yeah, i know you know.
I just put my thoughts on record. so I can laugh at them in a few years.
I just put my thoughts on record. so I can laugh at them in a few years.
Why aren't all animals becoming smarter?
- Thread starter Captain Kremmen
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
lol ok then..
Are you a biologist ? (if that's a word)
sort of.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
:scratchin: What then ? An ecologist ? Geneticist ?
evo-devo
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Really ? Evolutionary biologist ? Awesome !!
half or more of my work is bog standard developmental biology. it's just that I am more fond of my evo-devo work. despite it has minimal impact. it's just more interesting personally.
no, it is not. and it is.
at least we got another 3 years of funding.
at least we got another 3 years of funding.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What kind of research are you into now ?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Warning.
The above is a misprint.
Spurious monkey is not declaring himself to be evo-devo, but an evil devil.
you have been warned.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Warning.
The above is a misprint.
Spurious monkey is not declaring himself to be evo-devo, but an evil devil.
you have been warned.
Pfft Anyone knows that
Read something interesting in the bus this morning.
The mutation rate (molecular clock) is not dependent on generation time. Hence an elephant would evolve just as fast as a mouse.
Well, were it not for the fact that rodents have very sloppy DNA repair enzymes.
I guess I should have said elephant and a shrew.
The mutation rate (molecular clock) is not dependent on generation time. Hence an elephant would evolve just as fast as a mouse.
Well, were it not for the fact that rodents have very sloppy DNA repair enzymes.
I guess I should have said elephant and a shrew.
For the sake of clarity: What makes you think that this gene you are talking about is the universal and only gene capable of producing high intelligence in any living organism?
The properties you are talking about could probably be applied to a large number, if not the majority of genes in any organism, as every gene will have evolved and adapted to the specific genetic environment of its carrier species. Apart from genes more or less fixed in evolution, like the major metabolic pathways and other characteristics that are vital at the cellular level, there are probably very few human genes that would work and produce the same effect in any other species, and the same applies to any species and its genes. One could argue that the genes for human eyes are intrinsic to us as well, and that it is impossible for them to work in any other animal, but that hasn't stopped eyes from evolving independently in a large number of times and being present in (I dare say) a large majority of all multi-cellular organisms.
Also, you claim that since humans already have the gene, it is impossible for any other species obtaining the same/similar gene to catch up with us, but there is no reason to assume that. In the light of other examples in this thread, I would point out that fish had evolved the genes for fins a very, very long time before any mammals returned to the aquatic environment, but at the moment, it seems that in a relatively short time, marine mammals have acquired a lot of similar traits to fish and are doing just as well, if not better, in the same environment.
Your claims seem to contradict evidence and logic, sorry
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Of course the mutation rate of the DNA is similar in all animals. But the potentially beneficial changes can only come to light in the next generation. And if a species is long-lived it will take much more time to evolve a certain trait than it would take a short-lived species.
fo3
''For the sake of clarity: What makes you think that this gene you are talking about is the universal and only gene capable of producing high intelligence in any living organism?''
Em... I'm actually an advocator of extraterrestrial lifefroms, even if they are primitive. I don't know what you got from my statement, but i never thought this would have been it...
''The properties you are talking about could probably be applied to a large number, if not the majority of genes in any organism, as every gene will have evolved and adapted to the specific genetic environment of its carrier species. Apart from genes more or less fixed in evolution, like the major metabolic pathways and other characteristics that are vital at the cellular level, there are probably very few human genes that would work and produce the same effect in any other species, and the same applies to any species and its genes. One could argue that the genes for human eyes are intrinsic to us as well, and that it is impossible for them to work in any other animal, but that hasn't stopped eyes from evolving independently in a large number of times and being present in (I dare say) a large majority of all multi-cellular organisms.''
But now your not even talking about alien lifeforms, so i'll presume its not that. But if your linking this gene to biology, then you misunderstood the rarity of this particular stage of gene. It is a rare gene, and i found out recently not every lifeform has it. And for some reason, it has special effects. There is (i think) only two forms of the superintelligence gene to date. Certain humans lack both type1 and type2 (the advanced gene), and are called Cephiliacs, with expremely small cranial structures.
Reiku
''For the sake of clarity: What makes you think that this gene you are talking about is the universal and only gene capable of producing high intelligence in any living organism?''
Em... I'm actually an advocator of extraterrestrial lifefroms, even if they are primitive. I don't know what you got from my statement, but i never thought this would have been it...
''The properties you are talking about could probably be applied to a large number, if not the majority of genes in any organism, as every gene will have evolved and adapted to the specific genetic environment of its carrier species. Apart from genes more or less fixed in evolution, like the major metabolic pathways and other characteristics that are vital at the cellular level, there are probably very few human genes that would work and produce the same effect in any other species, and the same applies to any species and its genes. One could argue that the genes for human eyes are intrinsic to us as well, and that it is impossible for them to work in any other animal, but that hasn't stopped eyes from evolving independently in a large number of times and being present in (I dare say) a large majority of all multi-cellular organisms.''
But now your not even talking about alien lifeforms, so i'll presume its not that. But if your linking this gene to biology, then you misunderstood the rarity of this particular stage of gene. It is a rare gene, and i found out recently not every lifeform has it. And for some reason, it has special effects. There is (i think) only two forms of the superintelligence gene to date. Certain humans lack both type1 and type2 (the advanced gene), and are called Cephiliacs, with expremely small cranial structures.
Reiku
Of course mutation rate is not similar in all animals. As I already mentioned, rodents have really sloppy proofreading. The mutation rate is higher here.
Apparently similar molecular clock rates are not so much the result of similar mutation rates, caused by things such as radiation and other environmental influences.
What apparently really matters is the relationship population size and generation time.
Small animals with short generation times have usually large populations. Mutations get fixed easier in small populations. Large animals have small populations and usually a longer generation time.
Having a mutation is one thing; keeping it is another.
I am talking about you making it sound like that particular gene is the only possible one that can lead to high intelligence in humans or animals. You are yet to provide any factual information or sources for your claim, but even before you do, I can say that you are wrong. Yes, the existence or lack of certain genes may affect the intelligence of their carriers, but that is in no way proof that the gene in question is the gene solely responsible for intelligence. Even if there was such a gene present, which I highly doubt, there is no reason why a completely different gene or genes couldn't lead to equal or greater intelligence in humans or animals.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You are correct, I didn't think of that
So somehow size, population size and mutation rates are balanced in each species in such a way that all species evolve at a similar rate. This is very interesting
I'm thinking there must be another factor for all species to have a similar rate of evolution... :scratchin:
(my underline)
:bugeye:
I'm finding this odd. To me seems logic that, even though the mutation rate is not dependent on generation time, evolution rates, in the other hand, will depend to a reasonably good extent on generation time.
If we consider for a moment only the propulsion by mutations of the changes in genetic frequencies within two populations of different drastic generation times, even if the population size and mutation rates are the same for each population, the fact that the generation time alone is different will result in much more mutations, changing the genetic frequencies, in one than in the other, in the same time.
And even if we put natural selection into account, that would not change much the picture, it's not as if natural selection could restrict the evolution in a "N new fixations per time", irrespective of other variables such as generation time, unless we artificially invent the selection coefficients of each population to do so (which makes no sense at all).
...ops, reading the following posts it does not look that bad...
But yet, higher reproductive rates/larger populations will provide a larger amount of mutations in less time, independently of how much does it take to any of these eventually reaching fixation. These populations would then usually be richer in genetic variation, even though it could (or maybe would) still be somewhat proportional when compared with organisms of small populations and longer generation times.
And speaking of fixation, evolution is not the fixation of mutations within a population whose size remains constant. There are populational splits which will effectively fixate mutations quicker. Splits can happen in both situations, but with lower reproductive rates the likelihood of success over time is much lower, by many reasons. They can only have less "attempts" in the same time period, the new populations are from the start more impoverished in absolute genetic variation, will only "restore" it slower, they would require larger territories and amounts of food for each "deme", etc.
And finally, not regarding this sort of event, speaking of fixation in a constant-population scenario, the Haldane's calculations about substitution costs suggests that a mutation would reach fixation in about 300 generations (with a bunch of assumptions)... the shorter the generation time is, the quicker it would be.
...I just hope I'm not missing something that would render all these points totally null, but it can always happen :shrug:
Last edited: