What's Up With Chimps?

Random genetic mutation.

This point is it is ?random?.

Occasionally someone is born with a mutation. Lance Armstrong might be a good example, as he has a heart which is, (I think) 30% better than a normal human.

If winning the Tour De France was the only way to get to reproduce then most humans would have that gene form now on, and humans would ‘evolve’.

Survival of the fittest culls out those born with mutations inferior for survival and those with mutations that make them better suited to survival do the most reproducing. In this way a species ?evolves? or changes.

We lost are strenght because we really don’t need it anymore. And that’s it.

http://images.t-nation.com/forum_images/./1/.1123043944774.michael.gif

It’s not Michael, its the power of make-up!!!

[quote]HoratioSandoval wrote:
Also, that one chimp hangs around with Michael Jackson - that can’t be a good sign for chimps.[/quote]

It’s not Michael, its the power of make-up!!!

Two points: one, our brains use up about 20% of our energy needs. Two, when we came down from the trees and starting walking about on the plains, energy efficiency in getting from A to B became important. Upper body strength, in particular, became unimportant.

[quote]Chris (NZ) wrote:
uh what? what, then, is responsible for evolution?

Random genetic mutation.

This point is it is ?random?.

Occasionally someone is born with a mutation. Lance Armstrong might be a good example, as he has a heart which is, (I think) 30% better than a normal human.

If winning the Tour De France was the only way to get to reproduce then most humans would have that gene form now on, and humans would ‘evolve’.

Survival of the fittest culls out those born with mutations inferior for survival and those with mutations that make them better suited to survival do the most reproducing. In this way a species ?evolves? or changes.[/quote]

randomness? is there any proof that our genes arbitrarily mutate?

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Swing from tree branches all day every day for a year, and you’ll see amazing gains in strength. [/quote]

one would think that, but i havent noticed any difference in my strength or how i look.

Animals are, as a rule, stronger than us as their muscles are denser.

Always has been. Always will be.

ive heard that some apes, so it might apply to monkeys too, have muscle atachments that are more biomecanicaly effective for power think of how much force calves can produce for their sise.)than humans which is a possible reason for a similar sized animal being much stonger than us. the fact humans are no longer subject darwins theory of only the stong surviving at least in a strenght role would mean that we have been breeding ouselves into a weaker species.

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
Chris (NZ) wrote:
uh what? what, then, is responsible for evolution?

Random genetic mutation.

randomness? is there any proof that our genes arbitrarily mutate?[/quote]

Yup, loads of proof. Here’s a brief intro to mutations and natural selection:

[i] At the genetic level, the signs of natural selection are surprisingly subtle.

More knowledge doesn’t necessarily translate into less confusion. In 1953, when James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the double-helix structure of DNA, biologists were poised for all the pieces of evolutionary theory to fall quickly into place. Darwin had shown how natural selection could transform anatomy and patterns of behavior, and now scientists looked forward to detecting the fingerprints of natural selection at the molecular level. But it turned out that natural selection was not the only force that could significantly alter DNA, and no one knew how to identify the source of any given change. It has taken decades to figure out a way.

This predicament took many biologists by surprise, because once the structure of DNA was understood, they thought they had a good handle on how natural selection works, Researchers determined that a gene consists of a stretch of DNA–a sequence of molecules called nucleotides that serves as a blueprint for the synthesis of a protein. If the nucleotide sequence somehow mutates, it may produce a different protein. The new protein may turn out to be so defective that the individuals who inherit the mutation die or become infertile; either way, such harmful mutations may end up being almost completely weeded out of a species. But some mutations may give their owners a reproductive edge, and before long those mutations will become widespread–even universal–in a species. In the course of thousands and millions of years, a series of such beneficial changes could thus rework the genome of a species.[/i]

Aaaaaaand nope, not exactly randomly:

Another problem was that the models of evolution used by biologists for detecting natural selection assumed that mutations were random, which is not entirely true. For example, the chemical nature of DNA makes certain nucleotides more likely to mutate into certain other ones.

Here’s another little blurb, less technical this time:

[i]A gene mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence that makes up a gene. Mutations range in size from a single DNA building block (DNA base) to a large segment of a chromosome.

Gene mutations occur in two ways: they can be inherited from a parent or acquired during a person?s lifetime. Mutations that are passed from parent to child are called hereditary mutations or germline mutations (because they are present in the egg and sperm cells, which are also called germ cells). This type of mutation is present throughout a person?s life in virtually every cell in the body.

Mutations that occur only in an egg or sperm cell, or those that occur just after fertilization, are called new (de novo) mutations. De novo mutations may explain genetic disorders in which an affected child has a mutation in every cell, but has no family history of the disorder.

Acquired (or somatic) mutations occur in the DNA of individual cells at some time during a person?s life. These changes can be caused by environmental factors such as ultraviolet radiation from the sun, or can occur if a mistake is made as DNA copies itself during cell division. Acquired mutations in somatic cells (cells other than sperm and egg cells) cannot be passed on to the next generation.

Mutations may also occur in a single cell within an early embryo. As all the cells divide during growth and development, the individual will have some cells with the mutation and some cells without the genetic change. This situation is called mosaicism.

Some genetic changes are very rare; others are common in the population. Genetic changes that occur in more than 1 percent of the population are called polymorphisms. They are common enough to be considered a normal variation in the DNA. Polymorphisms are responsible for many of the normal differences between people such as eye color, hair color, and blood type. Although many polymorphisms have no negative effects on a person’s health, some of these variations may influence the risk of developing certain disorders.[/i]

I think your question might have been going along the lines of “if it’s good for us to be stronger, then our genes will mutate accordingly to make us stronger.” This isn’t the case. Mutations occur, if they’re beneficial, they’ll spread throught the population down the generations; if they’re detrimental, the individual will most likely not reproduce and the mutation dies with him/her.

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
yes, it does take that much to create and maintain brain power.

just like all things, specialization in one area drops the ability to specialize in competing areas and drops the ability to specialize in any other areas in general.

good Q, BTW, let’s hope to get a good discussion going.[/quote]

I saw a special on PBS a while ago that said exactly that. The brain consumes an enormous amount of our blood flow and body nutrients, some of which are stored there in concentrations many times higher than anywhere in our body. Maybe the blood flow thing explains why they say it’s so important to cover your head in the winter – you lose enormous amounts of heat through your head – all that blood flowing.

Anyway, the special said that a very high metabolic price is paid to run such a seemingly abnormally large, high energy organ as the human brain, and it’s just not efficient for most animals who have great things like claws and big teeth, or great specializations like hummingbirds or anteaters, to have extra brain capacity; it would actually be a liability that would take a lot of extra food to support. And vice versa for us; we don’t really profit by splitting our genetic goals up and trying to do every single thing well. Our specialty is our brain power, and eliminating the diversity of our powers to do other things than use our brains is not a good genetic choice and actually would be a liability – so it hasn’t been selected for in breeding. Well, not to the extent that it’s selected in polar bears, for example. Whether one guy is stronger than the next won’t turn our genetic survival rate around like mastering what our brains can do – think, learn, teach, socialize.

[quote]mythwalker wrote:
ive heard that some apes, so it might apply to monkeys too, have muscle atachments that are more biomecanicaly effective for power think of how much force calves can produce for their sise.)than humans which is a possible reason for a similar sized animal being much stonger than us. the fact humans are no longer subject darwins theory of only the stong surviving at least in a strenght role would mean that we have been breeding ouselves into a weaker species. [/quote]

Yes, where the tendons attach to the bone are very different in us than in chips and gorillas, etc. They have vastly greater leverage. That’s why a chimp at like two years old is easily as strong as a full grown human of Olympian level strength. Which is also a reason why chips are only worked with when very young, as they can be aggressive and surly, and you don’t want your actors being literally torn to pieces by a farty-tempered chimp.

On the muscle density thing, I know it’s a factor with some animals at least. Bears, for instance, are supposedly fantastically strong not just because of leverage, but because a great part of their diet comes from digging up things to eat in the dirt, like bugs, rabbits, mice, etc. Digging in the dirt requires incredibly dense musculature. They can of course apply that muscular power just as well to a 3000 pound moose and take out its rib cage with one swipe.

Yes, it’s very common for people to think of evolution as somehow “goal-oriented.” This is just us looking from the outside in on a process that doesn’t direct itself toward any particular end and trying to put a sort of anthropomorphic, maybe even quasi-religious spin on it. The only direction in evolution comes through organisms either dying off more or surviving or reproducing more. A mutation isn’t a goal of any kind or the product of a goal or plan. It’s just one of those things where “sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.”

And, sometimes it works only for a while, though that while may be millions or even hundreds of millions of years. That species die out at all helps show how limited nature’s potential is to have a goal-oriented evolution. No species profits by dying out, but die out they do. They didn’t get to where they were by following a plan, and can’t get out of a dead end by making up a new one. The profitable mutations either come, and come in time, or – bye bye.

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
Chris (NZ) wrote:
uh what? what, then, is responsible for evolution?

Random genetic mutation.

This point is it is ?random?.

Occasionally someone is born with a mutation. Lance Armstrong might be a good example, as he has a heart which is, (I think) 30% better than a normal human.

If winning the Tour De France was the only way to get to reproduce then most humans would have that gene form now on, and humans would ‘evolve’.

Survival of the fittest culls out those born with mutations inferior for survival and those with mutations that make them better suited to survival do the most reproducing. In this way a species ?evolves? or changes.

randomness? is there any proof that our genes arbitrarily mutate?[/quote]

Yes. That’s how almost all change occurs. There’s slight changes in a gene or an allele (particular form/expression of a gene). And if the change is adaptive, those organisms over time will have greater reproductive success and the traits will become the norm. This has been seen both in characteristics and in actual gene studies in many organisms.

[quote]Kablooey wrote:
I think your question might have been going along the lines of “if it’s good for us to be stronger, then our genes will mutate accordingly to make us stronger.” This isn’t the case. Mutations occur, if they’re beneficial, they’ll spread throught the population down the generations; if they’re detrimental, the individual will most likely not reproduce and the mutation dies with him/her.

Yes, it’s very common for people to think of evolution as somehow “goal-oriented.” This is just us looking from the outside in on a process that doesn’t direct itself toward any particular end and trying to put a sort of anthropomorphic, maybe even quasi-religious spin on it. The only direction in evolution comes through organisms either dying off more or surviving or reproducing more. A mutation isn’t a goal of any kind or the product of a goal or plan. It’s just one of those things where “sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.”

And, sometimes it works only for a while, though that while may be millions or even hundreds of millions of years. That species die out at all helps show how limited nature’s potential is to have a goal-oriented evolution. No species profits by dying out, but die out they do. They didn’t get to where they were by following a plan, and can’t get out of a dead end by making up a new one. The profitable mutations either come, and come in time, or – bye bye.

[/quote]

Yup. Very good post.

[quote]Chris (NZ) wrote:
Random genetic mutation.

This point is it is ?random?.

Occasionally someone is born with a mutation. Lance Armstrong might be a good example, as he has a heart which is, (I think) 30% better than a normal human.
[/quote]

That’s one theory. A contemporary of Darwins named Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proved that inheretance of acquired characteristics is possible, and genetic “mutation” may not be random at all.

Subsequently another biologist named Paul Kammerer did some very interesting experements which upheld the theory. THe best example is when he took cave dwelling Newts who were totaly blind and only had rudimentary eyes, and exposed them to light over a number of generations. Low & behold the species developed perfect eye sight. Unfortunately, most have never heard of Lamarckianism. Read “The Case of the Mid-wife Toad” if your interested.

[quote]wufwugy wrote:

uh what? what, then, is responsible for evolution?[/quote]

  1. There is genetic variation in all species.

  2. All species produce more offspring than will survive.

  3. Those offspring with certain genetic traits that allow them to adapt to their particular surrounding will survive long enough to reproduce.

  4. Those genetic features that are (at that particular time and place) advantageous will be passed on to the next generation.

[quote]NateN wrote:
We all know that chimps, along with any other primate that isn’t really small, are a lot stronger than humans. At what point did we lose that strength? Is it truly gone, or are we just unable to tap into it?
[/quote]

I know this isn’t really the point you wre trying to make, but the fact that a chimp (who is smaller than the average human) is much stronger has to do with muscle length, tendon insertion, and leverage.

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Chris (NZ) wrote:
Random genetic mutation.

This point is it is ?random?.

Occasionally someone is born with a mutation. Lance Armstrong might be a good example, as he has a heart which is, (I think) 30% better than a normal human.

That’s one theory. A contemporary of Darwins named Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proved that inheretance of acquired characteristics is possible, and genetic “mutation” may not be random at all.

Subsequently another biologist named Paul Kammerer did some very interesting experements which upheld the theory. THe best example is when he took cave dwelling Newts who were totaly blind and only had rudimentary eyes, and exposed them to light over a number of generations. Low & behold the species developed perfect eye sight. Unfortunately, most have never heard of Lamarckianism. Read “The Case of the Mid-wife Toad” if your interested.
[/quote]

Modern evolutionary theory has reconciled and merged many aspects of Darwinism and Lamarck. But Lamarck’s belief in acquired characteristics being passed on has been discredited. I think you would not be able to find a scientist today who believes it.

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
That’s one theory. A contemporary of Darwins named Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proved that inheretance of acquired characteristics is possible, and genetic “mutation” may not be random at all.
[/quote]

Next, you’ll be telling us that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny…

Yeah, well you’ll probably start telling us that orogachiaty repropriates trygundiatiary!

See I can make up words too.

[quote]nephorm wrote:

Next, you’ll be telling us that ontogeny recapitulates pylogeny…[/quote]