Current Events > Could we reverse evolution?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Porpoises reverse evolved to anatomically resemble fish. Could we reverse evolve into hairier, more ape-like hominids?
---

Technically there is no reverse evolution, it's just evolution.

And yes, there is the potential to evolve back into something like that however unlikely. There are reasons for evolving less intelligence (sloths did it to conserve energy because complex brains take up a lot), and we could re evolve fur once we become too dumb to make fur coats.
---

Arguably humanity's shift from physical traits being an evolutionary advantage to social ones is going backwards in some ways, but as weapon pointed out, all evolution is forward based on the changing needs of the species relative to its environment.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

re evolve fur once we become too dumb to make fur coats.

I never got why we lost our fur. we didn't start making coats till we lost our fur. so why did we lose our fur?

weapon_d00d816 posted...

Technically there is no reverse evolution, it's just evolution.

And yes, there is the potential to evolve back into something like that however unlikely. There are reasons for evolving less intelligence (sloths did it to conserve energy because complex brains take up a lot), and we could re evolve fur once we become too dumb to make fur coats.

that's not really evolving.
---

Sure, just look at the modern day liberal. No sense of self preservation and an inability to cognitively process simple information put in front of them.
---

Zikten posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

re evolve fur once we become too dumb to make fur coats.

I never got why we lost our fur. we didn't start making coats till we lost our fur. so why did we lose our fur?

Maintenance. Grooming fur is time consuming and losing it freed up time for building things and allowed for longer hunts (we were persistence-hunters so it was especially important to not have those kinds of setbacks).
---

r4X0r posted...

Sure, just look at the modern day liberal. No sense of self preservation and an inability to cognitively process simple information put in front of them.

nice gimmick
---

r4X0r posted...

Sure, just look at the modern day liberal. No sense of self preservation and an inability to cognitively process simple information put in front of them.

Take a break.
---

Zikten posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

re evolve fur once we become too dumb to make fur coats.

I never got why we lost our fur. we didn't start making coats till we lost our fur. so why did we lose our fur?

I think it had to do with our bipedalism, also our hunter-gatherer ways. We have the most advanced sweat glands out of all mammals (which aided us in endurance hunting), which probably meant fur as ventilation was not as necessary. Our overly long head hair compared to other species seems to compensate.
---

We've already halted and modified it for humans and arguably other life forms on earth. Evolution no longer affects us. In fact, the most arguable factors in our development as a species have been sociological and cultural.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

We've already halted and modified it for humans and arguably other life forms on earth. Evolution no longer affects us. In fact, the most arguable factors in our development as a species have been sociological and cultural.

The human genome is 99.9% the same as it was pre-agriculture, so no, not really.
---

Tanoomba posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

We've already halted and modified it for humans and arguably other life forms on earth. Evolution no longer affects us. In fact, the most arguable factors in our development as a species have been sociological and cultural.

The human genome is 99.9% the same as it was pre-agriculture, so no, not really.

To be fair, from a genetic perspective 0.1% is significant
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

Maintenance. Grooming fur is time consuming and losing it freed up time for building things and allowed for longer hunts (we were persistence-hunters so it was especially important to not have those kinds of setbacks).

there was no force that said "hey, this is inconvenient, maybe if we lose it then we can have more free time!"

nor would it make sense that a child without fur was born and he was so good at building that all the girls wanted to have his babies

I find it odd how evolutionary explanations are often like yours where you make it sound like some logical being or the ones evolving where making some logical choice

it is supposed to be rather that a child is born with that trait and that trait gets passed around because it contributes to survival more

which would mean your explanation would make more sense if the ones with fur got stuck in rocks or began losing fights when their fur got pulled
---

Zikten posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

re evolve fur once we become too dumb to make fur coats.

I never got why we lost our fur. we didn't start making coats till we lost our fur. so why did we lose our fur?

There's a really weird theory behind that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis

Tanoomba posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

We've already halted and modified it for humans and arguably other life forms on earth. Evolution no longer affects us. In fact, the most arguable factors in our development as a species have been sociological and cultural.

The human genome is 99.9% the same as it was pre-agriculture, so no, not really.

Genetics are not the entire picture. Humans have recursive knowledge where we can accumulate knowledge and self reflect. This allows us to develop and advance as a collective even though our genetics are largely the same over time.

The tl;dr is that our genetics are a generic blueprint for increasing complexity and expertise in all areas.
---

weapon_d00d816 posted...

and we could re evolve fur once we become too dumb to make fur coats.

So monkeys figured out how to make coats and that's how humans evolved! We found the missing link!
---

I Like Toast posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

and we could re evolve fur once we become too dumb to make fur coats.

So monkeys figured out how to make coats and that's how humans evolved! We found the missing link!

---

I feel like people are confusing micro with macro evolution
---

technically no since evolution is a myth

darkphoenix181 posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

Maintenance. Grooming fur is time consuming and losing it freed up time for building things and allowed for longer hunts (we were persistence-hunters so it was especially important to not have those kinds of setbacks).

there was no force that said "hey, this is inconvenient, maybe if we lose it then we can have more free time!"

nor would it make sense that a child without fur was born and he was so good at building that all the girls wanted to have his babies

I find it odd how evolutionary explanations are often like yours where you make it sound like some logical being or the ones evolving where making some logical choice

it is supposed to be rather that a child is born with that trait and that trait gets passed around because it contributes to survival more

which would mean your explanation would make more sense if the ones with fur got stuck in rocks or began losing fights when their fur got pulled

But it is kind of like a designer.

The designer is less efficiency.

Lets say some pre humans wanted to move north, but their lack of fur prevented them.

All other animals adapt into new territory (new markets) at the speed of evolution. (built in adaptions)

Humans adapt at the speed of technology.

That's why humans are still evolving. We are just removing physical systems that are not as important any more to be built in.

Saves energy and resources. (like we cook food, so now our guts are not as good at (or protected from) raw meat)
---

To be honest, I'm kind of impressed that we managed to get this far in the topic without anyone blathering that medical care, fat people and welfare are "driving evolution backwards".
---

Unlikely. Thanks to modern medicine and with the advent of cybernetics, humanity's natural evolution has likely peaked already.
---

In other words, we don't need wings, and armor skin to be evolving.

Weak skin can be much more efficient if we live in a safe area, and you don't need wings if you have planes.
---

Notti posted...

In other words, we don't need wings, and armor skin to be evolving.

Weak skin can be much more efficient if we live in a safe area, and you don't need wings if you have planes.

in regards to evolution your statements here don't make sense

even if you have planes wings can contribute to a child not dying which is what leads it to pass on its genes

ex:
your mutant child has wings and your neighbors doesn't

the plane begins to crash and there are no parachutes

who lives to have sex and make babies? the one with wings does

and this is why your "it is like a designer" argument is bad

nothing is saying "do we need this? no? then remove it"
nothing actually says "this would be useful, lets make the creature have this" either

it comes to chance and how one offspring have a certain thing in that game of chance rolls a good dice and the other doesn't and loses

like the giraffe didn't get a long neck because his parents were like "wish we could reach those fruits at the top of the tree!" nor a did a force say "I think they need longer necks to get that food"

rather it was some just happened to have a long neck and that allowed them to not starve to death, or be much much healthier so that they were the choice breeders
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Notti posted...

In other words, we don't need wings, and armor skin to be evolving.

Weak skin can be much more efficient if we live in a safe area, and you don't need wings if you have planes.

in regards to evolution your statements here don't make sense

even if you have planes wings can contribute to a child not dying which is what leads it to pass on its genes

ex:
your mutant child has wings and your neighbors doesn't

the plane begins to crash and there are no parachutes

who lives to have sex and make babies? the one with wings does

and this is why your "it is like a designer" argument is bad

nothing is saying "do we need this? no? then remove it"
nothing actually says "this would be useful, lets make the creature have this" either

it comes to chance and how one offspring have a certain thing in that game of chance rolls a good dice and the other doesn't and loses

like the giraffe didn't get a long neck because his parents were like "wish we could reach those fruits at the top of the tree!" nor a did a force say "I think they need longer necks to get that food"

rather it was some just happened to have a long neck and that allowed them to not starve to death, or be much much healthier so that they were the choice breeders

You have to ask the question: "How often is that needed?"

Make it like a video game.

Let's say you have a human with out wings. It costs 22 energy to build that human.

Let's say you have a human with wings. It costs 33 energy to build that human.

You could build three 22 humans. Or two 33 energy humans.

So, is it worth adding wings to every single human, if they cost so much? Not really. Most people are local.

Same goes with giving everyone super giant muscles.

It's a waste of resources. That's the key, that people who think we are "devolving" or not evolving at all, miss. (think of it as running an efficient company. Adding more features isn't necessarily efficient overall if it goes to waste on most people)
---

Notti posted...

You have to ask the question: "How often is that needed?"

Make it like a video game.

Let's say you have a human with out wings. It costs 22 energy to build that human.

Let's say you have a human with wings. It costs 33 energy to build that human.

You could build three 22 humans. Or two 33 energy humans.

So, is it worth adding wings to every single human, if they cost so much? Not really. Most people are local.

Same goes with giving everyone super giant muscles.

It's a waste of resources. That's the key, that people who think we are "devolving" or not evolving at all, miss.

in evolution

who or what is saying "oh my goodness! so much resources being wasted!" ?

if the people with wings aren't dying and are having children fine, then why would they stop having wings?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

in evolution

who or what is saying "oh my goodness! so much resources being wasted!" ?

if the people with wings aren't dying and are having children fine, then why would they stop having wings?

Competition.

The guys with wings need to spend a lot of time eating for those wings, taking care of those delicate wings, growing those wings.

You could better allocate that luxurious spending into making new humans, or surviving a famine.

(think of it as running an efficient company. Adding more features isn't necessarily efficient overall if it goes to waste on most people. You could give every employee 3000 dollar chairs, but why bother when 300 dollar ones are fine)
---

I would have to go with cyborgs *giving us a new life. We are not independent of technology, just like seagulls depend on fishing boats.
---

Notti posted...

Competition.

The guys with wings need to spend a lot of time eating for those wings, taking care of those delicate wings, growing those wings.

You could better allocate that luxurious spending into making new humans, or surviving a famine.

(think of it as running an efficient company. Adding more features isn't necessarily efficient overall if it goes to waste on most people. You could give every employee 3000 dollar chairs, but by bother when 300 dollar ones are fine)

it is not that simple

for instance, in our current society a man who consumers more food (The Rock eats like 5 meals a day) and woman who requires more maintenance is the choice mate to make kids with

that is the bottom line

unless the wings make it less likely for them to have kids or makes it easier for them to die, then it doesn't matter

maintenance has nothing to do with other than possibly contributing to making them less desirable or making them more likely to die

but that depends on the current environment

you can't just say the entity with more maintenance is less fit

if that were true then we as a species wouldn't exist right?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Notti posted...

Competition.

The guys with wings need to spend a lot of time eating for those wings, taking care of those delicate wings, growing those wings.

You could better allocate that luxurious spending into making new humans, or surviving a famine.

(think of it as running an efficient company. Adding more features isn't necessarily efficient overall if it goes to waste on most people. You could give every employee 3000 dollar chairs, but by bother when 300 dollar ones are fine)

it is not that simple

for instance, in our current society a man who consumers more food (The Rock eats like 5 meals a day) and woman who requires more maintenance is the choice mate to make kids with

that is the bottom line

unless the wings make it less likely for them to have kids or makes it easier for them to die, then it doesn't matter

maintenance has nothing to do with other than possibly contributing to making them less desirable or making them more likely to die

but that depends on the current environment

you can't just say the entity with more maintenance is less fit

if that were true then we as a species wouldn't exist right?

I didn't say they were definitely less fit.

And wings aren't necessarily the best example of wasteful spending.

You also need to see that evolution is blind and doesn't just decide "aha! These little dudes need wings. Poof! Wings!"

"Poof! Wings on The Rock" isn't evolution, that's more like technology.

Think of it over 100s of thousands of years, and each change is a step up and trade off with another feature (and/or a cost increase)

Wings might be a good feature, but for evolution to work... it needs time. (test test test and retest in blind attempts)
---

Notti posted...

You also need to see that evolution is blind and doesn't just decide "aha! These little dudes need wings. Poof! Wings!"

that is what I am arguing
you were arguing "but no, we have to weigh the costs"
if it is blind, costs aren't weighed

Notti posted...

Think of it over 100s of thousands of years, and each change is a step up and trade off with another feature (and/or a cost increase)

see, there is no such thing as a step up

there is no ultimate goal to be the ultimate creature

the point is just to be able to survive in the current environment

you can't say humans are more evolved than cockroaches and vice versa

rather, when one stops existing and the other continues you just say one got selected
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Notti posted...

You also need to see that evolution is blind and doesn't just decide "aha! These little dudes need wings. Poof! Wings!"

that is what I am arguing
you were arguing "but no, we have to weigh the costs"
if it is blind, costs aren't weighed

The results of competition weigh the costs. (roll two boulders down a natural hill)

Like I said earlier, humans now move at the speed of technology. Not evolution.

We've probably taken the wing analogy beyond it's usefulness.

Notti posted...

Think of it over 100s of thousands of years, and each change is a step up and trade off with another feature (and/or a cost increase)

see, there is no such thing as a step up

there is no ultimate goal to be the ultimate creature

the point is just to be able to survive in the current environment

you can't say humans are more evolved than cockroaches and vice versa

rather, when one stops existing and the other continues you just say one got selected

A step up could be stated as "this change gets this species more resources/food overall"

Video game analogy: Like, if a species has +10 armor skin, but +9 armor skin is much cheaper, and still does ok. Then the species will stay at +9 armor skin.

Is that a gradual enough video game analogy?

Anyways, here:

Competition.

The guys with wings need to spend a lot of time eating for those wings, taking care of those delicate wings, growing those wings.

You could better allocate that luxurious spending into making new humans, or surviving a famine.

(think of it as running an efficient company. Adding more features isn't necessarily efficient overall if it goes to waste on most people. You could give every employee 3000 dollar chairs, but why bother when 300 dollar ones are fine)

You say it isn't that simple, but it pretty much is.
---

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/whats-the-problem-with-unguided-evolution/

Not to beat a dead horse (I think its still alive), but I vehemently oppose those evolutionists and accommodationists who wont affirm that evolution is unguided and purposeless (in the sense of not being directed by a higher intelligence or teleological force). For to the best of our knowledge evolution, like all natural processes, is purposeless and unguided. After all, scientists have no problem saying that the melting of glaciers, the movement of tectonic plates, or the decay of atoms are processes that are unguided and purposeless.

But evolution is, as far as we can tell, purposeless and unguided. There seems to be no direction, mutations are random, and we havent detected a teleological force or agent that pushes it in one direction. And its important to realize this: the great importance of Darwins theory of natural selection is that an unguided, purposeless process can nevertheless produce animals and plants that are exquisitely adapted to their environment. Thats why its called natural selection, not supernatural selection or simply selection.

that is to say, if a monkey puts on a fur coat, this doesn't mean he would lose his fur

for that to happen it would need to impact his ability to produce and survive

he wouldn't start pumping out furless children or those with less fur either, they would come randomly, not like a trigger because he put on a coat

and how would that even work? if he gets too hot in the coat it would just be that the monkey not wearing a coat would survive and those who started putting on coats would die from overheating

like, his fur wouldn't start magically receding because his body thinks "hmm, he is so warm in the coat he made, so we don't need this fur anymore...lets lose it..."

logically, the monkey with less or no fur would proceed the coat and his need for the coat is what caused him to steal another animals skin and wear it

and then he benefited from this in ways his furred brothers couldn't making him more successful
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

that is to say, if a monkey puts on a fur coat, this doesn't mean he would lose his fur

for that to happened it would need to impact his ability to produce and survive

he wouldn't start pumping out furless children or those with less fur either, they would come randomly, not like a trigger because he put on a coat

and how would that even work? if he gets too hot in the coat it would just be that the monkey not wearing a coat would survive and those who started putting on coats would die from overheating

like, his fur wouldn't start magically receding because his body thinks "hmm, he is so warm in the coat he made, so we don't need this fur anymore...lets lose it..."

logically, the monkey with less or no fur would proceed the coat and his need for the coat is what caused him to steal another animals skin and wear it

and then he benefited from this in ways his furred brothers couldn't making him more successful

Let's say we have two populations of monkeys in identical territories.

Group A gets no coats.

Group B gets stretching cleaning safe fur coats put on by us humans for life.

Group B will evolve less fur because during tougher times (maybe famine, or disease), the individuals in B with less fur will survive more. (some monkeys have lesser fur naturally, and if some don't some babies will have a mutation that causes less fun. Like turning off a light switch in an empty room to save electricity)

Why? Because Group B will be less overheated and making natural fur they don't need is a waste.

Extra wasteful costs, cut the fat. Which is in this case, the fur. They're getting fur coats for free, so why make costly fur. (and too much fur+coats = overheating)

But you might say "Who decided that?!?!" Population growth, less resources, competition.

It's actually pretty simple.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

weapon_d00d816 posted...

Maintenance. Grooming fur is time consuming and losing it freed up time for building things and allowed for longer hunts (we were persistence-hunters so it was especially important to not have those kinds of setbacks).

there was no force that said "hey, this is inconvenient, maybe if we lose it then we can have more free time!"

nor would it make sense that a child without fur was born and he was so good at building that all the girls wanted to have his babies

I find it odd how evolutionary explanations are often like yours where you make it sound like some logical being or the ones evolving where making some logical choice

it is supposed to be rather that a child is born with that trait and that trait gets passed around because it contributes to survival more

which would mean your explanation would make more sense if the ones with fur got stuck in rocks or began losing fights when their fur got pulled

There was a mutation. If it provided a benefit to populations, it would eventually appear so often that it becomes the dominant trait.
---

r4X0r posted...

Sure, just look at the modern day liberal. No sense of self preservation and an inability to cognitively process simple information put in front of them.

Puh-leeze.
---

Notti posted...

and if some don't some babies will have a mutation that causes less fun.

see, here is the problem with your understanding of how it works

contrast your definitive statement of "this will absolutely happen no questions asked"

with the article I quoted above:

darkphoenix181 posted...

There seems to be no direction, mutations are random

What does random mean? It means that you cannot say that a baby will mutate to have less fur. Infact, they might randomly mutate to have MORE fur.

Evolution doesn't coddle these monkeys. It could very well be that giving them a coat leads to their extinction.

---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Notti posted...

and if some don't some babies will have a mutation that causes less fun.

see, here is the problem with your understanding of how it works

contrast your definitive statement of this will absolutely happen no questions asked

with the article I quoted above:

darkphoenix181 posted...

There seems to be no direction, mutations are random

What does random mean? It means that you cannot say that a baby will mutate to have less fur. Infact, they might randomly mutate to have MORE fur.

Evolution doesn't coddle these monkeys. It could very well be that giving them a coat leads to their extinction.

Some mutations will give more fur.

Some mutations will give less fur.

The only constant is more change, variation, diversity. (and mutations that cause too many costly changes die. But still, many random mutations are neutral, some are good, and necessary for progress. Standing still (no mutations) just means you fall behind in competition with your resource neighbors, and predators, and diseases)
---

Notti posted...

Some mutations will give more fur.

Some mutations will give less fur.

do you not understand random chances?

there is no list that is being gone through where something says "give that baby less fur" CHECK
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Notti posted...

Some mutations will give more fur.

Some mutations will give less fur.

do you not understand random chances?

there is no list that is being gone through where something says "give that baby less fur" CHECK

That's right. The mutation is random and blind. 8 babies will get no changes or neutral changes. 1 baby might get more fur. 1 more baby might get less fur.

(The more fur baby will be less successful. The less fur baby will be more successful.)

Then repeat with the new generation.

Then repeat. Then repeat. Then repeat.

Each generation become a better fit (survival of the fittest) to their environment.
---

Notti posted...

That's right. The mutation is random and blind. 8 babies will get no changes or neutral changes. 1 baby might get more fur. 1 more baby might get less fur.

or no baby gets less fur and they all die off

Notti posted...

Each generation become a better fit (survival of the fittest) to their environment.

a misconception
the selections can lead to the death of a species

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

However, this impression is incorrect. Natural selection has no foresight or intentions. In general, natural selection simply selects among individuals in a population, favoring traits that enable individuals to survive and reproduce, yielding more copies of those individuals' genes in the next generation. Theoretically, in fact, a trait that is advantageous to the individual (e.g., being an efficient predator) could become more and more frequent and wind up driving the whole population to extinction (e.g., if the efficient predation actually wiped out the entire prey population, leaving the predators without a food source).

---

Nor does evolution towards complexity necessarily mean greater competitive advantage. Some of the most successful survivors have been the simplest organisms.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Notti posted...

That's right. The mutation is random and blind. 8 babies will get no changes or neutral changes. 1 baby might get more fur. 1 more baby might get less fur.

or no baby gets less fur and they all die off

OK?

In a large population lots of mutations can happen.

http://statedclearly.com/articles/human-mutation-rate-how-many-dna-mutations-happen-each-generation/

A 2011 study in Nature Genetics examined the genomes of two human families and found that children in the study had an average of 42 unique mutations.

Every child has many mutations their parents didn't have.

And 99% of species that ever existed are extinct, going back and reading weapond00ds explanation in your first comment, I don't see how you refuted it.

Notti posted...

Each generation become a better fit (survival of the fittest) to their environment.

a misconception
the selections can lead to the death of a species

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php

However, this impression is incorrect. Natural selection has no foresight or intentions. In general, natural selection simply selects among individuals in a population, favoring traits that enable individuals to survive and reproduce, yielding more copies of those individuals' genes in the next generation. Theoretically, in fact, a trait that is advantageous to the individual (e.g., being an efficient predator) could become more and more frequent and wind up driving the whole population to extinction (e.g., if the efficient predation actually wiped out the entire prey population, leaving the predators without a food source).

I think the misconception here is you thinking that applies to what I said.

Theoretically a natural predator (not humans) could become so efficient that it wipes out 100% (not 99%, 100%) of its prey in its home environment?

Theoretically. But unlikely.
---

Let's take an actual example of my explanation for losing fur.

Cave animals that lose their site.
---

Tanoomba posted...

Porpoises reverse evolved to anatomically resemble fish.

No they didn't.

Uh, you don't reverse evolve. You just evolve.

Unless nucleic acids are just outside the space-time continuum or something.
---

We lost most of our body hair, because we came off an ice age and it was no longer imperative to our survival to trap and retain warmth.
---

You simply evolve how you evolve. That's all there is to it.
---

NibeIungsnarf posted...

Tanoomba posted...

Porpoises reverse evolved to anatomically resemble fish.

No they didn't.

Yes they did.
---