Poll: Unconventional Evolution: A Thesis?

[Khedive Rex]

Please bare with me, this will be a read. I've been considering the subject of modern day evolution among humans (you know ... like people do...) especially considering the changes in societal structure, group dynamics and the circumstances in which modern day men live in order to determine how much and in what methods evolution applies to the current twenty-first century human race. My problem is that I came to a conclusion which had been scientifically disproven; but I couldn't find the flaw in my own logic that had led me to my mistaken assertion. Recently I've found a way to marry the scientific results which negated my first theory with the logic that produced the first theory and, as you can imagine, I'm fairly excited.

However, I'm not a geneticist and I'm not a sociologist so I'm really in no position to verify, or even vet, my current theory. So, instead of sitting around with a smug look on my face, I decided to write up this thesis so the smart users of The Escapist Forums can pick holes in my logic and show me exactly where I went wrong. If you fine folk are scientifically minded we can even have a jolly good discussion on the implications of said theory, or your personal opinions on modern day evolutionary trends in the human race!

... Yeah. This topic is so going to fail. Anyway though-

[HEADING=2]The Premise:[/HEADING]

A few days ago it occured to me that there are significant differences between how the human race governs itself and its affairs now and how it goverened itself and its affairs around the time of the great migration when humans first began to populate the earth. The greatest difference is that theres less feces throwing and we have cell phones (yes, there will be poorly crafted jokes for those in the audience who find the subject uninteresting but want to read this anyway. And they are completely somewhat free of charge). However, the second largest change is the move from small roving packs or tribes to the concept of civil society.

Civil society is a relativley new doctrine, compared with the entire history of humanity anyway, that glorifies additudes of chivalry and self-sacrifices. It's not ussually put like that but, basically, thats what were talking about. Under a civil society the strong protect the weak (even if they get hurt doing it) no one is allowed to starve (even if that means everyone gets to eat a little less) citizens don't rob or injure other citizens and everyone has an equal say in what the pack does. Countries live up to this ideal in varying degrees but any nation which has a police force or welfare programs (which is to say, almost all of them) can be said to be participating in a civil society.

This societal structure significantly decreases the rate at which evolution progresses.

Consider for a moment the idea of natural selection that is pivotal to evolution. Creatures who develop genetic traits that are advantagous in their current environment will succeed and prosper more commonly than those who have developed disadvantagous traits. Justifiably those with advantagous traits will produce more offspring and the genetic pool that contains those advantagous traits will expand. On the other side of the coin, those with disadvantagous traits will produce fewer offspring and the genetic pool which contains their disadvantages will be overwelmed by the more advantagous gene pool. In this way, some creatures succeed, some creatures fail and all adapt their genetic natures to best suit their environment. Boom, evolution happens!

In small roving tribes of humans its easy to imagine this kind of evolution in action. A human being develops a genetic trait that predisposes him to having stiff knees. He can't gather or hunt food nearly as easily and he can't travel nearly as fast. Eventually, he gets left behind when the pack goes traveling, or he drops dead of starvation, or he can't climb the tree to get away from the predator. Either way, that person dies and his genetic disadvantage more likely than not does not get passed further into the genepool. This human does not reach mating age and does not procreate.

However, that same example falls flat on its face when applied to modern day humanity. The concept of civil society ensures that the human in question is provided with what he or she needs in order to reach mating age and one day procreate. He will not be allowed to starve to death on a street corner at the age of thirteen and if anyone tries to offer violence to him, police officers are on call ready to defend him. The natural barriers that would contribute to the diminishing of his disadvantagous genepool are no longer present and, as such, he procreates.

Humans today live in a system which seperates them from the natural forces that traditionally spur evolutionary change. It could therefore be assumed that, because specific physical traits are no longer at a disadvantage within the human genepool, humans aren't adapting their genetic code to conform with their environment as readily. The conclusion, evolution is slowing down in the species.

[HEADING=2]The Problem:[/HEADING]

Humans are evolving 100x faster than at any other point in our history. Countless studies confirm that humans as a species are actually evolving faster now than we did during the great migration. Additionally, these studies seem to suggest that humans are growing increasingly diverse as a species, with people from different regions of the earth having minute but characteristically different genetic traits. In laymens terms, people in other countries could be evolving flight or laser vision right now and it wouldn't affect you or people in your region in any noticiable way. Humans are growing incredably wildly, incredably fast.

Weirded yet, if anything evolution is speeding up. We aren't even at the crest yet, in a millenia or two we could be evolving 200x faster than ever before (including now at 100x faster than ever before. Which would technically mean we were evolving 20,000x faster than we used to be. I envision that to mean just waking up one day to find out you can breathe underwater. I eagerly look forward to it).

THe question then has to be asked, exactly how can the conclusion that I reached in the premise and the conclusion reached through years of scientific labor and analysis be reconciled? Which one of us is wrong? Fortunately, before the crushing weight of failure managed to completely topple me, I found a method that would explian both my results and sciences.

[HEADING=2]The Proposition.[/HEADING]

I would like to propose that there are two methods of evolution used on planet earth. The first I have termed "Conventional Evolution". Conventional evolution is the spreading of genetic properties via natural manipulation of the genepool. One could think of it like stacking the cards in favor of certain outcomes in a poker match. The natural difference between the number of offspring produced by creatures with advantagous genetic traits and those produced with disadvantagous genetic traits will skew the genepool in favor of the more populous genetic make-up.

The second, I have termed "Unconventional Evolution". Unconventional evolution is the spreading of genetic properties via the dominant/recessive ratio of the genetic trait in question. A very simple way to think of it is, there being no particular advantage or disadvantage to one eye color over another, genes which are more dominant will prosper in a species and genes which are more recessive will become less common.

Conventional evolution is the straight forward stuff everyone knows about already, as such, I'd like to basically ignore it and go a little more in depth into unconventional evolution. I think the first and most important thing to recognize about it is that unconventional evolution definitely plays second fiddle to conventional evolution as it requires all competing genetic traits to be of equal advantage in application before it can begin to affect a species' development. Brown eyes are more dominant than blue and, all things being equal, they should be more common. In humans this is true, eye color does not affect the likelyhood of procreation and, therefore, brown is the most common eye color. However, if we imagine for a moment that blue eyes allow you to see the future and brown eyes attract bee's than the dominant/recessive ratio of the genetic trait is inconsequential because the genepool containing the brown-eyed trait is contantly being diminished in bloody swarms of killer bees. While the brown-eyed trait is still dominant, this does not result in the species as a whole developing brown eyes because the genepool carrying the blue-eyed trait is larger and more likely to prosper. We see then that conventional evolution takes over the same second any genetic traits delivers a more significant genetic advantage.

It is rare to find situations in which all competing genetic traits would be of equal use in application; even something as unimportant as haircolor can be vitally significant in certain situations, such as finding camophlage. As such, unconventional evolution can only be relied on as an indicator in areas where either the playing field is completely level between genetic traits or the species gurantees the longevity and livelyhood of all its members regardless of genetic traits.

Human beings are the latter example. It doesn't matter how tall you are, what shape your ear is or how long you can hold your breath, your odds of procreation are relativley equal no matter which physical genetics traits you carry.

The second thing I would highlight as a contrast between conventional and unconventional evolution is that by it's very nature unconventional evolution would engage a wider spectrum of genetic qualities than conventional evolution. Under a conventional system every trait is tested for it's utility toward survival and subsequent reproduction. Traits which do not benefit survival die out. In an unconventional system there is no utility that has to be acquired from a genetic trait and, therefore, only genetic traits that are actively harmful die out. Therefore an unconventional system may contain, in addition to the traits which benefit survival found in a conventional system, a wide array of less helpful traits and neutral traits.

Which brings us back to the results scientists have found. Human beings are evolving rapidly and in very diverse manners. Rapidly in this case is expressed as a comparison to our rate of change multiple millenia ago when it can be argued that human beings still evolved under a conventional evolution system. This means that, multiple millenia ago, we only changed as a species when met with a more desirable competeing genetic trait. Today, under a unconventional evolution system, the species may change when met with a more desirable, less desirable, or neutral competing genetic trait. When comparing the two sceinarios, one can hardly be surprised we appear to be evolving more quickly. One also comes to understand the vast diversity present in our current evoultion as any number of traits may be entertained now which would not be under a conventional evolution system.

This also explains the phenomenon of regional genetic traits not being shared with the rest of the species as different high dominance genetic mutations developed globally are unlikely to be uniform but may quickly develop ominpresence within a regional population. Esspecially considering that there are no natural hinderances to test the physical benefit of the high dominance traits in question under an unconventional evolution system.

[HEADING=2]The Prompt[/HEADING]

It is my opinion that the human race is mostly advancing under an unconventional evolution system and that the concept of civil society makes the operation of conventional evolution exponentially more difficult. As an effect of operating under unconventional evolution, the species as a whole develops more possible genetic traits and entertains a great number of them leading to greater diversity in the genepool and a faster rate of change than under conventional evolution. I feel that conventional evolution is used among animals who need to fight or forage for their survival and that unconventional evolution is only used among humans and some animals which humans have domesticated.

Oh, and I beleive there are subcategories of evolution. Conventional and unconventional if you couldn't guess.

But what do you beleive?!

Does any of this make sense or have I missed a small but vitally important peice of information? Can you see any flaws in my logic? If not, care to expound on some of the implications this theory might have? Or maybe just your opinion of it? Got any theories of your own on human evolutionary trends? I want to hear anything you feel like telling me.

[HEADING=2]The Rule:[/HEADING]

Don't post tl;dr. I know it's long, I wrote it. Spent a good two hours writing it. I don't need you to remind me of those precious minutes I'll never get back no matter how much I try. I'll remember them forever whether you remind me or not ...

Conduct yourself as though a mod were watching. Honestly, I don't see that becoming a problem here. You don't run into very many roudy geneticist trolls.

Thats it. Have at it!

 

[El Poncho]

I guess it makes sense, i'm no expert on anything so I can't spot any flaws in your theory.

 

[IronDuke]

It's quite late here, and I appreciate the thought that went into this but my mind just buckled under the whole concept of "Unconventional evolution". I think from what I read it makes sense... I'll have to read it again tomorrow, but kudos anyway on the effort.

Edit: Just made a little more sense on reading the Prompt again. Sure, I'd believe this if a scientist was telling me it however often things occur counterintuitively because you don't see all the variables.

Maybe someone with a scientific background can see them and critique this a bit better.

 

[Player 2]

The length of your post protects it against the very real danger of it being read.

Having read it though (skimmed it), all you seem to be saying is dominant genes will become dominant. Not much of a theory really.

 

[Uncompetative]

feces throwing < txt messages?

I'm not so sure on that one. I still think it was a mistake coming down from the trees.

At least it gave us a good reason to not chop down all of the tropical Rain Forests.

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

While im no expert, this is a very good theory. It made sence as much has i could understand it (I'm only in 8th grade, and we're doing world science, evolution is next year). However this theory back up mine.

The human race is getting more arrogant and stupid. Too many people are worring about EVERYTHING instead of what really matters. What i mean is "Sarrah brok up with Chris because blah blah blah blah" and then people get deppressed because of that. THAT, something that is as worthless as ever. People arent worring about their acual education, instead they worry about good relations with others. And sure thats only teenage drama crap but think about say 200 years ago, i don't think people where worring that much about relationships, instead they where worring about if they where getting their next meal or something els of real importance.

And thats only scratching the surface, if this was your conventinal evolution these people would get outcasted and left out however they are excepted as one, when the people who acually think about what matters are the minority. I really dont get it, humans suck.

 

[Maze1125]

The second, I have termed "Unconventional Evolution". Unconventional evolution is the spreading of genetic properties via the dominant/recessive ratio of the genetic trait in question. A very simple way to think of it is, there being no particular advantage or disadvantage to one eye color over another, genes which are more dominant will prosper in a species and genes which are more recessive will become less common.

That's not how dominant and recessive genes work.
Recessive genes don't disappear, they remain, just recessive.
If a blue eyed person and a brown eyed person have a baby, that baby is guaranteed to have at least one blue eye gene, even though it may have brown eyes.
And if two brown eyed people each with a recessive blue eye gene have a baby, that baby has a 1 in 4 chance of having blue eyes even though its parents both have brown.

The result is that, without selective pressure, dominate and recessive genes stay in equal proportion with-in a population.

 

[HE Darkfall]

I am by no means any form of expert in this area, however, to the best of my ability I can not spot a major flaw in your theory.
So indeed, kudos.

 

[Latinidiot]

interesting read.

 

[Leorex]

Im marking this so i can read it latter, i know i dident contribute to the discussion, i just thought the author might want to know that people plan to read it.

 

[Nickolai77]

I'm still not convinced that humans are actually evolving. The scientific study has looked at human evolution over the last 5000 years, and yes, for most of the 5000 year period i would expect humans would have evolved and diverged. There has been little inter-racial contact, as well as numerous diseases which have decimated whole continents, so i would expect human evolution would be rather fast and divergent.

Things have changed however in the last 200 years or so, the industrial revolution in Britain meant that for the first time a society could support an ever growing population without running out of food or materials. Advances in science meant that diseases could be combated through vaccination's and hygiene measures, and people could have better living standards thanks to technological advancement. Since the European Empires and the arrival of globalisation there has been much more inter-racial contact than there was, say 3000 years ago. To be of mixed race is no longer unusual.

Between 3000BC and 1500AD, there has been very little inter racial contact, so yes, we would expect evolutionary divergence, between 3000BC and 1900AD, disease was a big problem, so natural selection applied, and so we would expect rapid evolution. It's only been the in last few hundred year's that things have actually changed, the study doesn't appear to take note of this.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Why evolve when we can INNOVATE. The human MACHINE is capable of self repair in ways that the simple biological way cannot match. Do any animals have ANYTHING like we do in terms of self defence as survival.

I noticed this too. I followed your logic as an novice in genetic science and evolution, and gathered information that would help me solve our puzzle.

May i add that what you are saying is true. Genetic disease affect us more now because people who have them thankfully are given care and support to survive. This does however (rarely) propagate the disease.

This societal structure significantly decreases the rate at which evolution progresses.

Very true. But then again its going to be a catalyst of change. If anything this is a small pause of what will be an evolutionary explosion. Let me tell you why.

My science teacher and i were discussing world population. He said because of of limited resources the population of the world WILL plumet at some point if we done FORCE birth control as in china. This plumet will make cause evolution happen left right and centre.

My main causes for such a plumet are viral (cramping leads to a pandemic), food related (those with the correct motabalism will survive) or just common place disease that kill people because of the anarchy that follows the population plummet, strong immune system.

 

[ma55ter_fett]

The second, I have termed "Unconventional Evolution". Unconventional evolution is the spreading of genetic properties via the dominant/recessive ratio of the genetic trait in question. A very simple way to think of it is, there being no particular advantage or disadvantage to one eye color over another, genes which are more dominant will prosper in a species and genes which are more recessive will become less common.

That's not how dominant and recessive genes work.
Recessive genes don't disappear, they remain, just recessive.
If a blue eyed person and a brown eyed person have a baby, that baby is guaranteed to have at least one blue eye gene, even though it may have brown eyes.
And if two brown eyed people each with a recessive blue eye gene have a baby, that baby have a 1 in 4 chance of having blue eyes even though its parents both have brown.

The result is that, without selective pressure, dominate and recessive genes stay in equal proportion with-in a population.

I agree with Maze1125, recessive genes do not die out, a recessive gene is NOT inferior to a dominant gene, a dominant gene will express itself over a recessive gene SOMETIMES. In other words sometimes only a homozygous dominant genotype will produce a certain phenotype if the genotype for the trait is heterozygous (containing both dominant and recessive) the phenotype can be completely diffrent.

Also if in your thesis recessive genes die out (which they don't) how do you then explain the rapidly diversifing of the human gene pool (which you mentioned in your thesis.)

Also you say that "Under a conventional system every trait is tested for it's utility toward survival and subsequent reproduction. Traits which do not benefit survival die out."

This is not true there are plenty of traits (granted they are not always expressed) that do not benefit an organism that stay in the genepool. If a species lost every trait that did not directly benefit it then that species WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ADAPT TO CHANGES IN THE ENVIROMENT.

An example of this is a species of Iguana that lives in the Galapagos Islands. The gene that controls the realitive body size of male igunanas of this species has two traits. The first gene codes for a large body, the second for a small body. females prefer the large body males for mateing purposes (larger males infer greater genetic fitness). However the gene for the small male body never goes away and there is always a small reproducing population of small male iguanas. the reason is that when food is very scarce (for whatever reason) the large males die because they can't find enough food to sustain there large bodies, and thus the only iguana's left to give the ladies a little love are the small bodied males.

Another quote form the original post:

"Therefore an unconventional system may contain, in addition to the traits which benefit survival found in a conventional system, a wide array of less helpful traits and neutral traits."

As I've stated "conventional evolution" has this too. Could it be that you simply don't fully understand "conventional evolution" and have taken the modern theory of biological evolution and split it into two diffrent parts?

edit:

Also if you are going to point to a scientific study to base your theory on then I would like a link to the scientific journal in which it was published. The article itself strikes me as being over sensationalized, 2000 years (figure taken from the linked article) is nothing in evolutionary terms.

personally I would like to know the numbers of random mutations that are occuring every generation (something the article mentioned). I would like to know how fast the human geneotype is changeing. 100 times faster than what?

I'm sorry but I simply don't agree with your thesis, rather I think your trying to restate the modern biological theory of evolution along with the hardy and weinberg theory of species equalibrium. Also I don't agree with the article (study) upon which you in part based it on.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I'm still not convinced that humans are actually evolving. The scientific study has looked at human evolution over the last 5000 years, and yes, for most of the 5000 year period i would expect humans would have evolved and diverged. There has been little inter-racial contact, as well as numerous diseases which have decimated whole continents, so i would expect human evolution would be rather fast and divergent.

I don't know if I agree or not. Your points are (as usual Nickolai77) excellent. The problem is we really have no frame of reference for actual evolution in motion so to speak, so we don't really know the mechanisms of this, or even if it is a biological mechanism or something else. We simply don't know how long it would take or how recognizable evolution would be if we saw it.

To put it more simply - we know the tiger, we know the bob cat, and we can tell those two animals apart very easily. But we don't really know all the bits in between, and most importantly, don't really know how to tell apart an almost tiger from a tiger.

Humans might well be evolving year on year but we just can't see it. Or humans might well have remained the same for tens of thousands of years.

@op- I am going to have to read that a few more times to digest it. That is one monster of a post.

EDIT: I will say this. In my opinion, you are incorrect in your overall implication that civilization gives the gene pool less variation. In the wild, those with bad genes which lead to poor traits would become some animals dinner, thus would be removed from the gene pool. Civilization negates that effect on the gene pool, leading to far more variance.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Please bare with me, this will be a read.

I'm sure you're a nice person, but I'd like to keep my clothes on.

-premise snip-

Humans today live in a system which seperates them from the natural forces that traditionally spur evolutionary change. It could therefore be assumed that, because specific physical traits are no longer at a disadvantage within the human genepool, humans aren't adapting their genetic code to conform with their environment as readily. The conclusion, evolution is slowing down in the species.

Evolution is directly caused by random genetic mutations that spread through a population. Environment only indirectly affects evolution, through natural selection narrowing down the viable paths a population can take.

Cultural fluidity does lower the role of the environment, meaning the paths of variation are narrowed down much less. So while we're mostly free from natural selection, evolution is still automatic.

-Problem snip-

That's a bit of a spurious definition of evolution, if you ask me. I guess if you equate evolution with any sort of genetic differentiation instead of actual speciation, it makes sense, but otherwise...

Well, why wouldn't we be "evolving" that fast? There's many metric asstons more humans today than there has been in the past, and many more of us survive to be breeding adults.

-Proposition snip-

Other than coming close to the Metal Gear misdefinition of dominant and recessive genes...I have to point out that evolution doesn't inherently lead towards advantageous adaptations. It's common for that to occur, of course, but an individual can have all sorts of genetically-induced problems that they pass on to their offspring, so long as it doesn't prevent them from dancing the horizontal tango with another individual. And that's not even taking into account freak chance. Random depopulation due to catastrophe tends to create favorable conditions for spreading the genes of the survivors, regardless of their "advantage."

In other words, yeah, that was all pretty obvious.

-Prompt snip-

You've just rediscovered Mendelian genetics. We knew about that long before Darwin came along.

 

[zehydra]

@maze, unless of course, the gene mutates.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Please bare with me, this will be a read. I've been considering the subject of modern day evolution among humans (you know ... like people do...) especially considering the changes in societal structure, group dynamics and the circumstances in which modern day men live in order to determine how much and in what methods evolution applies to the current twenty-first century human race. My problem is that I came to a conclusion which had been scientifically disproven; but I couldn't find the flaw in my own logic that had led me to my mistaken assertion. Recently I've found a way to marry the scientific results which negated my first theory with the logic that produced the first theory and, as you can imagine, I'm fairly excited.

Well, failing a Richard Dawkins site, the Escapist might just be hopeful enough for this thesis of yours. So, I'll take a stab at it

However, I'm not a geneticist and I'm not a sociologist so I'm really in no position to verify, or even vet, my current theory.

Out of curiosity, with what perspective are you analyzing this thesis?. i.e- It would help a bit to know what sort of background you have in the subject, because a lot of what you wrote suggests you don't (that's not an insult it's just observation)

Humans are evolving 100x faster than at any other point in our history. Countless studies confirm that humans as a species are actually evolving faster now than we did during the great migration. Additionally, these studies seem to suggest that humans are growing increasingly diverse as a species, with people from different regions of the earth having minute but characteristically different genetic traits.

[citation needed]

Not that i don't understand how that is possible, its pretty obvious if you go from localized regional mating, to interaction between peoples of large geographic seperation, there will be less homogeny in genes.

In laymens terms, people in other countries could be evolving flight or laser vision right now and it wouldn't affect you or people in your region in any noticiable way. Humans are growing incredably wildly, incredably fast.

Weirded yet, if anything evolution is speeding up. We aren't even at the crest yet, in a millenia or two we could be evolving 200x faster than ever before (including now at 100x faster than ever before. Which would technically mean we were evolving 20,000x faster than we used to be. I envision that to mean just waking up one day to find out you can breathe underwater. I eagerly look forward to it).

You are kidding right?. There is no reason for spontaneous incremental advantageous allele combinations that would conform to what you deem 'more advanced' would form. There is no phenotypic expression, so the 'hidden trait' or 'precursor to advantageous trait' wouldn't increase in frequency at all.

Any recognizably bizarre advantages wouldn't just show up, because there would be associated traits that would gradually be expressed.

THe question then has to be asked, exactly how can the conclusion that I reached in the premise and the conclusion reached through years of scientific labor and analysis be reconciled? Which one of us is wrong? Fortunately, before the crushing weight of failure managed to completely topple me, I found a method that would explian both my results and sciences.

It might just be a message editing error, but no such conclusion has appeared to be reached? Do you mean the increase in variation of present day humans than that of previous humans leads to the belief that the TV show Heroes will have become a prophesy?

...
The second, I have termed "Unconventional Evolution". Unconventional evolution is the spreading of genetic properties via the dominant/recessive ratio of the genetic trait in question. A very simple way to think of it is, there being no particular advantage or disadvantage to one eye color over another, genes which are more dominant will prosper in a species and genes which are more recessive will become less common.

...

Conventional evolution is the straight forward stuff everyone knows about already, as such, I'd like to basically ignore it and go a little more in depth into unconventional evolution. I think the first and most important thing to recognize about it is that unconventional evolution definitely plays second fiddle to conventional evolution as it requires all competing genetic traits to be of equal advantage in application before it can begin to affect a species' development. Brown eyes are more dominant than blue and, all things being equal, they should be more common. In humans this is true, eye color does not affect the likelyhood of procreation and, therefore, brown is the most common eye color. However, if we imagine for a moment that blue eyes allow you to see the future and brown eyes attract bee's than the dominant/recessive ratio of the genetic trait is inconsequential because the genepool containing the brown-eyed trait is contantly being diminished in bloody swarms of killer bees. While the brown-eyed trait is still dominant, this does not result in the species as a whole developing brown eyes because the genepool carrying the blue-eyed trait is larger and more likely to prosper. We see then that conventional evolution takes over the same second any genetic traits delivers a more significant genetic advantage.

This doesn't seem to be anything profound, but rather, is an explanation for the emergence of previously 'irrelevant' traits based on our ignorance that 'blue eyes really let you see the future and brown eyes attract bees' whereas we just thought they changed the protein structure of the pigment used in the eye. This still would fall under 'conventional [natural selection]'.

Human beings are the latter example. It doesn't matter how tall you are, what shape your ear is or how long you can hold your breath, your odds of procreation are relatively equal no matter which physical genetics traits you carry.

In the case of humans you are partially correct but not so for general species. This is one of the most important cornerstones in the biology of social species, namely, the sexual selection hypothesis. An individual that is demonstratably more fit will attract more mates, and individuals who can afford elaborate excesses (plume of peacock is extreme example) while maintaining their life will be more successful at this. In the case of humans of course, our numerous methods of communications and interactions and varied cultural traits does sort of make the whole picture a bit more complex, but still, despite somebody's inability to see a given trait as being variably beneficial, there are real effects in having one trait over the other.

This also explains the phenomenon of regional genetic traits not being shared with the rest of the species as different high dominance genetic mutations developed globally are unlikely to be uniform but may quickly develop ominpresence within a regional population. Esspecially considering that there are no natural hinderances to test the physical benefit of the high dominance traits in question under an unconventional evolution system.

That's really just an issue of there being an independently evolved trait in a specific region that had afforded it to occur there, and nowhere else, then being introduced to a population at large by migration.

It is my opinion that the human race is mostly advancing under an unconventional evolution system and that the concept of civil society makes the operation of conventional evolution exponentially more difficult. As an effect of operating under unconventional evolution, the species as a whole develops more possible genetic traits and entertains a great number of them leading to greater diversity in the genepool and a faster rate of change than under conventional evolution. I feel that conventional evolution is used among animals who need to fight or forage for their survival and that unconventional evolution is only used among humans and some animals which humans have domesticated.

Some flaws in understanding aspects of the changes in humans can be attributed to the belief that we are somehow above the 'forces' of natural selection, and that we can't apply the same fundamental principles of generalized decent with modification to ourselves. This is a very controversial and emerging field of study that there are many disagreements over but usually are resolved by two schools of thought based on previous principles.

See: 'meme' or just basic mechanisms: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml

Just because we've reached the limit of variation through immediate sexualized characteristics doesn't mean there is some other previously unknown mechanism.

Don't post tl;dr. I know it's long, I wrote it. Spent a good two hours writing it. I don't need you to remind me of those precious minutes I'll never get back no matter how much I try. I'll remember them forever whether you remind me or not ...

Well you definitely need a TLDR or at least a coherent conclusion. I enjoyed your post thoroughly, however.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Wow great read.

I'm not an expert, so I can't say without reading it a couple more times.

I have it Book Marked for later



(Read: I'll be back....With Logic!)

 

[Agema]

I would suggest that evolution does not need different categories.

Evolution is a natural, ongoing process. New genes appear and spread as they always will do, at the same rate. However, what you are calling "conventional" evolution is a perpetual culling of less survivable genes caused by constraints on a population. In that sense, it causes loss of genes.

In the modern world with better medicine and so on, new genes still come about at the same rate. However, there is much less of a constraint acting to cull the less survivable genes. This could account for the increased rate of evolution observed today (although the heavily increased mixing of previously separate populations may have a lot to do with it too).

* * *

The ratio of dominant/recessive genes should not alter if they do not contribute to survival. Let's take eye colour. If 10% of genes for eye colour in the whole world population encode blue, 10% of eye colour genes will encode blue 2000 years later.

However, although the genetic population of blue eye genes may not have changed, phenotypically (i.e. the trait actually expressed in an organism) there may be a huge difference. For instance, blue eyes are common in certain populations, mostly North European stock, who tend to breed with other north European stock, so we still see plenty of people with blue eyes. However, mix the whole world population, although there's still the same proportion of blue eye genes, if recessive they will be swamped by dominant black/brown eye genes, and hence people with blue eyes will become much rarer.