This topic began in a separate thread but since there seemed to be a healthy interest in the topic I felt it would be wise to stop cluttering the other topic and begin one entirely devoted to Life/Evolution/Bioengineering.

We all wonder how life began, if it is possible for Earth life to survive on on other worlds, if life can begin spontaneously in other places, where life on Earth is headed, and how non-Earth-originated life might have progressed.

The concept that I personally would like to explore is my belief that as far as human life is concerned Evolution is no longer relevant as we will begin bioengineering ourselves and the changes will be intentional, not accidental. I called bioengineering and intentional change "Intelligent Design" which really sent a shiver down people's spines, but I enjoy the irony. However, I am open to suggestions for terms that do not evoke emotional reactions because I would prefer to have an intelligent discussion rather than deal with an undo focus on semantics.

One of the main points I made was that human advancement throughout history (as opposed to pre-history) has been through improved communications methods which provide more efficient means of preserving knowledge from one generation to the next. Evolution throughout human history (qualifying once again... meaning since we began recording concepts in addition to remembering them) has been minimal while our recorded knowledge has undergone significant evolution. I mentioned Richard Dawkin's theories about "memes" which can be described as any concept with cultural significance that is passed horizontally throughout culture and vertically through generations.

I believe the human race is at the end of natural evolution and the dawn of directed or designed evolution. I also believe that within twenty years the demands of communication will be such that most people with be equipped with interfaces to their cerebral cortex which will directly link their brain to the communications infrastructure in whatever form it may exist in twenty years (quite possibly the "Grid" that many anticipate). If you think this idea is foolish, look up cochlear implants on Wikipedia and note that there are already approximately 100,000 people benefiting from this technology. As the ability to interface with the cerebral cortex improves we will be able to enhance ourselves with communications links that will give us nearly immediate access to the world's information, allow us to communicate in complete concepts rather than using the alphabet, allow us to control devices remotely (goodbye mouse, keyboard, light switches, automobile ignition switches, and on and on), and even perceive things the limitations of our current senses do not permit, such as seeing anything in the electromagnetic spectrum when communicating with the appropriate device, feeling the current status of our devices and machinery, and so on. All of this will be available through a few interfaces to different parts of the neocortex wired to a communications device similar to a cellular telephone but with much wider bandwidth.

An interesting concept to pursue, in addition to all this, is extrapolating, viewing things further down the road, and wondering what a potential alien society more advanced than our own may already have accomplished and what they may be capable of. Personally I believe human advancement will move along a synthesis of man and machine. Advances in robotics will more than likely be used to correct human deficiencies and aid the elderly as much as it will be used to automate our work. When it is seen that grandma can get around just as easily with her exoskeleton as any teeny-bopper can under non-augmented power, people will want to use that technology to make themselves more capable.

It also is not difficult to see that advances in genetics, genomics, nanotechnology, and computing will lead to things we can't even begin to hope for now.

So, I've opened the door for this discussion on this thread to prevent the intrusion on other threads. It may be argued that it is not relevant to astronomy but I honestly don't think so. One of the burning questions that drives many astronomers is that of life elsewhere in the universe, what form it may take, what level of advancement it may have achieved, etc. Speculating on human accomplishments provides a model of what other forms of life could be capable of.

Ugh.

<hits him on the head with a club and drags him to his cave.>

You = food.

I do think that as a species we are starting to understand the basics of how we might be able
to 'transcend' our evolutionary legacy at some point in the future.
And of course that would help with space exploration.

However, I am a bit skeptical about your time frame for fully-fledged direct brain interfaces (20 years?)

Yes you have, but could you apply some focus?

What is your question for Q&A? The answer, from the mainstream, to what, do you seek?

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

I completely disagree that natural human evolution has come to an end or that it even can come to an end.

I do believe there are several systems that are within the human domain that undergo evolution in the same way as but quite separately from natural evolution of the species. That is to say, I believe that, independent from biological evolution, languages undergo the same process (i.e. through natural selection of words and semantics), as well as cultures and nations (selection of peoples and ideas to persist - a complex, natural process, not a moral or directed one), and technology. However, as long as human beings continue to have children, biological evolution cannot end, even though it may be a much slower process than our other systems create.

As genetic engineering and other technologies advance, the processes of reproduction probably will be affected, such that an individual's genetic makeup may not simply be the result of random chance for which sperm and egg are selected to meet, but may instead be directed and designed to some degree by humans. But consider this: it is more than likely that, even if such technology was common and widespread, there will be "designed people" who's design causes them, for whatever of innumerable possible reasons, to fail to reproduce, and their genetics will not persist. Even if every individual was manufactured, there will still be those whose genetics are more likely to be reproduced than others'.

To end the process of biological evolution, the entire human race must be directed and controlled to such a high degree that it no longer behaves as a complex system, and such a system will never be as stable as the natural complex system that directs our evolution now.

We will continue to evolve, though the environment we evolve in now may affect the ways the species changes. These days it seems to me that most evolution will affect the brain and certain physiological characteristics, and the physical appearance of a human being may change very little over the next million years. Still, I would postulate that a person born in a thousand years will be unfathomably better equipped, genetically, to survive and reproduce in a highly-intelligent and organized species than we are today.

That's my two cents.

"Natural" evolution is tied to natural selection.

Natural selection for humans was somehow aminorated when we learned to develop tools. Some of those tools were weapons for hunting, but it is most important that those same weapons made our forebears to stop being a prey.


It was even more aminorated when we got to grow our own vegetables and to raise our own cattle instead of depending on foraging and hunting for our food.

And finally, the ability to prevent and heal diseases and injuries.

There are other improvements (clothes, shelter...) but I think we have not had an environment pressure on us as a species in whole for several millennia. That is, no natural selection for us. And so, no evolution for the whole of written history (redundancy here, but I like it) and maybe longer.

Biological evolution, which I'll define as change in allele frequencies over time is happening right now, despite all our technological advances. And has probably been happening quite rapidly since the advent of agriculture, probably to a large extent in the direction of improved disease resistance. But, since we may decide to do away with having DNA at all in the future, this form of evolution will obviously come to an end.

Other than the stupid things stupid people do that get them killed, survival of the fittest rarely happens to modern humans. I agree we will likely soon be modifing the genes of our offspring, with typically awful side effects the first few decades, but perhaps for good in the far future. I agree the transition is scary. My guess is gene changes which are occuring at present are more often harmful than helpful = humans are worsening. The fresh genes that have come from foreign countries have likely partially off set a gentic deteriation of human genes which has possibly been occuring for centuries. Neil

Survival of the fittest is happening right now. It refers to those individuals that best fit their environment. More specifically, it refers to those whose ability to successfully reproduce best matches their environment. But our environment is changing very rapidly. Right now we are being selected for those who drive carefully (lots of teenagers die from reckless driving before they get a chance to reproduce) but before too long we will probably have cars that can drive themselves, or at least can avoid collisions, removing that particular selective pressure.

Personally I find the idea of messing with our genes dangerous but that is only because we do not completely understand them. Once we have the understanding, and the computing power to model whatever we would need to model to determine the consequences of alterations, then it will probably be more dangerous to leave changes to random chance.

Let's say for instance we continue to ruin Earth's ecology. Genetic engineering would allow us to adapt ourselves and other lifeforms to the resulting environment and preserve the race. Or if we travel to other worlds, adapt life that can flourish there, perhaps including ourselves.

Addressing Clint's doubt about the ability to develop full-fledged neocortical interfaces in the next twenty years; I would have said the same thing a year ago but I've learned this past year that brain research is accelerating at an amazing pace and nearly everything we believed true about the brain has been disproved in the past ten years. Much of the current state of that research is not known to the general public because it hasn't filtered out yet, but it is starting to. I would encourage anyone to look into the concept of neuroplasticity. I think you'll be amazed by what you learn.

I think we have the technology to create such interfaces already, it's just a matter of doing it. I also believe twenty years is generously conservative. In a few short years carbon nanotubes will probably be used to connect to neurons throughout the layers of neocortical columns. Due to the neuroplastic abilities of the brain, developing the ability to work with such interfaces will be a matter of training. It could be as simple as learning to juggle or more difficult like learning a new language, but will not be impossible by any means.

The reason these interfaces will be developed will be to aid the handicapped. Once a communications standard is agreed upon, and the regions of the brain that would be best used for this sort of thing are determined, all anybody would need is a connection; wireless, plug, whatever. Any "peripheral" could be made to work with that connection so countless different connections to the brain would not be necessary and people's greatest complaint will likely be a lack of bandwidth.

If the technology was safe I'd get an implant as quickly as I could save the money to get one. It would give me such a huge advantage over everyone who did not have one that I would be highly marketable and could make a ton more money than I do now. I could communicate with others who were similarly implanted simply by thinking about it and we could communicate in concepts rather than slow language. I could easily record my thoughts in electronic storage devices and retrieve them at will. I would be able to remember anything I wanted to remember. I also could very quickly learn anything I wanted, whenever I wanted, because I would have the Internet (or its descendant) available to my mind at all times.

Imagine the power this would provide stock traders. I can hear all the Blackberries hitting the floor as they drop them in their rush to get implants. Imagine a surgeon with the ability to control robotic surgery devices without the flaws inherent in muscular control. Imagine software developers building constructs as quickly as they can think them up. Imagine mathematicians able to work directly with computers at incredible speeds.

I could go on, but I don't want to make this post so long that it is skipped over.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Natural selection does not mean that only the very best survive. It would be better stated as only the worst don't survive. During good times, almost every one is "good enough" to make it. It is only during the bad times that the "weeding" starts taking place.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Well, no. During the good times those that reproduce the most are being selected for. Hard times are not required for natural selection to operate.

Exactly.


With genetic manipulation, assuming that we can determine fully what genes do what and then "customize" our children, one wonders about the selection. Especially from a sociological point of view.
To quote the 'Incredibles', "When everyone's super, no one will be."

There would need to be enforcement for variety as well. People will all want certain traits in their child. But let's face it: We have a purpose for all walks in life.

Genetic deformities, diseases or otherwise harmful traits that can be caught while the child is in the womb... Including perhaps mental retardation, that would be a good application for genetic technology. But using it like "cosmetic surgery" for the human race? Hmm...

Both are factors in the process.The process is not solely dependent on a given process, but rather a dynamic working system.

Survival of the fittest may take on a new form several centuries from now. I imagine a time when all known human genes are stored digitally in databases at various locations; a new individual might be costructed from a carefully chosen mix of those digital genes. Certainly certain genes, or combinations of genes, might be used more often, and this could be equated to evolutionary success; but there is no reason why less popular genes need be discarded altogether, assuming there is enough room in the database to keep a copy.

They might come in useful one day, after all...

Of course, a proportion of the available genes might be entirely artificial, and some might well come from non-human sources. I suspect that this proportion may increase over time.

Not exactly evolution as we know it. And since the makeup of new individuals would be selected by intelligent action, the development of future species might be more like the deliberate design and development of a new motor car, aeroplane or computer than the slow selection of traits by misadventure.

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense . OA Flickr set

OK, let me rephrase it.

Natural selection = non survival of the least fit!

Take climate change. In today's, rather benign conditions, most survive. At least they survive the temperature, many still succumb to other factors, such as predation. As the climate warms, the least heat tolerant die off. The remainder still have a wide range of tolerances and the least tolerant are going to be the next to go.

Now suppose the climate starts to swing the other way. Now cold tolerance becomes the survival factor and the least cold tolerant start dying off. Note also that heat tolerance does not necessarily mean cold intolerance. Those with a wide tolerance range will more likely survive no matter which way the winds blow!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

Not a few centuries. A few years. It's being done now. Well, not the last bit. That's only been done with viruses and a bacterium so far.

You have just defined genetic variation. The equation is:

Biological.evolution = Genetic.variation + Natural.selection

You need both. Simultaneity is not called for though. You can allow for genetic variation alone during generations (in fact you need it for traits that depend on more than one gen) and then have periods of weeding from natural selection when bad times come. And different bad conditions will select different traits.

Without natural selection, genetic variation on its own has a lot more chance of producing freaks than better individuals.

Of course there is a standing low level of natural selection which continuously weeds out the really unfit, so it just helps us to keep where we are, but not to improve.

Evolution is an adaptation to the environment. It does not happen when it is not needed because we change the environment to suit our needs instead. Which is what we have been doing.