Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Switching goals in Evolution

I think I mentioned that simulation is my profession and expertise and that complex adaptive systems is my research interest.

Note: Co-option or what is called 'pre-adaptation' is something evolutionists talk a lot about, but the intelligent design and creationist guys insist that pre-adaptation is preposterous. They tout the idea of "irreducible complexity." IC says there are some systems that are so complicated that no part of them would function alone... you need the whole thing in place for it to work. Evolutionists respond that this is ambiguous... 'work' to what end? They say that pre-adaptation explains apparent IC - and there has been quite a bit of work on this. (In the Dover trial it became apparent that the main ID advocate of IC, Michael Behe, wasn't even aware of the current scientific work on the subject.)

Anyway, the following article discusses a simulation developed at the Weizmann Inst. that helps to understand how co-option can work and how it can be advantageous.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/wios-sg082707.php

Hi FallibleFriend,
(I just can't consider calling you Fiend)
I'm not sure I understand what pre-adaptation is, exactly.

If it is subtle changes incurred by any species adapting their lifestyle to changes in habitat, food, weather, or symbiosis
due to contact with other animals, friendly or foe?
Then prehaps pre-adaptation may not be exactly the correct term to use.
But so called pre-adaptation may well look like Co-option, or even Non Co-option, probably depends upon a much quicker type of evolution?

My simplistic explanation is as follows.

Given that those habitat/food/weather/changes....etc. (as above). Must, either harm, hinder,or help, any species that come in contact with the above changes.

But every living species has a niche, which over the thousands of years has become part of its normal lifestyle.

To my mind, no change in a species lifestyle niche,... means little or no change in its Evolution.
For example-
Crocodiles, come to mind, also ants & other insects (found trapped in amber) have not physically changed for millions of years.
Because their niche has stayed constant, free of change.

However, I think that modern Evolution is changing fast, very fast.
I have had to make up a new word to explain my idea better.
The word is:- "Multibehavioral", as it pertains to brain.

It seems to me that humans as a species, exhibit a multibehavioral brain, far far greater than any other animals upon this Earth.
For example-
We are the animals that immediately move and change our lifestyle, should our niche become threatened.
We have no hesitation but to dismantle anything, anyone or any lifeform that threatens us.
We will hate, move, even fight and kill, to keep our evolutionary niche, safe.
Its our multibehavioral brain that is keeping us on the fast evolutionary track.

We are still around, muliplying at a prodigious rate, using language, technology, energy and power, to keep evolving.

All the other animals in this world, are happy in their adapted niche. They have had little, or no need to evolve physically.
So they hardly did.

Yes, I know it did take hundreds of thousands, even millions of years for life to evolve into the hundreds of thousands of different species that inhabit the world today.
But the delay was due to the worlds hot atmosphere, devoid of Oxygen, changing to the cool Oxygenated atmosphere of today.

Now, when we look at the archeological remains of animals, of thousands of years ago, we just assume that evolution is an extremely slow process. But that is 'Old world Evolutionry' thinking.
The product of atmosphere, single cells, and simple animals. Not exactly what we are talking about here, is it?

Is that what we (mistakenly) call (slow) pre-adaptation.?

Pre-adaptation:- The comparing the subtle changes of life born thousands of years ago ....with the same life of the present day!
Well thats my take on it.

Of course butterfly markings, skin/fur, fins and feet changes in animals did occur, but slowly, commensurate with the weather, water, and their enemys development.

But brain changes are truly, the biggest fastest, and undeniably the real causes of Evolution today, and yesterday.....but time seems to have blinded us to this reality.
Evolution is going to get faster, a lot faster....at least for us humans.

Thats the only 'intelligence in design' that come to my mind.

The Multibehaviorable brain idea, ensures that us, and only us, have the ultimate responsibility for the continuation of our species.

Oh that-
http://wis-wander.weizmann.ac.il/site/EN/homepage.asp

is an interesting find of yours, thanks.

My understanding is that pre-adaptation and co-option are synonyms, though I agree I've always thought the former was a misnomer, as it sounds too much like Lamarckism.

Organ O1 exists and serves function F1. As O evolves with the population, it begins to acquire functionality F2. At first it only helps a little with F2 - and only incidental to its service to F1. However, in generations, O2, O3 etc. the importance of function F2 begins to dominate.

I want to ask a question that I am sure would be silly if I understood this interesting article better.

Are humans still evolving really? If so in what way? Is it really as simple as 'AND/OR'? It seems to me that all humans have the capability as a species (some individuals will obviously vary) to live and participate in a life that is vastly different from that of their parents. That would be adaption I suppose, however where is the evidence of functionality initiating change in the last few million years of human development? There are lots of modifications I can think of right now!!

PS I re-read this, no I am not anti-evolution, I believe it explains everything very well indeed!

Ellis asked:

"Are humans still evolving really?"

Yes. However selection pressure is not very great. Most young survive until breeding age. If, or when, selection pressure rises evolution will be rapid. Whole swathes of genetic combinations will die out. It's possible to interpret the human fossil record as demonstrating that human numbers have fluctuated wildly through our evolution. As for "functionality initiating change in the last few million years of human development" I think we can see it. Changes in ecosystems has always been the prime mover in evolution. We are changing ecosystems greatly at present although I'd bet we have been doing that since we first developed stone tools, and certainly since we harnessed fire. Technology has always been a driver during our evolution.

Interesting reply terry. In fact humans are thwarting evolution??

I agree about eco- systems changing lifestyles, but is it not true that a human from 40,000 years ago would be the same as us, bewildered yes, but physically and mentally as capable as us--and able to adapt to modern life rapidly, if not happily? So where is the evolution?

Ellis states....are humans thwarting Evolution?

I suppose that means that not all Evolution is beneficial? As far as we humans are concerned?
What type of Evolution do we actually mean?
I think our physical Evolution has virtually come to an end, but our mental Evolution is alive and ongoing.
I feel that the modern human brain stores and computes far more information than our 40,000 yr old ancestors?
Since we have have made ourselves live longer, we are teaching this stored information to our children. 'RealTime' Evolution'?
All food that is produced from the land to feed our increasing population, is a result of our Multibehavioral brain ensuring our own future. We are manipulating all the raw materials to ensure our own future niche upon this planet.

But is Ellis seeing further?
Modern medical therapy in hospitals is saving a huge number of humans that would otherwise have died from sickness, disease and early births.
Does the amount of damaged genes getting into the population and conceiving, count as small backward step, thwarting Evolution?
Or should we hope that our clever evolving brains will be able to cure all known diseases given time, to move evolution forward?
Im not absolutely sure that our brains can get any bigger, and presumably cleverer, since we humans are constricted by the size of the birth canal.
But with more and more women opting to freeze their eggs and have caesarians, one never knows.
Heads are uncompressed and generally slightly larger, with this type of birth.

I expect, given time, eventually anything which shows to confer a long term advantage to ourselves will come about, giving us the ultimate responsibility for the continuation of our species.

Ellis wrote:

"I agree about eco- systems changing lifestyles".

In fact our technology and culture have evolved far faster over the last 100,000 years than our biology. Changing technology, from the use of fire to the development of cities and agriculture, has greatly changed our ecology and so our lifestyles. A human from 40,000 years ago brought up in a modern household would presumably have no trouble adapting to modern life. But 40,000 years is inadequate for speciation anyway. We find the greatest differences within and between any species when we compare opposite ends of both time and space. After all humans today vary regionally. Presumably they always have.

Mike wrote:

"Does the amount of damaged genes getting into the population and conceiving, count as small backward step, thwarting Evolution?"

Mike, aren't you confusing "evolution" with "progress"? I've grumbled about how this connection, which derives from the period of the industrial revolution, keeps appearing elsewhere. I would still call the changes evolution.

Ellis: "Are humans still evolving really? If so in what way?"

To add to what Terry said, this is something that is, apparently, receiving the attention of many researchers, not without some controversy over the details:

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/070326_evolution.htm


Note the last point, which underlines the fact that evolution doesn't necessarily coincide with our idea of progress.