Speed of evolution?

[mattikake]

On the news in the UK archeologists have claimed they have found the missing link between ape and upright walking early human. The age of the skull fossil is 3.3 million years.

The thought that enters my head is, is 3.3 million years long enough for an ape to naturally evolve into homo-sapien?

Does anyone know of examples of other animals that have evolved into something as roughly genetically different as a primitive ape is to man? To me 3.3 million seems rather quick for anything that isn't a genetically simple lifeform.

We only know evolution's speed will vary depending on enviroment and may not need to evolve quickly. So does this mean mass environmental changes, foul play or even support creationism?

(ok, I was joking re: creationism ;) ).

[Codec]

On the news in the UK archeologists have claimed they have found the a possible missing link between ape and upright walking early human. The age of the skull fossil is 3.3 million years.


Careful with that missing link term!


Does anyone know of examples of other animals that have evolved into something as roughly genetically different as a primitive ape is to man? To me 3.3 million seems rather quick for anything that isn't a genetically simple lifeform.


Nylon eating bacteria, took about 50 years to evolve I believe. Not sure if they are a separate species - but its a major change.

[Malachi151]

There is no "speed of evolution". Things don't change at some universal constant rate. There are more factors that we even know, and we know a lot, but we know that we don't know it all.

For example, generation time, mutation rates (which are affected by temperature, radition, stress, size of genome, complexity of chromosome structure, etc.) type of sexuality (asexual, sexual (ability to self-fertilize, ability to easily hybridize with "other species": both common in plants), etc.

We now know that "evolution" does occur faster in the tropics and slows down as you approach the poles, the actual rate of change from generation to generation is higher in the tropics, etc.

[mattikake]

We now know that "evolution" does occur faster in the tropics and slows down as you approach the poles, the actual rate of change from generation to generation is higher in the tropics, etc.

I didn't know that. I assume this is either (and probably both) that the environment is more variable more quickly in the tropics and the tropics are warmer so less energy needs to go towards a means of keeping warm. The energy can be more devoted to reproducing and competing.

[Malachi151]

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060501_tropics_evo.html

[patchy]

On the news in the UK archeologists have claimed they have found the missing link between ape and upright walking early human. The age of the skull fossil is 3.3 million years.

Ugh. That "missing link" business is regrettable; it represents sloppy journalism more than it does good science. (Our media are no better about it; on the way home last night, I heard the specimen repeatedly referred to as "Lucy's baby." How quaint.)

Species evolve along a gradual continuum, not sharply defined, static "links."
A length of chain CAN be "missing a link" and thus be literally disconnected until the key, missing link is found and inserted. But the evolution of an organism is much better represented by a length of tightly woven rope.

A length of rope blends into one long continuous "path" that isn't as easily or neatly deconstructed as a chain made of individual links.




The thought that enters my head is, is 3.3 million years long enough for an ape to naturally evolve into homo-sapien?

The obvious answer would be, "evidently it is." So...Yes. :D

In fact, a long and drawn-out answer wouldn't significantly improve that answer...it would just be long and drawn out.

3.3 million years, it should be kept in mind, is still a hell of a long time. The human mind struggles to even keep a stretch of time like that in perspective--even the relatively short time (in context) of 3 million years is almost literally incomprehensible to us. We're so calibrated to our own generational lifespans that really deep time taxes our imaginations to the limits.



Does anyone know of examples of other animals that have evolved into something as roughly genetically different as a primitive ape is to man?

It's more that they're roughly genetically similar than different, though.

Many thousands of animals have evolved into forms that are far more genetically diverse than are "primitive apes" and man. (Some of them might have taken longer to do it, but...examples of what you're asking for abound.)




To me 3.3 million seems rather quick for anything that isn't a genetically simple lifeform.

Aside from that quote being an almost textbook example of an argument from incredulity..."genetically simple lifeform" is problematic.

There are species of jellyfish that are far more "genetically complex" than are humans, if one is just "gene-counting." I wouldn't call an ape a genetically simple lifeform...but then, I wouldn't call a pelican one, either.

The genome of the common mouse isn't that much shorter than that of humans, for that matter: about 2.5 billion letters for the mouse compared to 2.9 billion in the human. In the same ballpark, as it were. (Some 90 percent of the genes responsible for various diseases are identical in men and mice, which is why labs use so many mice to test for cures in the first place.)





We only know evolution's speed will vary depending on enviroment and may not need to evolve quickly. So does this mean mass environmental changes, foul play or even support creationism?

(ok, I was joking re: creationism ;) ).


Hominid evolution doesn't seem "suspiciously" fast or warrant any sort of special explanation; it's not "out of sync" with the evolution of any number of other branches on the tree of life. If there's anything unique about hominid development that served to "speed up" the pace of evolution, I would say it would be the acquisition of speech. Language was a "boost" to our evolution that perhaps calls out special consideration.

Other than that...those of us who were most fit were able to successfully reproduce and pass on inheritable traits and yadda yadda yadda. ;)

[flashbaby]

Its still at least 350 ish generations ( if you use creationist logic of 900+ year lives before "the fall") or 100 000 ish generations for those us with some sense.

[mattikake]

NB: I'm well aware that speciation takes many branches and there are certainly several "missing links" toward human evolution. There was no direct route from ape to man and that there probably would've been many homonid species living at the same time. Hence I said "claim". Didn't realise I had to be quite that sensitive in how I worded that thought... so PLEASE stop picking up on that! It's nit-picky of paranoid proportions! :p

Anyway, I guess the main question is, is there a good example of tracing other evolution species and datelines - even a database of such that has been discovered so far.

E.g. how long it took the latest sabre-toothed cats to evolve into the modern feline (if they took that route at all)? There were many versions of fossil found spread over roughly 10 million years. There are evolutionary changes, but many are small and the difference between first and last Sabre tooth is one of physical and brain size, other than that they seem very similar to look at. To put the query into perspective: A modern cat doesn't walk on two legs.

More thought is that the sabre-tooth took a similar evolutionary route to the dinosaurs. They get generally bigger and slower (and in the sabre-tooth, more stupid) in order to be successful. Look at T-Rex. Simple evolutionary sense says it didn't need to run fast or be clever in order to eat. It just had to have a good nose to find food and be bigger than the dinosaur that made the kill. The rest is easy.

Obviously you can't list every evolutionary instance of species in a post.

It could be said that man appears to be in the minority as an animal that got faster and smarter than it's ape ancestors.

[Codec]

Check out foxes->dogs (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0208_050208_foxes.html)... well sort of.

About 45 years to make substantial difference to behaviour. Granted this is not "natural" selection, but it shows how quickly things can change given the right environment.

[patchy]

It could be said that man appears to be in the minority as an animal that got faster and smarter than it's ape ancestors.

Dolphins spring to mind pretty quickly, too. They became much more streamlined (hence faster) and apparently smarter as well...developing what could arguably be called language skills.

And while we're undoubtedly "smarter" than our ape ancestors (even granting that intelligence is a rather nebulous term), I'm not sure that we're necessarily "faster" or even more nimble. After all, they comfortably navigated trees, while we tend to come crashing down out of them. :D

Bottom line is, I don't think there's anything especially remarkable about the pace or "success" of hominid evolution compared to that of other lines...except maybe language as earlier noted. It'll be interesting to hear the experts weigh in on this, though...

[RBH]

Anyway, I guess the main question is, is there a good example of tracing other evolution species and datelines - even a database of such that has been discovered so far.Cichlids (http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/1998/3/depthscichlidfishes.cfm) (an overview). Hundreds of species evolved in ~12,000 years in LLake Victoria. See here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=9&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iiasa.ac.at%2FPublications%2FDocuments%2FIR-97-072.pdf&ei=HLgSRYPUC9DMigH41MmFCg&sig=__fR-pEyQq6_29c9E6_KOmW5qKrBo=&sig2=puwwxjqNr84KejIqAI3jDg#search=%22cichlids%20speciation%22) for a somewhat more scholarly summary (scroll down to page 7 of the pdf).

RBH

[SophistiCat]

E.g. how long it took the latest sabre-toothed cats to evolve into the modern feline (if they took that route at all)?

They didn't - it was a dead-end branch, apparently.

Based on molecular and other evidence, domestic cat lineage and leopard cat lineage diverged about 6 MY ago. Pumas, Lynxes, Ocelots, Caracals, Bay cats, and Pantheras diverged earlier, starting at about 11 MY (Johnson et al., Science 311(6):73-77 2006).

[Mike Elphick]

The thought that enters my head is, is 3.3 million years long enough for an ape to naturally evolve into homo-sapien?Hasn't the process of evolution itself evolved? I think this is often called evolution of evolvability. I'm wondering if the evolutionary process has actually speeded up to enable large animals and plants, of the types already mentioned in this thread, to evolve in such short timescales.

We know hardly anything about the first replicators, but there had to be a time when primary genes developed for metabolic functions etc. And that would not be by duplication and modification, but through what a software engineer might call brute force. Such evolution of the 'METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL' type had to occur in micro-organisms, which would have had the short life cycles and large population sizes to facilitate this type of evolution.

Then came mutilcellularity and the development of basic plant and animal cell types and tissues. That takes us up to the Pre-Cambrian. No wonder there was then a 'Cambrian Explosion' because evolution no longer had to rely on generating basic structures and metabolic pathways, but could proceed by re-arrangements of what had already developed. Evolution of the type seen today, in animal such as the cat family, would seem to consist of subtle changes in gene expression and timing, rather than the development of completely new genetic material. And that makes it a relatively fast process.

I've made it sound all a bit simplistic, but I think you can see what I'm getting at -- the process of evolution itself has speeded up and that has enabled large bodied animals (and plants?) with long lifecycles to evolve at a such a phenomenal rate.

[Hypersonic]

i can accept we evolved from apes. fine whatever. but for anyone to say we came from fish and are related to other species is just as huge of a leap of faith as religion is. quite the insult to the universe.

evolution has been able to explain a bit of how one species could evolve, but nothing close to the root of the unanswered question -- how life got here in the first place nor the reason for it's many different varieties of species.

evolution of a species is within the borders of reason, but if anyone can explain how a dog can have a fish as a distant relative of the past, i would appreciate that alot because I find that very amusing. :D

[David B]

i can accept we evolved from apes. fine whatever. but for anyone to say we came from fish and are related to other species is just as huge of a leap of faith as religion is. quite the insult to the universe.

evolution has been able to explain a bit of how one species could evolve, but nothing close to the root of the unanswered question -- how life got here in the first place nor the reason for it's many different varieties of species.

evolution of a species is within the borders of reason, but if anyone can explain how a dog can have a fish as a distant relative of the past, i would appreciate that alot because I find that very amusing. :D

The experts will no doubt be able to explain better than me.

Let's start with how we can tell that some rocks are older than others.

Generally younger rocks are on top of older rocks. There are some exceptions, like when the layers have been greatly folded, but this is a process that is understood.

Further, rocks can be dated with well established radio active decay techniques based on numbers of elements, which are also consistent with eavh other, and with well understood theory and laboratory observations.

So we have a good understanding of the ages of rocks.

Some rocks contain no fossils - like those formed from Lava. But sedimentary rocks do contain generally contain fossils.

The oldest ones which have fossils only have fossils of microscopic life.

Some, rather newer, contain macroscopic fossils, but ony ones which we can clearly deduce lived under water, and none of which had backbones.

At one point in time, fossils of the earliest backboned animal came to be.

Later still, lots of water dwelling animals had backbones, and some fossils show the signs of beginning to have the capability of surving out of the water.

Following that, fossils of land animals start to appear.

Later still, fossils ofthe first mammal appear.

Later, the first fossils with primate like features appear.

And later still, the first hominid fossils.

Can you work out for yourself where this is heading?

David B (suggests reading Dawkins 'Ancestor's Tale')

[RBH]

i can accept we evolved from apes. fine whatever. but for anyone to say we came from fish and are related to other species is just as huge of a leap of faith as religion is. quite the insult to the universe.The universe, not being a sentient entity, is incapable of feeling insulted. And the "huge leap of faith" is founded on empirical evidence from disciplines ranging from geology and paleontology to molecular biology. It is not a leap in the dark, as is the theist's leap of faith to a non-material supernatural entity called "god".

evolution has been able to explain a bit of how one species could evolve, but nothing close to the root of the unanswered question -- how life got here in the first place nor the reason for it's many different varieties of species.Abiogenesis -- the origin of life -- is a question in geochemistry and biochemistry, not evolutionary biology. The theory of evolution starts with a population of imperfect replicators with heritable variation. Just as Newtonian mechanics does not explain the origin of planets but only their motion, so evolutionary theory does not explain the origin of life, only its diversification.

evolution of a species is within the borders of reason, but if anyone can explain how a dog can have a fish as a distant relative of the past, i would appreciate that alot because I find that very amusing. :DThe dog and fish had the same great-great-great ... -great grand-ancestor. They're distant cousins, just as we are distant cousins (about 250,0000th cousins, IIRC) of chimpanzees.

RBH

[patchy]

i can accept we evolved from apes. fine whatever. but for anyone to say we came from fish and are related to other species is just as huge of a leap of faith as religion is. quite the insult to the universe.

Then it's "an insult to the universe" to suggest that the supersonic F-15 Eagle fighter can trace its lineage back to the rickety canvas-covered Wright Flyer, but yet it's true.

It seems inconceivable that these two aircraft, night and day different, could possibly be connected or related, so great are their differences. The F-15 carries two afterburning engines which each generate about 15,000 pounds of static thrust, and it can go anywhere in the world, at two-and-a-half times the speed of sound, and hit any target it wants to with laser-guided or radar-guided weapons, day or night, with pinpoint precision. The Wright Brothers' first airplane flew 120 feet in a straight line on its maiden flight, which lasted about 12 seconds. With a tailwind, the thing might have made its top speed of about 30 mph. The two airplanes are as different as...a man and a fish. ;)

It's easier to accept (like your willingness to believe ape-to-man) that the F-15 is a direct descendant of the jet fighters that immediately preceded it. The F-15 is a "step up" in many regards from, say, the F-4 Phantom--but...the difference is one of degree. They're both "in the same ballpark."

But once you understand that the F-15 "evolved from" the F-4 Phantom, and the F-4 "evolved from" the F-106, and the the F-106 "evolved from" the F-102, and the F-102 "evolved from" the F-86, and the F-86 "evolved from" the P-80, and the P-80 "evolved from" the P-51, and the P-51 "evolved from" the P-40, and...you get it? A few more steps back, through the various bi-plane fighters of the 1930's and then backwards a bit more into World War One, and then you arrive back in time to 1903, at Wilbur and Orville Wright's little contraption that was barely capable of sustained flight.

And the difference between the Wright Flyer and the F-15 is only 80 years. In a single human lifetime, that humble little "species" grew to become almost unrecognizably more complex. And like all analogies, this one isn't perfect, but...the process isn't drastically different, either. The "successes" were kept and "passed on," while the failures were weeded out...in both instances.

You say you can accept that man came from apes. That's good, because we did. :D

Now it just becomes the following matter of common sense:

--where did apes come from?

--and where did THAT animal come from?

--and where did THAT animal come from?

Follow that chain backwards for a few million years, and...you're getting somewhere. ;)

Just like going backwards in time through all the fighter planes, each distinct step along the way, whether "P-51" or "Ray-finned fish", came from something prior.


evolution has been able to explain a bit of how one species could evolve, but nothing close to the root of the unanswered question -- how life got here in the first place nor the reason for it's many different varieties of species.

Evolution doesn't know or particularly care how life got here in the first place. You want "abiogenesis," down the hall on the right.

And you couldn't be more wrong than to say that evolution hasn't been able to explain the "many different varieties of species." That is a textbook answer for precisely what it DOES do, and does so spectacularly well.



evolution of a species is within the borders of reason, but if anyone can explain how a dog can have a fish as a distant relative of the past, i would appreciate that alot because I find that very amusing. :D

If you find evolution of a species to be within the borders of reason, you must by definition find it reasonable to extend the chain backwards and realize that while a man and a fish look as different as, say, an F-15 and the Wright Flyer, the Wright Flyer didn't become the F-15 in one step.

And neither did a fish become a man in one step.

[JLK]

if anyone can explain how a dog can have a fish as a distant relative of the past, i would appreciate that alot because I find that very amusing.:DWould you find it very amusing if dogs descended from another synapsid mammal like Lycaenops (whose name means "wolf-face") of the late Permian 250,000,000 yrs ago?
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/synapsids/lycaenopssm.gifhttp://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/synapsids/lycaenopsskullsm.gif

Would you find it very amusing if Lycaenops descended from another synapsid something like Dimetrodon or Haptodus of the Carboniferous 50,000,000 yrs before that?
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/synapsids/pelycosaurs/dimetrodon.gifhttp://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6817/haptodusyd3.png

Would you find it very amusing if those pelycosaurs descended from something like Ichthyostega from the end of the Devonian 50,000,000 yrs before that?
http://www.earthhistory.co.uk/wp-content/IchthyostegaliaClack05.jpghttp://theclacks.org.uk/jac/images/ichthyostega.gif
http://tolweb.org/tree/ToLimages/ichthyostega_2copy.300a.jpg

Would you find it very amusing if something like that descended from something like Acanthostega from the mid-upper Devonian 25,000,000 yrs before that?
http://tolweb.org/tree/ToLimages/04_Acan_flesh_reconstruct.JPGhttp://tolweb.org/tree/ToLimages/03_Acan_skeleton_reconstr.JPG
Which relationship amuses your incredulity the most? We'll go from there.

[mattikake]

If you find evolution of a species to be within the borders of reason, you must by definition find it reasonable to extend the chain backwards and realize that while a man and a fish look as different as, say, an F-15 and the Wright Flyer, the Wright Flyer didn't become the F-15 in one step.

And neither did a fish become a man in one step.

I reckon like all those who embrace the fundamentalist type learning ("believers") he has decided to SAY he understands than ACTUALLY understands, in order to fit in, to be accepted by the crowd his psyche has targeted. This type of thinking hovers around the evolutionary need for social acceptance is exactly what makes a majority believe in something like a god that was invented by a minority all those years ago...

[Odin2006]

Cichlids (http://nationalzoo.si.edu/Publications/ZooGoer/1998/3/depthscichlidfishes.cfm) (an overview). Hundreds of species evolved in ~12,000 years in LLake Victoria. See here (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=9&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iiasa.ac.at%2FPublications%2FDocuments%2FIR-97-072.pdf&ei=HLgSRYPUC9DMigH41MmFCg&sig=__fR-pEyQq6_29c9E6_KOmW5qKrBo=&sig2=puwwxjqNr84KejIqAI3jDg#search=%22cichlids%20speciation%22) for a somewhat more scholarly summary (scroll down to page 7 of the pdf).

RBH

That doesn't sound right, what I've read said that Lake Victoria shrank into several small lakes during the last glacial period (80,000 to 10,000 years ago) and the speciation of the cichlid species occured in the isolated lakes.

[Odin2006]

Hasn't the process of evolution itself evolved? I think this is often called evolution of evolvability. I'm wondering if the evolutionary process has actually speeded up to enable large animals and plants, of the types already mentioned in this thread, to evolve in such short timescales.

We know hardly anything about the first replicators, but there had to be a time when primary genes developed for metabolic functions etc. And that would not be by duplication and modification, but through what a software engineer might call brute force. Such evolution of the 'METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL' type had to occur in micro-organisms, which would have had the short life cycles and large population sizes to facilitate this type of evolution.

Then came mutilcellularity and the development of basic plant and animal cell types and tissues. That takes us up to the Pre-Cambrian. No wonder there was then a 'Cambrian Explosion' because evolution no longer had to rely on generating basic structures and metabolic pathways, but could proceed by re-arrangements of what had already developed. Evolution of the type seen today, in animal such as the cat family, would seem to consist of subtle changes in gene expression and timing, rather than the development of completely new genetic material. And that makes it a relatively fast process.

I've made it sound all a bit simplistic, but I think you can see what I'm getting at -- the process of evolution itself has speeded up and that has enabled large bodied animals (and plants?) with long lifecycles to evolve at a such a phenomenal rate.

Actually, evolution-by module is common in microbes too, the only difference is that in microbes the modules are parts of metabolic pathways instead of body segments. Microbes can also get genes from other microbes by lateral gene transfer.

[RBH]

That doesn't sound right, what I've read said that Lake Victoria shrank into several small lakes during the last glacial period (80,000 to 10,000 years ago) and the speciation of the cichlid species occured in the isolated lakes.Yeah, but the paper I linked argued that wasn't the main source of the radiation:An old hypothesis on the importance of temporary geographical isolation of cichlid fishes in satellite lakes around Lake Victoria for speciation of cichlid fishes3 is no longer much in favour4,5. Such satellite lakes only have very few species of cichlids and can therefore not explain the bulk of the speciation events in Lake Victoria. More specifically, this hypothesis cannot explain the large diversity of rock species since there are no rocky islands in these satellite lakes and each group of rock islands in Lake Victoria has its own species assemblage.RBH

[Odin2006]

Yeah, but the paper I linked argued that wasn't the main source of the radiation:RBH

Ah, thanks.

[Mike Elphick]

Actually, evolution-by module is common in microbes too, the only difference is that in microbes the modules are parts of metabolic pathways instead of body segments. Microbes can also get genes from other microbes by lateral gene transfer.Yes, but you can appreciate the unfeasibility of such evolution (of protein-coding genes) in higher organisms where life cycles are so very much longer. (It's only since joining this forum that I have discovered alternative pathways of evolution.) Conversely, the difficulties faced by early life forms to evolve, when there was very little raw material to modify and re-work, seem immense. That explains why it took so long to get from the first living cells to the stage we find at the Pre-Cambrian. Depending on how you look at it, that surely must be the period when most evolution took place. What we see since then is small in comparison.

As I said, this is less a statement of opinion and more a question about something I'm not quite sure about.

[RBH]

Subsequent necromancy split to here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=192646).

RBH, Acting E/C Mod