TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- 'De-evolution'
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

'De-evolution'

I saw a certain movie last night and it led me to wondering a very simple question:

If a certain group of human beings were to be isolated for an incredibly long period of time (1000 years or more) out in the desert or another remote location with no expendable resources, no access to education, no vehicles, no medicine, no modern forms of entertainment (musical instruments, board games, televisions, radios, books) and no electricity, would it be possible that this group might move backwards along the evolutionary scale, losing the ability to converse in a sophisticated manner and think in the self-aware way that separates man from animal?

I suppose the only constant would be a reliable food and water supply with no effort required to maintain them, and this also scenario assumes complete lack of entertainment or otherwise challenging activities.

Personally, I think it would be possible under the right conditions, however it would be near on impossible for those circumstances to arise of their own accord. It seems to me that man evolved as a result of a challenging world. Our intelligence is derived from facing the world around us, and if you were to remove those challenges and provide a constant food supply, our intelligence would no longer be required and would diminish over time.

Thoughts?

Re: 'De-evolution'

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated I saw a certain movie last night and it led me to wondering a very simple question: If a certain group of human beings were to be isolated for an incredibly long period of time (1000 years or more) out in the desert or another remote location with no expendable resources, no access to education, no vehicles, no medicine, no modern forms of entertainment (musical instruments, board games, televisions, radios, books) and no electricity, would it be possible that this group might move backwards along the evolutionary scale, losing the ability to converse in a sophisticated manner and think in the self-aware way that separates man from animal? I suppose the only constant would be a reliable food and water supply with no effort required to maintain them, and this also scenario assumes complete lack of entertainment or otherwise challenging activities. Personally, I think it would be possible under the right conditions, however it would be near on impossible for those circumstances to arise of their own accord. It seems to me that man evolved as a result of a challenging world. Our intelligence is derived from facing the world around us, and if you were to remove those challenges and provide a constant food supply, our intelligence would no longer be required and would diminish over time. Thoughts?

I lived in absolute solitude for a about two months, doing nothing but reading books; after them two months, you see, I got out and, verbally, had trouble putting sentences together.

True story.

but that would be re-evolution wouldn't it? just in another area. i think i'd go mental.

quote:

Originally posted by Teezdalien but that would be re-evolution wouldn't it? just in another area. i think i'd go mental.

dere�volution!

there is no such thing as de evolution.

Evolution is just population adapting to environment.


for instance. A trex having stupidly small hands is considered evolution since apparently that trait helped him succeeed in that environment.


A whale having a pelvic bone. Doesnt need it or use it at all but its there because its a remnant organ from its ancestors (not de-evolution but evolution)

you cannot thing of evolution as a negative or a positive its just an adaptation of a population to an environment over time.

Well that entirely depends upon the circumstances of the environment they live in, as evolution merely refers to the changes that can be observed within a species as it reproduces and either does or does not adapt to its setting - it does not refer to whether these changes are good or bad, beneficial or maladaptive.

If a species possesses quite unchallenged biological traits over a long enough period of time, perhaps those traits might be selected against given allele frequency, but I don't think there is really any science to indicate that, though I wouldn't know. But is there any reason to believe this group of humans would no longer communicate with one another or would lose their sentience(if that can even be considered an "evolutionary" trait)?

Re: 'De-evolution'

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated I saw a certain movie last night and it led me to wondering a very simple question: If a certain group of human beings were to be isolated for an incredibly long period of time (1000 years or more) out in the desert or another remote location with no expendable resources, no access to education, no vehicles, no medicine, no modern forms of entertainment (musical instruments, board games, televisions, radios, books) and no electricity, would it be possible that this group might move backwards along the evolutionary scale, losing the ability to converse in a sophisticated manner and think in the self-aware way that separates man from animal? I suppose the only constant would be a reliable food and water supply with no effort required to maintain them, and this also scenario assumes complete lack of entertainment or otherwise challenging activities. Personally, I think it would be possible under the right conditions, however it would be near on impossible for those circumstances to arise of their own accord. It seems to me that man evolved as a result of a challenging world. Our intelligence is derived from facing the world around us, and if you were to remove those challenges and provide a constant food supply, our intelligence would no longer be required and would diminish over time. Thoughts?

if it was us we may live but perhaps die out. We are so dependent on western medicine and creating an envoronment suitable for us instead of adapting that we wouldnt survive very long. If the environment change is gradual or you are picking a group that is close to tribal life then they probably would survive and flourish.

IF you want to talk about pure intelligence and neglect the survival aspect, i think we would definatley not lose our mental capability. (20 generations would not create significant mutations to alter what 5 million years or more has created). If you look at the intelligence difference between galileo and einstein i don't think there is a drastic difference or any difference at all(comprehension and perception of ideas). or what about the genius egyptians who created the pyramids with complex geometry as well as accounting systems and civilization structure. The greeks with their democracy and theology and astrology. ETC ETC ETC. man has not "evolved" since these times.

I don't think we would lose mental capacity genetically because those genes responsible for higher order functions would not make you less likely to breed so they would remain in the gene pool. Society could go backwards and become less sophisticated.. but that has more to do with sociology/psychology than biology so evolution isn't the right word.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On If a species possesses quite unchallenged biological traits over a long enough period of time, perhaps those traits might be selected against given allele frequency, but I don't think there is really any science to indicate that, though I wouldn't know. But is there any reason to believe this group of humans would no longer communicate with one another or would lose their sentience(if that can even be considered an "evolutionary" trait)?

don't think it would happen. what kind of selection pressure would promote non communication.

lets look at a whale for example. Its ancestors were a fish (primitive) and it left the water to evolve land mobility. It then decided to go back into the water due to some sort of selection pressure. This could have been low food resources on land, predator avoidance etc.

You need a good reason to change (evolve) and it has to be a pressure that is lasting over tens of thousands of years.


Homo sapiens sapiens have been around for 250,000 years. our neanderthal cousins were around with us up to 25,000 years ago. OBviously they did not survive because we were smarter and more resourceful. I don't think a trait like that really has a disadvantage. There very well could be, but its difficult to hypothesize.

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy I don't think we would lose mental capacity genetically because those genes responsible for higher order functions would not make you less likely to breed so they would remain in the gene pool. Society could go backwards and become less sophisticated.. but that has more to do with sociology/psychology than biology so evolution isn't the right word.

plus it takes alot of weeding out to get rid of those genes. perhaps thousands of generations.

LOL thats the best


too bad im from africa

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit what kind of selection pressure would promote non communication.

What if human beings suddenly lost the ability to hear, see, or both? That would certainly threaten our entire species, unless it were somehow genetic or perhaps a reaction to pollution, radiation in our atmosphere, etc. I would image it'd also certainly change the way we communicate with one another, don't you think?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On What if human beings suddenly lost the ability to hear, see, or both? That would certainly threaten our entire species, unless it were somehow genetic or perhaps a reaction to pollution, radiation in our atmosphere, etc. I would image it'd also certainly change the way we communicate with one another, don't you think?

right that would have to be a dominant gene to increase the likely hood of dispersal, but not necessarily depending on how many generatoins you want to go. keep in mind sexual selection and offpsring survival and competiton. Whats to say that the healthy humans wouldnt dominate the unhealthy ones (ones without disabilities) its the rule of the jungle so it may as well apply here.

If it were to occur to everyone then thats also a different story. lets say hearing because sight is too drastic. Sure it would change things, sign language would have to be developed or used (if it wasnt carried on from before). If the group were to survive over tens of generations, heritable traits such as strong smell or better hearing, better dexterity would probably be selected for. There would still be communication assuming our brains were similar. I don't think we would become nomadic and primitive so easily.

Re: 'De-evolution'

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated It seems to me that man evolved as a result of a challenging world. Our intelligence is derived from facing the world around us, and if you were to remove those challenges and provide a constant food supply, our intelligence would no longer be required and would diminish over time.

Social species tend to create their own "challenges," one of those challenges being to stay at the top of the group's mating hierarchy. So I don't think that selective pressures would disappear even if food and shelter were taken care of.

Re: Re: 'De-evolution'

quote:

Originally posted by ********

quote:

A person diagnosed with schizophrenia may demonstrate ... disorganized and unusual thinking and speech; this may range from loss of train of thought and subject flow, with sentences only loosely connected in meaning, to incoherence, known as word salad, in severe cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child

Society really is the thing, that sets us apart from other animals...

quote:

Originally posted by Ridexer Society really is the thing, that sets us apart from other animals...

A popular misconception. We are not apart at all.

That's not how evolution works. Evolution occurs when natural selection chooses a random mutation to live on. Evolution is completely random without natural selection to guide it. Social surroundings have nothing to do with it, nothing guides evolution except survival. Nothing besides genetic engineering can sway the mutations. they are random.

quote:

Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit plus it takes alot of weeding out to get rid of those genes. perhaps thousands of generations.

true. Op said 1000 years.. That's nowhere near long enough for significant biological differentiation to occur

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On A popular misconception. We are not apart at all.

Well yeah, but we're on much higher level intellectually, culturally,tecnologically (chimps using sticks and stones is proably our nearest runner up) and lingually.

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy I don't think we would lose mental capacity genetically because those genes responsible for higher order functions would not make you less likely to breed so they would remain in the gene pool.

Not necessarily. Having the mental capacities we currently have is only profitable if the species can afford the incredibly long and energy-demanding growth rate that comes with it. Species that are put under very strong selection pressures tend to have simpler brains, because it allows more energy to be diverted towards more rapid development, which gives you faster reproduction and thus minimizes the risk of an individual dying before passing on it's genes.

quote:

Originally posted by astroboy true. Op said 1000 years.. That's nowhere near long enough for significant biological differentiation to occur

hmm,

quote:

Originally posted by Ridexer Well yeah, but we're on much higher level intellectually, culturally,tecnologically (chimps using sticks and stones is proably our nearest runner up) and lingually.

do you honestly think that our intelligence levels have changed since 5000 years ago?


ok so what about 10,000 years ago?


i dont think significantly.


REMEMBER. how much more intelligent were the native americans when the europeans made first contact then the nomadic tribes which hunted wolly mamoth?

I think if you took a baby from 10,000 years ago and raised him in the 20th century they may have been able to adapt to our society.

I don't see how 10,000 years alone could bring up huge biological changes in the brain when morphologically we are practically identical.

Keep this in mind as well. What selection pressures have we faced in the past 5000 years or so? Havent we been simply changing our environment so it adapts to us?

I don't think we can assume that selective pressures on intelligence couldn't act in that sort of time frame. Ashkenazi Jews, for example, have an average IQ about 7 - 12 points higher than the norm for Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_intelligence

Some speculate that this was because Jews were pushed into certain occupations like money-lending and banking due to persecution, and these occupations required a high mathematical aptitude for success. Jews who couldn't succeed at such occupations may have been more likely to merge into the general culture and disavow their Jewishness.

All you need for relatively quick change are a small group and very specific, intense selective pressures.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.