What human attributes were necessary to make it through natural selection?

Cute and stupid seems to be pro-survival. Lord knows there’s no shortage of them.

@CyanoticWasp lol
the attributes are varied – the environments have varied and continue to vary

The smarts have always allowed me to survive.

Your question shows what is a very common misunderstanding of evolution. The goal is never a more perfect whatever. The goal is merely to favor any trait that results in better dispersion of the individual’s genome. The rest of it just happens by accident. In other words, we are human because we survived, we did not survive because we are human.

An expert on evolution, I am not. But I was taught that giraffes have long necks because they had to be able to reach the leaves. I was simply wondering what traits made it through.

Giraffes have long necks because the giraffes with longer necks had better reproductive success.

@pdworkin: I thought that the long necks on giraffes enabled them to find a niche for foraging. Not too high and not too low?

@pdworkin is right—again! (Twice in one day, that I know of. Damn.)

The most successful organisms on planet Earth aren’t dinosaurs, mammals, birds, fishes or even plants. That honor belongs to bacteria. They outnumber us in terms of numbers of species, numbers of individual organisms, longevity (as a species), and they even outweigh us (or maybe that’s worms, I forget).

But those suckers are successful. So maybe the key to success in evolution is to be a bacterium.

Strength always has an advantage, but evolution tends to be driven by environment and when environment changes it’s those smart enough to recognize it that adapt and live long enough to pass on their genes.

I don’t understand the correlation between long necks and reproducing.

@jamielynn2328 that’s because you’re not a giraffe.

I know this is counterintuitive, but evolution has no goal. It is blind, and it has to do with adaptation to environmental change in order to have progeny. That’s it. That’s the whole story. Everything else is an artifact. You don’t have to believe me. Read Stephen J Gould.

I do believe you @pdworkin , I guess it is a topic I am ignorant on. Raised born again christian and taught that science was evil, I just never really got it. My parents made me go to the library while they taught evolution in sixth grade and work on a project to present to the class proving that evolution was not real.

And although I will never be a giraffe, I’d still like to understand.

@jamielynn2328 okay it’s like this – previously it was thought that giraffes with longer necks were able to get food better than those with shorter necks and it was easier for them to reproduce (because they remained alive long enough to do so) and so their babies had longer necks too, not necessarily because they had to get their food from up high but because they, too, could reproduce (after getting the food)..recently it is believed that giraffes with longer necks were able to fight off other males (with their necks) and reproduce more successfully

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_giraffes_have_long_necks

@pdworkin you don’t have to be rude – you missed an opportunity to pass on your knowledge to someone

@pdworkin, I’ve read Gould, and I enjoyed him immensely—and learned a lot. He really opens eyes.

But I’ve been wondering if he might start to change his mind about that “evolution is blind” now. That is, evolution “apart from humankind” certainly is blind. Organisms do what they do to survive more or less on instinct.

We don’t, though, do we? Not all of us, or all the time, anyway. That is, we not only work consciously to modify our own selves and species (and who knows what will come out of genome research in the future—it’d be nice to be around in the next hundred years or so to see how that plays out), but we also hybridize food crops and livestock at a macro level (apart from the micro level that scientists seem to own).

We have the potential to give evolution some rudimentary eyes. Scary, no?

@jamielynn2328 seeking to expand your understanding of the world around you is never a bad thing :) I wish you well in your exploration!

Then do yourself a favor, @jamielynn2328, and do start reading Stephen Jay Gould. He’s easy to read (entertaining) and very good at explaining the complexity of this subject.

Then do yourself a favor? Geez, I guess I should have asked a different question…

Thanks for the insight.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I had no intention at all of being rude, and I apologize if what I said seemed rude. It’s only that this is a very difficult, broad and deep concept, and after a couple of posts I didn’t feel I was getting anywhere, so I pawned it all off on Gould. If I were more like @dalepetrie I would have posted a definitive exegesis, but, alas, I am not.

@jamielynn2328 I hope I didn’t discourage you in any way. I just answered clumsily. I’m sorry.

@pdworkin I can totally understand because I get tired of discussing gender and sex and race as constructs and it all, to me, seems like old news and let’s talk about something beyond, you know? and I have books on my mind, too and it’d be so much easier than to always write out a huge thing…but I, you, we must remember that when an opportunity like this comes along, an opportunity to share something with another person who doesn’t know, we have to take a step back and talk to them as if this is all new…I know I don’t always have the energy so I understand but it’s so rare to get asked

Thanks, @Simone_De_Beauvoir. I honestly did think I was answering the question. I can see how my answers may have been inadequate for a novice.

I did not consider you rude @pdworkin. I just maybe did not immediately understand your answer. I am not a fool, just an expert in other areas besides science and evolution.

@jamielynn2328 no one’s a fool…okay, lots of people are…but no so much here on fluther…love, :)

@pdworkin it’s all good, you and me usually end up all good

Interesting question. I agree with the posters above that it’s hard to answer this particular question, though, when you think about how evolution works.

In order to “make it through natural selection,” all you need to do is reproduce at least once before you die. And I don’t think humans have any unique attributes in those arenas—the way we reproduce is pretty similar to other primates.

So are you asking what makes human beings unique from other primates, or what attributes we have that were especially useful during our evolutionary history, or something else? (I think these questions could be good discussions.)

Also, I think you have some good recommendations above. If you’re interested in evolution, Stephen Jay Gould is a great read. I would also have to recommend Richard Dawkins, especially The Selfish Gene.

@jamielynn2328 If I had thought for even a second that you might be a fool, I would never have tried to answer you. It is a great question, and a difficult one to answer clearly.

@pdworkin For what it’s worth, I didn’t think you were rude, although I don’t recommend Gould, who to me is a bit dense. I recommend Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker.

And furthermore, you’re absolutely correct in everything you said. Furthermore, the evolutionary advantage of giraffe’s long necks may not be to reach high trees anyway.
http://www.how-come.net/giraffeneck.html
http://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-giraffes-have-long-necks.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_giraffes_have_long_necks

Gould is dense, but oh, so thorough.

Thanks @Rarebear , I find this topic enchanting and necessary for me to understand. I plan to make Gould and Dawkins my next reads…

And @nikipedia I was asking which attributes not only survived, but with that comes utility throughout time. I wasn’t really thinking about other species that have evolved.

I am not a religious person, but I was raised religious and I still find at times that I have held on to specific beliefs or ideas that were transplanted in me. I’ve worked through many misconceptions I was taught and believed in throughout my childhood and teenage years. Evolution is one of those things that I really never bought into. Most likely because sociology and logic are my strong suits, Science not so much. But not believing is an assumption i made without knowledge.

At least Fluther is a safe place to start!

Oh, if you are a logician, you will love the elegant way in which evolution works!

@pdworkin I can’t agree more about Gould. It’s just that if you’re trying to introduce someone to evolution books, IMO Dawkins is much more accessable.

She’s a scholar. She can handle it.

What?? for those who believe in evolution??? Honestly, how can one not?

You merely have to successfully pass on your genes – the definition of natural selection.

Humans problem solving ability, tool making skills, social organization and division of labour, were among the characteristics that contributed to selection in early humans.
In modern society, most of the factors that favour selection of the fittest have been eliminated.
Now the greediest, the richest, the least caring for all others get the best housing, food and health care. Their improved chances of having their offspring survive may actually contribute to
diminishing the best human qualities that are socially valued.

The fittest have survived. This is sometimes misleading, it just means those able to reproduce.

Bipedalism. Human hands. Capability of planning ahead. Language. Large visual cortex. Curiosity. Altruism and cooperation.

@mattbrowne Those are fine, shiny attributes, but what did they have to do exactly with “surviving the process” of evolution? They are mere by-products of evolution.

@pdworkin – Homo sapiens almost didn’t make it. Homo neanderthalensis didn’t make it and neither did at least a dozen other homo species. There was the closing of the Isthmus of Panama leading to global climate change. The paradise in Africa came to an end. There was global cooling for example after the Toba eruption. There was an ice age.

These shiny attributes as you called them made the difference. I would not call them by-products. Here’s an example for a by-product. Most recent mammals got around 1000 genes just for smelling. Dogs and cats do for example. Humans have them as well, however 300 of the 1000 genes are defunct. There’s enough garbling in them that prevents them from working. But in the human genome there are still close enough to those of dogs and cats for scientists to recognize them. What does this mean? Those 300 genes are not critical attributes for human populations to survive. They are a by-product of evolution. Mutations which were not significant.

Bipedalism has one huge drawback: the pelvis of women. Only small babies make it through. They need long extra care. Quite a challenge. Therefore the attributes I mentioned were critical.

@mattbrowne : Define what you mean by a small baby, please.

He means that humans are not fully encephalized at birth, and the skull is not fused. He is also confusing accidental survival mechanisms with evolution.

Mutations are random within limitations. Natural selection is not random or accidental. It rewards useful modifications and punishes mistakes. Your term ‘accidental survival mechanisms’ is indeed confusing. Are you an expert in evolutionary biology?

I seem to know more than you do. That would be sufficient.

Guys; Remember this? http://www.fluther.com/disc/68989/are-you-one-that-dares-to-speak-out-about-things-that/

i memember

@pdworkin – I’m always eager to learn from experts. But sorry, I don’t understand what you are talking about. Care to elaborate?

I already have, in a private message.

@pdworkin – Thanks for your message, my friend!