Question for scientist type people.. Evolution

[elsol]

I'm looking for an article or possible theories explaining the population growth models of the birth of a new species of man.

I.E... did multiple births of homo-type (sapien, neanderthal) happen at the same time or explain the concept of if 1 sapien is born who/what does it mate with to make more.

If there's nothing like that... an article on how a new species is born & propagates would be nice.

I remember a failed TV show about a new species of man coming into existence in central america and I had an idea for adopting that into a sci-fi erotic story (What? A new species of man would certainly want to quickly breed more, neh?)

I need details or theoretical models to fit the structure of the story I want.

 

[3113]

I.E... did multiple births of homo-type (sapien, neanderthal) happen at the same time or explain the concept of if 1 sapien is born who/what does it mate with to make more.

Here's a website that ought to give you everything you need:

Archaeology

The answer, by the way, is yes. They Neanderthal came first, then Sapien, but they were both around at the same time. And homo erectus was also still around in China. Sapien ran into his "forefather" in that instance as well as his cousin, Neanderthal. But Sapiens is the youngest of the bunch, coming last and latest.

They did not, in other words, all just pop up at the same time but rather evolved like different branches on a tree. It's all the same fruit--but each one is a bit different from the others.

You have to understand, as well, that sapien doesn't just appear. You don't have a monkey mom who gives birth to a human, leaving the human with no one to mate with. You have a better monkey who mates with his bunch and passes on his good genes to his kids. They develop more, and pass on more genes and the bunch begins to change and develop together into Sapien.

So you don't get one, lone sapien. You get a group developing, very slowly, into sapien. Ditto with Neanderthal.

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm looking for an article or possible theories explaining the population growth models of the birth of a new species of man.

I.E... did multiple births of homo-type (sapien, neanderthal) happen at the same time or explain the concept of if 1 sapien is born who/what does it mate with to make more.
...
I need details or theoretical models to fit the structure of the story I want.

I don't know of any specific articles to recommend, but the concept is pretty simple:

1: a member of precursor species -- male or female -- has a mutation that can be passed on to it's progeny. For more simplicity, say it's a dominant trait that i passedon to all of it's offspring.

2: That individual mates with another -- or multiple other -- members of the precursor species and passes on the mutation to several offspring.

3: The second generation mates back into the precursor species and produce a third, larger, generation of mutants

4: lather rinse and repeat for another four or five generations and the majority of precursor population will have the new dominant gene.

5: Repeat the scenario for another mutation -- or several mutations -- and over another four or five generations and the precursor population will be completely replaced by a new "species."

The addition of a new trait into a species isn't instantaneous even for a dominant trait, but it is a geometric progression: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, ...

A recessive trait would take about four times as long to spread through a precursor population and changing or adding a single trait doesn't necessarily make for a new "species." But several mutations that occur relatively close together in time and space can combine to create a new "species" as the geometric progessions overlap and create new geometric progressions of combined traits.

I'd guess that for human generations -- roughly 20 years -- it would take three to four centuries for a single trait to become dominant in an isolated population like a clan or tribe under normal circumstances. It could go much faster in the case of a single dominant male spreading his genes widely through a population -- as in a harem or droit de signeur scenario where the majority of children in one generation are sired by single -- or selected few -- male.

 

[kendo1]

An Alpha male, Weird?
As in chimp and gorilla troops, the dominant male has the only right to mate.

It may happen faster that way.

 

[Weird Harold]

An Alpha male, Weird?
As in chimp and gorilla troops, the dominant male has the only right to mate.

It may happen faster that way.

Yah, basically an "Alpha Male" or "herd stallion" -- although humans seem to have "out-grown" that as normal practice, it's still a persistent adolescent/meglomananiacal dream.

How fast a mutation spreads depends on the size of each generation; a simple doubling (with two offspring per mutant) would take a couple of centuries to generate substantial numbers but a "Eugenics" program or "Alpha Male" behavior could generate huge numbers in only one or two generations -- especially if the mutation is a dominant trait.

 

[Tuomas]

The Japanese are a good example of how a new "species" of man could form. They have been relatively isolated for the last three to four thousand years, and have a very homogenous population. As such, they have developed certain physological differences from other asian groups -so much so that most Japanese can differenciate themselves from Chinese or Koreans at a glance. (There was a recient scandal about the movie, "Memoirs of a Geisha", in which the lead character was given to a woman of Chinese heriatage, and lots of Japanese noticed.) Of course the Japanese are not even a "race", let alone a new "species" even after thousands of years -and given the current global trend towards mono-racism and multiculturalism, they probably never will be.

The example does underscore how subtle and slow the changes in evolutionary development are. To westerners, perhaps the Chinese and Japanese look exactly the same, even after three or four thousand years. So, you can't expect a noticeable change from one generation to the next.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

This is something I've never been clear on either. It seems that for a species to evolve, mutations have to be both advantageous in survival terms, and genetically dominant if they're going to be expressed.

This seems like kind of a tall order.

 

[R. Richard]

Yah, basically an "Alpha Male" or "herd stallion" -- although humans seem to have "out-grown" that as normal practice, it's still a persistent adolescent/meglomananiacal dream.

Perhaps. However, I prefer to think of it as a shining dream!

 

[R. Richard]

This is something I've never been clear on either. It seems that for a species to evolve, mutations have to be both advantageous in survival terms, and genetically dominant if they're going to be expressed.

This seems like kind of a tall order.

Not exactly. Blonde hair is a recessive trait. However, many, many Swedish or Norwegian people possess the blonde hair/light coloring that is advantageous in their environment. A trait that is advantageous in survival terms seems to propagate much more rapidly than would seem to be the case if just random chance were involved.

 

[elsol]

This is something I've never been clear on either. It seems that for a species to evolve, mutations have to be both advantageous in survival terms, and genetically dominant if they're going to be expressed.

This seems like kind of a tall order.

Doing the reading... humans culture is counter-evolution.

We carry a lot of otherwise non-advantageous mutations because of our cultural mores.

We're allowing bad stuff to continue to be bred which nature wouldn't do... kinda like with show dogs, Bulldogs can actually *gasp* lack an interest in sex.

 

[cantdog]

And it's all a tall order if you allow only a few thousand years. Geologic/evolutionary time is so very long, it requires a real stretch of the imagination to begin thinking in those terms.

There's a particular Eurasian bird- or birds, as we'll see-- that exhibits change in form across the breadth of its range. At no point along all those thousands of miles are there two forms, next to one another, who can't interbreed. But an individual from one distant end, meeting one from the other end, does not see that bird as a member of the same species. Indeed, neither did taxonomists, until the existence of the continuous cline through the range was demonstrated. Now that they know, there are two schools of thought on it. Clearly the two end points are different birds, but no matter where along that cline you draw the demarcation, you'd be wrong, because the next door birds are seen by everyone, birds included, to be the same species.

I think this might be the mechanism, sometimes, by which new species arise from a common ancestor. No one notices any change at all, and then one end, neanderthalensis, meets another, sapiens, and it's clear to both that they are not the same. But neither of 'em has difficulty finding out who to mate with. They just go home.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Natural Selection doesn't necessarily key off a dominante trait. We have many such traits in our genes that act as recessive simply because there is no survival need for them.

For instance, if you have a natural (genetic) ability to withstand cold what good would this do you in the tropics?

It's really more a matter of those dom traits coming forward, in a way, in time of need rather than always being dom. Meanwhile, those traits, used or not, are carried forward from generation to generation.

JJ

 

[Tuomas]

Doing the reading... humans culture is counter-evolution.

We carry a lot of otherwise non-advantageous mutations because of our cultural mores.

We're allowing bad stuff to continue to be bred which nature wouldn't do... kinda like with show dogs, Bulldogs can actually *gasp* lack an interest in sex.

I would kind of agree with this. Of course, if you start talking about natural selection of humans, you get mixed up in the whole eugenics debate

For example, the clear genetic disorder and mutation that causes Down Syndrome. We can't say that people with this desease can't reproduce ... but what about the off-spring who is condemned to have Down Syndrome? If it's OK for us to abort fetuses because they do not fit in the mother's carreer plan, is it OK to kill morons before they are born?

Anyway, evolution is made all that more complicated by all those people who don't know anything about it, but still insist on characterizing it

 

[elsol]

I would kind of agree with this. Of course, if you start talking about natural selection of humans, you get mixed up in the whole eugenics debate

For example, the clear genetic disorder and mutation that causes Down Syndrome. We can't say that people with this desease can't reproduce ... but what about the off-spring who is condemned to have Down Syndrome? If it's OK for us to abort fetuses because they do not fit in the mother's carreer plan, is it OK to kill morons before they are born?

Nature and evolution don't play nice. Evolution has a simple rule... the punishment for bad genetics is death.

Intellect is still on the chopping block as far as evolution is concerned. If we nuke ourselves out of existence... clearly the whole intellect thing failed and quite miserably at that.

I kind like evolution... it's just so damn callous.

 

[Tuomas]

I like evolution; there should be more of it

Yes, intellect is still on the fence. Of course, if we do nuke ourselves and everything else into little bits, we have to wonder why. Maybe all the smart people said "no", but was just that there are so many idiots in the world who actually did it

 

[elsol]

I like evolution; there should be more of it

Yes, intellect is still on the fence. Of course, if we do nuke ourselves and everything else into little bits, we have to wonder why. Maybe all the smart people said "no", but was just that there are so many idiots in the world who actually did it

Still evolution at work... see our culture evolved to a point where we protected idiots.

In nature, idiot means 'easy meal'.

Thus by going against evolution, which intellect has allowed us to do, we devolved into a point of there being enough idiots to do damage.

Evolution at play... intellect bad... bye-bye intellect.

 

[Tuomas]

Still evolution at work... see our culture evolved to a point where we protected idiots.

In nature, idiot means 'easy meal'.

Thus by going against evolution, which intellect has allowed us to do, we devolved into a point of there being enough idiots to do damage.

Evolution at play... intellect bad... bye-bye intellect.

Damnit, stop being so smart. You are ruining my ego

Wait!! You're smart! That means you're bad too

But, to counter: those idiots, even protected by us and still being en easy meal, are smarter than most animals. And since they are smarter than most animals and know how to blow up the world by pressing a red button, intellect is still bad

Maybe we should all just go dancing naked in the forests....

On a side note, I have always wondered what it would be like for us if we discovered a different species of animals who looked almost exactly like humans, and has the same intellectual capacity. They were just another species. How would we react to them?

 

[elsol]

On a side note, I have always wondered what it would be like for us if we discovered a different species of animals who looked almost exactly like humans, and has the same intellectual capacity. They were just another species. How would we react to them?

I think that humanity would deal much better with a total 'Other' as their first equal species contact.

We seem to have a very unfriendly thing to something very much like us but clearly unlike us... i.e. the whole racism thing.

It be a good idea for it not look like a predator... and we look like predators to each other. (Or at least, all of you look like you want my shit to me

And definitely, we shouldn't be in competition for the same territory... that brings evolution into play and evo luvs pitting two things against each other and seeing which one wins. Actually, evo does it to force mutation that will bring about a winner.

 

[R. Richard]

For example, the clear genetic disorder and mutation that causes Down Syndrome. We can't say that people with this desease can't reproduce ... but what about the off-spring who is condemned to have Down Syndrome? If it's OK for us to abort fetuses because they do not fit in the mother's carreer plan, is it OK to kill morons before they are born?

If we kill morons before they are born, where do we get the people we elect to Congress?

 

[R. Richard]

On a side note, I have always wondered what it would be like for us if we discovered a different species of animals who looked almost exactly like humans, and has the same intellectual capacity. They were just another species. How would we react to them?

We did. They were called Neanderthals. The careful observer will note that there are no more Neanderthals.

 

[Tuomas]

I think that humanity would deal much better with a total 'Other' as their first equal species contact.

We seem to have a very unfriendly thing to something very much like us but clearly unlike us... i.e. the whole racism thing.

It be a good idea for it not look like a predator... and we look like predators to each other. (Or at least, all of you look like you want my shit to me

And definitely, we shouldn't be in competition for the same territory... that brings evolution into play and evo luvs pitting two things against each other and seeing which one wins. Actually, evo does it to force mutation that will bring about a winner.

Something like an alien invasion. I don't think "we come in peace" is all that practical.

I can't help but think there will be a lot of people who will want to go out and fuck the humanoid aliens (or other species) ...

RR:The neanderthals were tasty ... I'm told

 

[3113]

We did. They were called Neanderthals. The careful observer will note that there are no more Neanderthals.

There's some argument about that. One group of Anthropolgists insists that we couldn't interbreed with them and they died out--and yes, it was probably thanks to us. Another branch argues that we could and did interbreed with them and we just absorbed them.

Neither side has found conclusive evidence, though the die-out side is currently winning.

 

[3113]

Yah, basically an "Alpha Male" or "herd stallion" -- although humans seem to have "out-grown" that as normal practice, it's still a persistent adolescent/meglomananiacal dream.

Not outgrown it. There are still tribal chiefs with hundreds of wives in some parts of the world.

However, it's a bit different from wolves or stallions. Among apes, there is an alpha male who gets his harem, but it's been documented that the girls and the lower order guys sneak off and have sex when Alpha-male's back is turned.

Among wolves, only the alpha males genes get passed on. But among humans, the alpha male's genes and those of any other male sneaking around behind his back get passed on...as well as all the females' genes.

 

[Weird Harold]

This is something I've never been clear on either. It seems that for a species to evolve, mutations have to be both advantageous in survival terms, and genetically dominant if they're going to be expressed.

This seems like kind of a tall order.

Defining "advantageous in survival terms" can get a bit sticky -- things like Sickle Cell and Diabetes are lethal recessive traits, but they're linked to survival traits for certain conditions. I dot recall the positive trait linked to diabetes, but IIRC, the trait linked to Sickle Cell has somthing to do with increased resistance to Malaria and other tropical diseases.

Also, a mutation doesn't have to be a survival trait, it can be a "sexual attraction" that does nothing but make the mutant more sexually attractive and thus more likely to pass on the mutation.

Mutations don't have to be Dominant traits, they just spread slower if they're Recessive traits -- about one fourth as fast, if I remember the statistical model correctly. If a recessive trait is particularly useful for survival -- resistance to cold or heat; Blue or green eyes resistant to snow glare; etc -- a population that lives where the trait is useful will develop a higher incidence of the recessive gene and the chance of it pairing up will increase.

And it's all a tall order if you allow only a few thousand years. Geologic/evolutionary time is so very long, it requires a real stretch of the imagination to begin thinking in those terms.

There's a particular Eurasian bird- or birds, as we'll see-- that exhibits change in form across the breadth of its range.

A thousand years is can be a very long time in evolutionary terms because drastic changes tend come in spurts and bunches during times of stress or isolation -- but it depends a lot on the specifics of a specific mutatation. The more advantageous to survival a mutation is, the faster it is likely to spread as those without the advantage it provides die out faster. Conversely, the less distinct the advantage, the slower a mutation would spread because the competition stays around in the gene pool longer.

Your example of the birds is a useful example because it demonstrates that "evolutionary change" isn't always -- or even often -- noticeable to the populations involved, let alone outside observers.

Humans are a bit of an exception to natural evolution because we're the only species to manipulate the process -- consciously so in selective breeding of our domesticated animals and subconscously by artificially defining various human traits as "desireable" to our society or as mates. If you've ever stood next to a genuine suit of medieval armor, you've seen the effect of sevral centuries of society defining "tall" as "handsome" -- although improved diet and health care has a lot to do with the five to six inches average height increase over medieval europeans, too.

In ElSol's original premise, "...a failed TV show about a new species of man coming into existence in central america...," Homo Novus was likely the result of conscious planning -- eg Eugenics -- that concentrated and accelerated the speciation.

 

[elsol]

I can't help but think there will be a lot of people who will want to go out and fuck the humanoid aliens (or other species) ...

That's if they land in a Latin dominant country... the rest of you all seem to be very xenophobic which puts us latins at an advantage when it comes to whoel fucking thing.

We're a culture and the culture itself is very much into the Borg thing of assimillation.

So if it's got the necessary plumbing... color ain't a reason not to party!