Thoughts on evolution of man

[James]

I'd like to share some thoughts I had about evolution of man. Read carefully when you have time and patience...hehehe . And please send your opinions and comments too, many thanks.

Well here we go, firstly consider the following subjects:

1) How pre-historic man is described, mainly by Anthropology and Archaeology using analysis and dating of findings and then speculating on them.

2) How physical characteristics are determined and passed on generation to generation, in other words, Genetics and Paleontology.

3) How changes in these characteristics or genes occur and what determines it to occur - Evolutionary biology.

Now consider what each of these subjects states (or tends to state today) respectively:

A] Ancient Man is described as a primate living in rough conditions, having only a couple of tools, in a situation that makes him very vulnerable to nature, no tecnhology whatsoever is available to him. As a sample timeline to illustrate our thoughts consider the 50,000 year ago mark.

B] Genetics and Paleontology states that DNA changes occur very slowly, and consequently, on a completely different time scale than the cultural and technological changes occur. In other words the 50000 year old man is considered relatively equal to today's man in genetic terms. Actually, recent fossil records (skull findings) seem to acknowledge that modern man (homo sapiens sapiens) is much older than previously thought of before.

C] Darwin's Natural Selection is almost unanimously accepted as the major evolution theory today, that is..."random mutations in members of a geographically determined population tend to differentiate individual offsprings providing some with greater survival (and procreative) advantages over the others thus leading them to outnumber the others and consequently re-shaping the populations whole genome. The "survival advantage" is obviously determined by the environment in which the population is living.

"Let him who hath understanding reckon the... heheh... just kidding...hehehe

Well, the aparent inconsistency in what is presented to us by these fields of study cannot be perceived when analysing each subject separately, but only in their relation to one another, that is:

- If ancient man's habitat and environment was really what is depicted by anthropology [A], and

- If genes were relatively stable over 50000 years, so man then was genetically similar to us now , and

- If Natural Selection really determined evolution [C]

Then we can question the following:

Focusing on A

=========

> How could ancient environments (even older than 50000 if you consider the recent skull findings) present favorable directions for DNA evolution towards characteristics of modern man? For instance, when you consider that "intelligence" in this kind of savage environment would probably not be any of the aspects we consider intelligence in our society today, for example, among a group of men living in the wilderness (without technology) the offsprings that would present better adaptation for survival would be the ones that developed better "sense intelligence" of the environment (not just rational intelligence), in other words, better hearing, smelling, tasting, etc (just like animals).

It would also be important to "interpret" these sense inputs in a rational way (aka modern man's symbolic and analytical thinking process), but without the sense input (or tools to substitute the natural input, aka technology) what good would just the "thought power" be of? It seems to me that if natural selection was the main evolution process occurring then men would have evolved in a different direction. Another example is our skin. Just take a walk in the bush and see how sensitve to cuts and bruises we are. Now why would man lose the animal fur and have to "make his own fur"? What advantage would that have produced among "still cave-like men"?

It seems to me that if natural selection is the main determinant for our evolution then ancient man would have to have been living in an environment in which he was already disconnected from direct contact with nature. An interesting analogy for this "conspiracy like" theory would be the "legend of tarzan". We could imagine that our genetics evolved in a totally different environment (already containing some technology) and then for some unknown reason was put back into the "direct contact with nature". One could even speculate that man "mythologically" knowns this when he creates religions in which he is a "creation" especially made by God, and the "Garden of eden" could be thought of an archetype of this ancient environment where he didn't experience the "dangers" of nature, in other words, he wasn't in crude contact with it.

Just for the sake of illustration let's return to the "tarzan myth" and imagine the following hypothetical example: if a large number of offspring were abandoned in nature without any cultural education, most would die but maybe some could survive. These survivors would have the inherent capacity to speak a language and excercise deep abstract thinking just like we do, but it would probably take them thousands of years before a formal written language came up again, not to mention all the sciences and technology.

Just one more example here before I move on: Another inconsistency of the evolution theory presented is what I will call the "latent intellectual capacity" found in native populations. For instance, you could get a native child whose parents have been living in a very archaic society for thousands of years and bring the child to a modern society. The child will go to school and learn just like another child from our society and could even end up a PhD at Harvard or Oxford. So why did evolution develop this inherent potential of intelligence "evenly" among different populations and tribes in the world? It's obvious that these characteristics would have to have been common among the first ancestors of man that started roaming the earth in much older times and under even tougher environments. It all doesn't make sense to me.

Focusing on C

=========

> Well, I was already considering statement A to be incorrect, meaning that man would have an unknown past, much different from what he ever had imagined. But one could change the focus from A to C, questioning if Natural Selection was really the main evolution process. I'm not saying, Natural Selection is incorrect and doesn't occur, but maybe it plays a much smaller role in man's evolution. Though it would still be the main determinant for animals, but not men? This does sound wierd, but let's bare with it for a while just for the sake of analysis.

Well, if we can postulate on the idea that there are other forces that determine evolution, then the A statement could still be valid and the "atlantis" dream can be but back in the cupboard for now, heheh. But then the question is what force? And why wouldn't it affect animals too? Mckenna describes in "Food of the Gods" that the food source could have had an impact, but I'm a bit skeptical of considering this as the main force, maybe a catalist though. Even Terence gives us hints to this when he metaphorically mentions the "Trojan Horse" for bringing the "elve's own agenda".

While this is just a philosophical view I had, my tendency is to think as the mind as being an agent that could direct evolution. Similarly to Lamarck's discarded theory of behavioral genetic inheritance. I don't think behaviorlly acquired physical characteristics would be genetically passed, as stated by Lamarck (an athlete would have strong children, or the Giraf developed long necks due to stretching it. But I seem to believe that the mind can...

Well, enough said for today. Thank you for the patience of those who managed to read til here!

Please send your comments and ideas. I look forward to it. I've got some other insights into Economics that I'd like to share with you guys. But don't what to bore you so let me know what you think.

Peace and Love,

James

Edited May 10, 2006 by James

[devance]

I agree with you.

Animals can change to adapt to a environment.

But cognitive [human] sex selection doesn't follow the rules for evolution.

At best theres a pheromone [smell] types recognition for a argument for natural selection.

But sex has a vast imaginary component.

I might really like a african pigmy for instance.

Might pheromones, might be personality.

Wouldn't matter if the offspring were smalller than usual.

.

[occidentalis]

Devance has got it. Sexual selection was a major driving force. It appears that our ancestors found youth attractive - therefore individuals that retained youthful characteristice (high straight foreheads, big eyes, small jaws) were the ones most likely to reproduce. Sexual selection, because it is consciously driven in each generation, produces a very strong selective pressure compared to normal environmental selection. Humans are considered neotonous - like axolotls, we actually reach sexual maturity while being otherwise physically immature. Maturity in our case would look much more apelike.

Note differences between infant and adult.

This sexual selection for neotony had the byproduct of producing larger craniums (perhaps this was synergised by sexual selection for intelligence in a mate). And there you go, in a short space of time our ancestors developed bigger crania, bigger brains, increased intelligence, and neotonous facial features.

[devance]

If cellullar regeneratioin occurs.

As five year old.

Are the oldies going to lust?

[Guest Warrioe-Sage]

Here are a couple of new ideas about the origins of man you might find interesting.

Where Did Humans Come From?

Evolution & Creationism

Stuart Wilde

February, 2006

There is a battle raging in America between the Christian right and scientists as to the origins of man. Some Christians take the Bible story of Genesis literally. They believe God made Adam and Eve six thousand years ago, and that all the animals and plants of the world began at that time. This theory is called creationism. So when presented with evidence that fossils have been laid down in sediment that is known to be millions of years old, the creationists say that it’s a trick to test their faith.

The scientists believe in the theory of evolution and Darwin’s survival of the fittest. So tall giraffes eat more leaves than shorter ones, so they survived to give birth to progeny that over time got taller and taller and that is why a giraffe is as tall as it is today. The evolutionists also believe that four billion years ago particles on earth clanged together randomly to form proteins and DNA molecules, and that from that 'particle-clang' process, single-cell life forms grew in a primordial soup of early earth to become humans.

Some believe that Darwin said that humans evolved from the apes. But that was misinformation put out by those that were antagonistic to Darwin’s theories that hoped to ridicule him into submission. In fact, Darwin never said that modern man ascended from the apes. He said there is a gap in the fossil record and that he did not know how modern man evolved.

The chance of particles bumping together to form the right amino acid chain to establish one life-sustaining protein are 10130 or 10 with one hundred and thirty zeros. Paul Davies who wrote The 5th Miracle says that life requires hundreds of thousands of proteins and the chances of them all coming together at random are 1040,000.

Then the odds that millions of protein molecules happen into existence by chance just as millions of DNA atoms also happened to become viable at the same instance, and that they bound together to form millions of species of animals, plants and insects here on earth, would be 10 to the power of all the zeros you could put down on a piece of paper between here and a distant galaxy.

The problem with the theory of evolution and the particle-clang theory is that it is mathematically fraught, and in terms of evolutionary scales the total of earth’s existence, four billion years, is not a very long time. Many believe there has not been enough time for the random clanging of particles to create life, never mind enough to form the human eye, or a finger nail, or fifty million animal, insect and plant species that exist or have existed on earth.

There is a third theory, called 'intelligent design'. It is akin to creationism in that it says that a superior intelligence created life on earth, but the followers of intelligent design don’t agree with the Christians’ six thousand-year time frame; they side with the evolutionists in believing life on earth is hundreds of millions of years old. (The oldest documented fossils of living animals are 540 million years old).

Some say it was God that designed life on earth and others say they don’t know who designed intelligent life except that it must have been a civilization that is older and superior to ours. Some believe that aliens placed us here as an experiment, and while no one can disprove the idea there isn’t any evidence for it either. The problem with the theory of aliens from another star system is they would also be living on an earth-like plant that sustains life that is in this universe, and that planet may not be any older than ours. So there is every chance that aliens from another system would not be any further forward than we are.

What is unexplainable is that modern man, Homo sapiens, suddenly appeared in the fossil record thirty thousand years ago. There is no fossil record of us having evolved from any other beings or animals, and there is no record of us having been here on earth before thirty thousand years ago. Modern man is not linked to the Neanderthals in any way whatsoever. So the fossil mystery gives rise to a speculation I call the "plopped-on-earth" theory. The question is what form of intelligence (if any) dropped us off here thirty thousand years ago.

The Fourth Alternative

The answer may be found in a fourth alternative, a transdimensional theory that says we weren’t exactly dropped off; but that we walked in from another dimension. We know from watching the Morph that this world is not solid and having seen transdimensional beings (Tall Boys) walk into this 3-D earth-plane from other dimensions, and having seen a human dematerialize out of here, I realized that the walk-in theory might be possible.

The problem with all the other theories of origins of man is that they look at the earth and humans as solid. Once you realize that the universe’s solidity is an illusion then it is perfectly feasible that a human could walk out of a multi-dimensional, non-solid, hyperspace into the 3-D earth plane.

Then particle-clang looks silly as the origins of our humanity and all of life on earth could well have begun in an eternal, twenty-six dimensional hyperspace that might have existed for trillions upon trillions of eons before this universe came into being, just 13.8 billions years ago. Humans could be very old, much older than the universe. It is also very possible that our Universe is just one of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of universes, that various human species have evolved in over timeframes that are so astronomical in length they boggle the mind.

©Stuart Wilde 2006

www.stuartwilde.com

Here below is a P.S. about the origins of man that I saw in the Mirror World.

The Origins of Man in the Mirror World-Aluna

February 2006

Stuart Wilde

The mystical Kogi people of northern Columbia called the Mirror World, the aluna. In the aluna there is a record of the origins of man on earth. In there, it is shown that man walked in naked from another dimension but he was initially unable to cope. It was as if his brain was not as yet activated to deal with a world of three dimensions and gravity, so he initially lay down on the ground and fell asleep.

While he slept a being came to him from another world and it placed six psilocybin mushrooms on his chest, three down one side and three down the other. When the man woke he found the mushrooms and being hungry, he ate them. A while later the mushroom’s affect took hold of him, and his brain that had been previously dormant, clicked into action and the man rose and stumbled off to find others who had also walked into this three dimensional plane on exactly the same day. I would presume women got here in the same way at the same time as the men.

What is fascinating is that the anthropologist and ethnobotanist Terrance McKenna, who wrote Gift of the Gods, knew about the mushroom activation of human consciousness theory but he did not discuss the walk-in theory. He believed humans evolved from a primitive state akin to automatons, and that they then took the mushroom they developed the self-aware conscious that we know today.

I have no idea how we will ever prove the walk-in theory because by its very nature it left no trace of what happened, but as creationism and evolutionism are open to question, it might be an idea to consider the possibility of walk-ins. A sophisticated form of the intelligent design theory might be right in the end as it doesn’t preclude walk-ins, and when dealing with other dimensions in hyper-space, one isn’t constrained by the tightness of a few billion years that particle-clang theory asks us to believe in.

I reckon we walked in here just as the animals and the insects did, and that life is trillions-upon-trillions of eons older than our rather new universe.

©Stuart Wilde 2006

www.stuartwilde.com

[occidentalis]

The evolutionists also believe that four billion years ago particles on earth clanged together randomly to form proteins and DNA molecules, and that from that 'particle-clang' process, single-cell life forms grew in a primordial soup of early earth to become humans.

The chance of particles bumping together to form the right amino acid chain to establish one life-sustaining protein are 10130 or 10 with one hundred and thirty zeros. Paul Davies who wrote The 5th Miracle says that life requires hundreds of thousands of proteins and the chances of them all coming together at random are 1040,000.

This is not correct. There are several competing theories of the origin of life. Some of them involve DNA, some proteins, some RNA, some metal-sulfide metabolic systems. There is no 'particle clang' theory. No one is proposing that life started by hundreds of thousands of proteins coming together at random. Rather, it happened incrementally and synergistically by bootstrapping itself to increasingly high levels of 'evolvability' and of course self-reproducibility. IMO the RNA and metal-sulfide metabolism theories are probably closest to the truth. These two systems may have evolved independently and found that they benefited from each other's presence, thus forming the first simple self-reproducing metabolic system.

The problem with the theory of evolution and the particle-clang theory is that it is mathematically fraught, and in terms of evolutionary scales the total of earth’s existence, four billion years, is not a very long time. Many believe there has not been enough time for the random clanging of particles to create life, never mind enough to form the human eye, or a finger nail, or fifty million animal, insect and plant species that exist or have existed on earth.

There was no life on earth for millions of years, and then there was only prokaryotic life for around a billion years. The human eye was not formed by a 'random clanging of molecules'. It was formed by gradual, incremental improvement over hundreds of millions of years. All the species of cichlids in lake Tanganikya evolved in the last 5000 years. Evolution can happen very quickly under appropriate conditions.

What is unexplainable is that modern man, Homo sapiens, suddenly appeared in the fossil record thirty thousand years ago. There is no fossil record of us having evolved from any other beings or animals, and there is no record of us having been here on earth before thirty thousand years ago. Modern man is not linked to the Neanderthals in any way whatsoever. So the fossil mystery gives rise to a speculation I call the "plopped-on-earth" theory. The question is what form of intelligence (if any) dropped us off here thirty thousand years ago.

It's not 'unexplainable'. It may be unexplained to some extent, but much of it has been explained. Firstly, where did he get 30 000 years (30KA) from? It's around 200KA. There are many other species of Homo, not just H. neanderthalensis, most of which are sister species to us or our ancestors, but some were our ancestors themselves.

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

The answer may be found in a fourth alternative, a transdimensional theory that says we weren’t exactly dropped off; but that we walked in from another dimension. We know from watching the Morph that this world is not solid and having seen transdimensional beings (Tall Boys) walk into this 3-D earth-plane from other dimensions, and having seen a human dematerialize out of here, I realized that the walk-in theory might be possible.

While I am open to all sorts of possibilities as to the origin of life and/or humans, including walking in from another dimension, I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion of how life or humans actually evolved. It is the same as the theory of panspermia to explain the origin of life on earth. This theory suggests that simple life originated elsewhere - deep space, on mars, wherever - and was carried to earth where it multiplied and evolved. That's quite possible, but it says nothing about how elements and simple molecules combined to form self replicating homeostatic systems, which is the big question. All the 'walk-in' or panspermia theories do is move the problem to 'somewhere else'.

Warrioe-Sage, this is a field of research in which there are many people who have dedicated their lives to understanding and increasing knowledge. Perhaps rather than cutting and pasting from Stuart Wilde, you could actually read what some of these people are doing and contribute your thoughts on that to the conversation.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and girrafes did not evolve long necks to eat more leaves, as is evidenced by the fact that they usually eat from branches towards the lower end of their potential reach. It is thought that a form of sexual selection in which the males used their heads as clubs in competition for mates selected for long necks.

Edited May 11, 2006 by creach

[devance]

followers of intelligent design don’t agree with the Christians’ six thousand-year time frame

[MORG]

I'm not sure I understood all of your points on first read James, but I agree with Creach in that you are ignoring a very major and critical part of our environment: ourselves. Living socially provided us with increased individual survival (helping each other, dilution of risk in numbers etc.) however social living really cranks up the ratchet of differential reproduction. The strongest selective agent (ie. that which produces the most dramatic change in the gene pool for the next generation) in socially living species is the selection they impose on one another.

Creach's point on human neoteny is a good example of this, although I'm not sure if this theory has been backed up by enough real evidence yet. Consider the peacock's tail. This is a very major physical characteristic which seems to have evolved in flippant disregard for the bird's physical environment. Large, chubby, ground dwelling birds who share the forests of India with predators like the tiger really ought not to advertise themselves and hinder escape through the brush with such an opulent display as the peacock's tail. Nevertheless, it has happened and this is because of the extreme sexual selection imposed by female peacocks and the lek mating system they engage in.

I suppose my main point is that there's alot more to natural selection than simple environmental pressure on different phenotypes.

The point Warrioe-sage makes about the chances of life arising by (insert whatever biogenesis theory you care to suscribe to here) being so astronomically unlikely that it can't be possible is a flawed argument. I think it's called something like the anthropic principle (corrections?).

Logically, the chance of me being here now, given that I am here now, is one.

Similarly, the chance that life evolves on this planet, given that life has evolved on this planet, is one.

This is not an argument for evolution by natural selection, rather a demonstration that mathematical improbability is not an argument against it.

I tend not to get into discussions of filling the gaps in science's knowledge with unscientific theories of alien civilisations, trans-dimensional worlds or an "Intelligent Designer". The gaps in science's knowledge are just that. And that's what keeps millions of scientists around the world working.

I believe that is one of the beauties of science.

[MORG]

Oh, and while not "Natural selection" you may also want to consider that all our breeds of domestic dog have descended from a wolf ancestor very recently. The estimates vary but 15,000 years ago is one commonly cited time of divergence. Whatever the case, this startling array of dog forms have evolved while we've been there to guide it.

Evolution can act very rapidly at times.

[devance]

A interesting and informative post.

---------------------------------------------

What would keep me from mating with a african pigmy is the language difference.

Sort of the tower of babylon biblical event result.

Where they suddenly are split into many tribes because of a inflicted language differentiation where they can't communicate with all the others.

-------------------------------------------------

I'll go with multidimensional creation for the human race, just two in the beginning.

According to the bible nature been cursed so statistical events are the norm. According to the bible that was somehow to have been for our benefit.

[folias]

I'm reading "the future of man" by Teilhard de Chardin at the moment... in terms of evolutionary analysis, he is da man!

Julian.

[wandjina]

I'm gonna be a pain in the arse and question this whole 'man' thing? I was under the impression this terminology was generally regarded as laughably out of touch and anachronistic...personally I prefer humanity.

[MORG]

I'm gonna be a pain in the arse and question this whole 'man' thing?

Yeah, fair enough. Old habits die hard I guess.

My feelings are that in this context the word "man" has taken on the different meaning and transcended it's gender specificity. It's a homonym.

But maybe I'm being a hopeless romantic in denial of the rude truth of patriarchy.

[ballzac]

I'm sorry to break the news, but the word human - and hence humanity - comes from Latin and is a derivation of homo = man. In fact, the word man only began to be used to mean adult male circa 1000AD. Before then it meant mankind, as it also does now. So, use the terms man, mankind, humanity, or homo sapiens, and you're basically saying exactly the same thing, and none of these terms are exclusively masculine in this context.

-Zac

Edited May 12, 2006 by ballzac

[devance]

The irony of Gehanna is that, during the time of Christ, it was Jerusalem’s garbage dump, quite similar to today’s landfills -- probably full of pits and smoldering flames from burning refuse.

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/g/gehenna.html

Theres lots of ironys not the least language.

U.S politicals s the best example.

If hadn't made ones bones by the military not a patriot.

[CaptAmazing]

I think that the creation of machines/technology halted the evolution of man. The basis of my argument is that it allows the "weaker" versions of human genes to procreate when naturally in the wild they would have died.

Examples are anything assisting birth and babies to live, fat people and cars, medicine, etc.

Technology made it easy for humans to live without adapting because they just adapted their environment to them.

[ballzac]

I agree with that one-hundred percent (not that I would wish death upon sick babies), but also, the rate of change in technology does not allow for adaptation. That is, by the time we have begun adapting (in the evolutionary sense), the world has already changed dramatically and we are now adapting to something else. The end result is that we make the environment adapt to us rather than vice versa.

[MORG]

I think that the creation of machines/technology halted the evolution of man.

I think our technology has changed the evolution of our species, not halted it. One major misinterpretation of evolutionary theory is that it results in "better" versions of individuals. "Better" is a totally subjective interpretation on our own part. Evolution is not a ladder, the top of which we ride.

Evolution is simply a change in gene frequencies from generation to generation. In a static environment, given a very large population with totally random mating, no mutation, no migration, these gene frequencies shouldn't change. (For more detail look at Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy_Weinberg_Equilibrium)

Therefore, if technology acts to assist the reproduction of those that normally wouldn't reproduce then technology is changing the gene frequencies between generations. That is evolution.

There's no halting it. You could argue that as a species we are becoming less dependant on our natural environment through our own cultural evolution (which I think you'd agree with) but this does not mean evolution stops. Maybe it is becoming more subject to the environments we create rather than those we don't.

[occidentalis]

I think our technology has changed the evolution of our species, not halted it.

Agreed

and don't forget that 'we' - as in those members of the species rich and fortunate enough to be in the socioeconomic situation where this discussion can be had - are the minority. The rest are still subject to the same natural selection our species always has been.

[devance]

Well as a tool making being any tool including advanced forms of medical treatment is in order.

Anything else is:

Sort of saying theres a primary form that can withstand any pressure [As in chemical or heavy metal, biological , or radioactive -stress kill points].

There vaccines that have preserved many a life as a tool result.

Acculmative genetic error are of little signifcance in comparison.

A genetic study of the Amish religion has revealed an hotbed of a autistic gene.

But thats a inclosed community that shuns[cuts all contact] any member thats thinks otherwise.

Genetic sellection in action and not a good one.

[PD.]

Oh, and while not "Natural selection" you may also want to consider that all our breeds of domestic dog have descended from a wolf ancestor very recently. The estimates vary but 15,000 years ago is one commonly cited time of divergence. Whatever the case, this startling array of dog forms have evolved while we've been there to guide it.

Evolution can act very rapidly at times.

While i agree that 15,000 years is a very short time for all the breeds of dogs to descend from one ancestor. I dont beleive that is has anything to do with evolution, rather the selective breeding by man to create the animal suitable for his purpose, whatever that may be.

[Hagakure]

i actually read some article a while ago that was tracing the evolution of 2 genes that had obviously been selected for quite recently. one appeared to have started and been selected for in northen africans and another in central europe. and there must be more. evolution is still occuring. after all mating is not random, mutations are happening and while there is migration in places like australia many other countries are primarily one race.

of course any of this science tracking one gene within a race (and i think these genes were associated with brain development) is stepping into some dangerous territory.

there are a whole lot of people just waiting to jump on some data like this to claim that their race is superior or whatever other bullshit.

as for technology - that is where the future of evolution lies. artificial intelligence will evolve at a rate we can onlty draem of with the constraints of our hardware (the brain).

we are a stepping stone to bring about the next level.

but then again look at what forum i am on - the majority of you know this already im sure

[occidentalis]

While i agree that 15,000 years is a very short time for all the breeds of dogs to descend from one ancestor. I dont beleive that is has anything to do with evolution, rather the selective breeding by man to create the animal suitable for his purpose, whatever that may be.

As I mentioned above, an even more extreme example is the explosive radiation of cichlid fishes in the rift lakes in eastern Africa. These lakes formed around 5000 years ago in an earthquake. A small number of species washed into them, bred, and were able to evolve to fill every conceivable ecological niche in the lakes. There are now hundreds of species in the lakes (each lake has it's own species), all of which have evolved within the last 5000 years.

Selective breeding is evolution. Selection by a conscious agent is a very strong evolutionary force, but that is about the only difference between it and 'natural' selection.

[PD.]

As I mentioned above, an even more extreme example is the explosive radiation of cichlid fishes in the rift lakes in eastern Africa. These lakes formed around 5000 years ago in an earthquake. A small number of species washed into them, bred, and were able to evolve to fill every conceivable ecological niche in the lakes. There are now hundreds of species in the lakes (each lake has it's own species), all of which have evolved within the last 5000 years.

Selective breeding is evolution. Selection by a conscious agent is a very strong evolutionary force, but that is about the only difference between it and 'natural' selection.

Very good point, although i am not surprised at the rate at which the cichlids evolved. Fish generally produce a far larger amount of offspring therefore creating a larger range of diversity within each spawn. Have you ever had the oppurtunity to breed these fish? They are (mostly) highly territorial and protective of their young, thus a larger amount (compared to other non agressive species) survive to further diversify the species.

They are awesome to watch right through the breeding cycle, if you are into fish or aquariums i strongly suggest getting a few juveniles and see if any pair off, it is well worth it.

[PD.]

sorry, double post.

Edited May 13, 2006 by phleb