar evolutionary path to the one we are following? They have already burnt all their fossil fuels, and were unable to feed their ballooning population. Some avoided a nuclear war, but all saw a breakdown in civilization, from which they have been unable to recover without fossil fuels to power industry.

They all live an Easter Island type of existence, much like the one we are heading for.

P.S. Happy New Year!

Alastair,

It seems like the news organizations and others have forgotten or ignore several studies that conclude that cosmic dust and gases degrade radio waves to the point that it would take, if I remember correctly, something like 10 trillion kilowatts to boost a radio signal strong enough that it could travel only 100 ly. That is many times more energy than is produced on Earth in one year. Thus, unless a civilization can manipulate a star or black hole for power in order to transmit, it is not feasible that we will ever receive a signal except from a limited radius.

@ Aparna

The wrath of Shiva slew the dinosaurs ... let us hope we humans have left home and are scattered-among-the-stars before He revisits Earth!

Humans I believe are still evolving and will keep on evolving with the changing environment, genetic make up (natural or induced), use of brains to develop and so on....

I might add a caveat. Considering that scientists are saying that in many areas of the world human long-term memory is being affected by the Computer Age. By making facts instantly available through an on-line Web search, people's brains are not trying to commit information to long-term memory. This I see as devolution, not evolution.

I do agree dear @James. Computers and IT are not the only technology that delivers, as you say, "devolution" in term of brain development. The environment of evolution has changed a lot recently seeing how technology has had a huge impact on our lives, both positive and negative. 

So, in my opinion, the generations to come may be very different from us in term of evolution. Evolution in itself is not a problem, prediction of it may be a significant problem. I think that nowadays, scientists have very little chance of predicting the process of evolution in the same way Darwin was able to!

Dear Mr Green , I guess our memory has been selective and we would like to store only the necessary ones (eg: multiplication table!) helps us give quicker response ...

Less crammed brain reduces the fringe effect (overlap of signals). Sorry :)

There are many things that I see changing in human psychology and physiology that could be call "evolution", for better or worse. Scientists have said that the reason that we forget what item we go into another room to get is that in some of us our brains still instantly switch to threat assessment mode when entering a new environment. For our ancient ancestors this automatic threat assessment when entering a cave, narrow canyon, or dense woods focused all of their attention to survival. They were constantly assessing the terrain for any clues that a predator or rival was nearby. With the lessening of day to day threats from our environment, the brain is becoming more passive and thus complacent to unknown threats.

Muscle memory and musculature also are likely changing as our species goes from the forest/savanna to the urban/suburban environment. Walking, running, climbing, crouching, and crawling all develop different muscles. When we, as a species, do not use specific muscles over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, they eventually weaken in favor of the most used muscles. This, in turn, changes some characteristics of the bones associated with those muscles as the anchors no longer have to be as robust to support the smaller muscle.

Look at runners in, say, the New York Marathon. People who spend most of their days walking on flat concrete and wood floors and rarely never using stairs, much less running up and down them, hardly ever win. On the other hand, many of the marathon's past winners have been Kenyans and other people from developing countries. Many of these winners were actually runners (messengers) that carried news from village to village almost daily, thus working all of their muscles running on different surfaces and across varied terrains.

Yes, it does.  Intelligence is just another tool for survival just like physical strength, flexibility, camouflage etc.  Rules of fitness do not change and therefore still apply.  For example, efficiency of energy use can still be used as a rule of fitness.  Does our use of current energy makes our health, life and environment a better place?  Let say we all build nuclear reactors in all countries.   Due to social upheaval and instabilities, those reactors failed, leaked or exploded, contaminating ourselves and environment for at least half a million years.  Does that make us a better fit because we are 'intelligent'?

I believe nature is also what we create to avoid troubles.

Evolution is never away from us. Even if we think we have escaped some troubles building some tools or some tecniquie. "The trouble, the solution of it and the future are all nature. Even if it is a sophisticated digital tool, it works with phisic and mathematic and that's it.

I guess we use a too short vision,that is some part (just some) of evolution that we know. Norwegian have discovered that Walt. D. made up a story of the  lemmings jumped toward an unseen cliff ... this doesn't belong to lemmnings. But it belongs to lemnings  the balance with territory and food, the diseases, the possibility of escape of known treats  and the possibility to escape unknow treats  ( the so called "black swans" - caos).

Kolita

It is unlikely that we can measure something as complex as evolution by looking at sporting records.  Humans have not evolved in any meaningful sense in the last 2,000 years or so the Olympic Games have been running.  Sporting prowess is a product of training, improved hygiene and health and in many cases cheating rather than development of humans as a species.

Similarly the IQ, which is not a scientific method of determining intellect anyway has not improved over the same period.  Humans are no cleverer today that they were 10,000 years ago.  As for degrees and PhD's, well they are certainly no indicator of intelligence or broader intellect.

As a mammalian species we are inevitably evolving but there is the most fundamental difference between our species and that of other that share our planet.  All other species evolve in response to a changing environment, contrary to the rather antropocentric view of 'survival of the fittest'.  We are changing our envioronment at a far faster rate than our ability to evolve to it.

Ironically that is why humans are not already extinct.  Physically we are weaker, slower, less capable in the senses and physically ill equipped for most environments on Earth so we change them and ourselves to cope.  We will continue to manipulate the environment as long as we exist.  Lets hope we don't make too many mistakes in that.  

Dear Dr turner

We will pray all with you to never comment mistakes that may finish the live in the earth. However, our prayers will not be answered because of our bad habits in doing every mean and harmful action in the world for other creatures and ourselves as well.

Regards 

Dear friends, I have discovered this recently: Human Evolution Timeline Interactive! 

Many projects and resources are available... Explore the evidence for human evolution in this interactive timeline - climate change, species, and milestones in becoming human.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive

The greatest single adaptation of the environment effected by any living species was the introduction of oxygen into the atmosphere.  This was done by single celled anerobic prokaryotes and they have done far more to influence the environment than we have or could. 

If we were to introduce one of those odd 'competitions' enjoyed by pop-scientists we would probably have to conclude that prokaryotes were 'the most successful' of all life forms.  The original 'first in last out'.

They are the only plants/animals that can live in every environment without artificial life support.  They are the oldest life on the planet,  they can live without us but we cannot live without them, when we have gone they will still be here in fact they will be the last living creatures on this planet and will likely survive until the planet itself is destroyed   

We may have achieved a lot as intelligent species, but we have not changed the course of evolution. Although "intelligent" we also suffer from self-destruction habits such as wars and responsible for polluting ourselves to death (the abundance of cancer and destruction of the environment).

We can't even "create" oxygen, the gas we depend on for survival. Half of my students believed that oxygen comes out of volcanoes...

Reverse Evolution!

OK Dr. Bobe

Good research

The next step is not on Earth. Humanity is not to stay on our planet, the stars belong to us. To reach them we will need to change, a lot !

Hi Bob:

Thanks for alerting us to this good (old) question that deserves more posts.

Here's my first reactions:

1) Biology is too slow for us to notice when occurring naturally [as in the Past]. Tragically, we have now discovered HOW to manipulate DNA but not the wisdom to avoid Unexpected Consequences.

2) As social animals, culture is the most powerful influence on most people's minds [Cosmic Egg?]. However, most humans have culturally evolved through the Warrior Phase, so the psychopathic (aggressive) Takers seize the wealth of the Makers, while the Fakers (talkers) suck up to the ruling Takers and found many inheritable institutions, such as wealthy Dynasties and Institutions that maintain their values beyond their own life-span. This makes Social Change very difficult.

3) Until we improve then we are a parasitic, dangerous species that must be kept on Earth [have we been imprisoned here to isolate us from the universe?].

4) Non-empathic intelligence is a Negative Multiplier, so the LHs must go.

5) Human Evolution has been minimal in the last 300,000 years.

“As far as we can tell from a purely scientific viewpoint, human life has absolutely no meaning. Humans are the outcome of blind evolutionary processes that operate without goal or purpose. Our actions are not part of some divine cosmic plan, and if planet earth were to blow up tomorrow morning, the universe would probably keep going about its business as usual. As far as we can tell at this point, human subjectivity would not be missed. Hence any meaning that people inscribe to their lives is just a delusion.”

― Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind