How could we have stopped evolving?

[HydrogenBond]

When the DNA of the male mixes with that of the female, the genes don't just stick end to end. There is a shuffling of the genes. I look at the shuffling as being analogous to adding two batches of DNA chemicals to a beaker, with the ovum the beaker setting the reaction conditions. The combined DNA shuffles in an attempt to define a distribution close to equilibrium.

In other words, before the ovum extrudes half of its DNA, the protein grid of the ovum reflects a differentiated state of the entire female DNA. Once half of the female DNA is extruded, we end up with a non equilibrium between the remaining half DNA and all proteins that have formed from full DNA. The male DNA takes the place of this deficit, but because it is not exactly what was extruded, the entire DNA needs to shuffle to approach equilibrium with the potential that is being defined by the rest of the ovum. But even that is not equilibrium, but sets a potential to begin dividing.

The fertilized ovum will only divide for so many cycles, or until the potential between the combined DNA and the final cell grids have minimized. To get further cell division, an environmental potential is added, which is connected to the mother's blood supply. This analysis works under the assumption that life is a bunch of organized chemicals following chemical laws. Reactions will only occur if there is a chemical potential added to the mix. In this case, the mother's blood supply is adding reactants that have energy value. The cells see this potential, try to maintain their integration, distribute the potential throughout, resulting in the cells needing to divide. It is more complicated than just that, but it amounts to chemicals following energy laws.

Where male and female come in, is connected to the higher level of potential life is able to achieve at the get go. In other words, single cells can only divide into two, when reducing their non equilibrium potential. While the male-female route creates a much stronger non equilibrium, that results in a more complicated multicellular state. The combined DNA is placed in a non equilibrium state right from the get go. Because the DNA is stable changes in the DNA are sort of minimized. But there are some changes, where the genetics can produce by-products called mutations. An analogy is reacting chemicals too fast, due to too high of a potential. One will get some by-products that may not appear if the potential is lowered. But sometimes these by-products are useful and help define a better equilibrium.

Life never forms an equilibrium. The reason is, it goes in two mutually exclusive paths at the same time, relative to chemical potentials. It is subject to oxidation like al chemicals on earth, while also producing reduced compounds which are gaining energy. It has machinery for doing both at the same time. The result is rather than move toward lowest potential energy in terms of chemistry, it tries to increase the chemical potential at the same time it is trying to lower the potential.

If you look at a cell cycle, the rate of metabolism increases. The cell is shifting its internal gradient potential toward the oxidation side. After it divides, it will shift the internal potential gradient back toward the reduction side to build up energy. This see-saw battle is connected to two primary players; O and H. The oxygen is trying to lower energy, while the H via hydrogen bonding is moving into states of increased energy. In terms of the cell cycles the pendulum swings as each potential take turns leading. In terms of multicellular, the building of energy value in all the cells so the entire system increases its energy content over time reflects a state where the H begins to play a even more dominate role in the equilibrium.

This is subtle so I will give an analogy to make it easier to see. Picture two young brothers, big brother O and little brother H. They have one toy to share called electrons. For this composite system, equilibrium will result in the big brother getting the toy most of the time, assuming mother is not forcing them to share, equally. Although this situation defines system equilibrium, it does not imply that little brother is satisfied. He would prefer play with the toy more than is defined by his big brother's system. Through the hydrogen bonding that defines the properties of bio-materials, the hydrogen is able to increasingly get the toy away from big brother O. Evolution is the story of how H gets more and more creative, getting the system equilibrium to slowly shift in the direction of the H.

[HydrogenBond]

Using H as the potential that opposes the oxidation potential makes the cell an easier system to analyze. What it brings to the table are two opposing potentials that form a dynamic equilibrium. Without the H as an opposing potential, we use genetic statistics to make up for the needed potential. Genetic shift, drift and mutations becomes the wild card variable to set a potential so change becomes possible.

But if we compare life to inanimate matter, in the presence of oxygen, or oxidation, inanimate matter goes to lowest energy. It may store some residual energy as defects or as traces of higher potential chemicals. Life is different in that life is not easy to oxidize, since it is always actively reducing and gaining energy as fast as oxygen can oxidize it.

One way to look at the hydrogen, as a countering potential to oxygen, is connected to the lowest energy state of hydrogen. I am not talking about the hydrogen and oxygen system, but the lowest energy state of just hydrogen. That state is H2. This state of hydrogen is so balanced it has the lowest melting point of all compounds. In other words, if it had residual potential it would melt at a higher temperature due to the residual potential trying to hang on much longer. But being so balanced, H2 solid has little holding it together, causing it to melt a handful of degrees above absolute zero.

If we do an atom count of a cell, H makes up about 60-70% of all the atoms in the cell. If we assume water is 90%, that alone means 60% hydrogen. Although system potential is centered on O, the H would achieve its lowest individual potential if it could form H2. As H2O it has potential to form H-bonds, imply it retains residual potential. To lower potential even more than hydrogen bonding, it becomes reduced.

If you go back to the analogy of big brother O and little brother H, the O would like all the H to become H2O, but this isn't the lowest individual energy state of H. It is the lowest system energy state defined by O. The H, as an individual would find its own sweet spot, closer to H2, which would give it the toy all the time. But the system is still dominated by O, such that the final compromise involves reduction into C-H. Life is unique in that it makes use of these two conflicting potentials. If we use both, then even mutations have a logical explanation.

For example, mutations on the DNA, do not form the best possible hydrogen bonds with the DNA template. The mutate gene is out of place. The result are the hydrogen bonds in the mutation are at a higher energy state than they would be if the template relationship was perfect, i.e., no mutation. One can see big brother O's potential handiwork, since it is shifting the lowest potential state away from H, slightly back toward O. During the next cell cycle, the H, via hydrogen bonded enzymes will use this gene as a template to make perfect hydrogen bonds. If we get back to the topic title, have humans stopped evolving; the answer is the H has gotten dominant enough to much better nip the O potential in the bud. The enzymes of the DNA, within humans, work affectively to minimize H potential.

[goku]

death, the rule of the juggle, only the stong will survive.

the question is; how in the crap did it help man to be hairless, cold and naked evolutionary blunder?

[HydrogenBond]

The environment helps to set the potentials for change. When humans went hairless, there is now a greater potential to get warm again. Rather than grow hair again, human evolution involved the brain. The brain gave the early humans the idea to start wearing fur. It could have happened the opposite way with the brain using fur before the hair fully fell out. This would create an environmental stress, causing their fur to fall out.

If you look at neurons there are two important observations. First, these cells don't divide after a certain age. They lose the enhanced metabolism implicit of cell cycles. This implies the H side of the potential has gotten the upper hand on the O side.

The other observation is these cells have the highest membrane potentials of all the cells in the body, with the inside negative and the outside positive. The inside negative favors the needs of the H by providing max electron density inside the cell relative to other cells. The outside positive is also at at max, relative to other cells, and favors the O side of the polarity since its higher electronegativity is less affected. The outside is where the neural activity becomes associated with the environmental potential, implicit of O. The neuron is able to constantly recover, implicit of the H side of the potential firming up the memory. The genetic mutations of old have partially shifted into unstable neural memory mutations that H firms up into a sense of neural and intellectual stability.

If you look at a cell, it is driven with ATP energy. The ATP adds a phosphate group. This is full of oxygen and creates an electron withdrawing affect. The hydrogen in an enzymes lose electron density, temporarily. They get it back resetting the enzyme for another cycle. This is the basic battle between O and H, with the potential in the O restricted to energy levels at the level of hydrogen bonding energies. This keeps the H on top of things.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by goku

death, the rule of the juggle, only the stong will survive.

the question is; how in the crap did it help man to be hairless, cold and naked evolutionary blunder?

Here's my theory:
Hair is energy intensive. Since we found other ways to stay warm (other animals fur, fire, etc), we didn't need hair as much and could focus our energy on brainpower.

Of course, there are lots of theories for this:
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Itchy answer to hairless humans

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by goku

the question is; how in the crap did it help man to be hairless, cold and naked evolutionary blunder?

I don’t think a discussion of this old, old question would be complete without mention of the aquatic ape hypothesis. Neither a strongly supported nor refuted anthropological hypothesis, it is nonetheless an interesting, and fairly famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view concerning the promotion of scientific ideas) one.

Another interesting datum about the presumed “hairlessness” of humans is that, in terms of a simple count of number of hairs, it’s not true. Surprisingly, as described in this webpage (odd to link to a Proctor & Gamble hair-care information website, but it’s a pretty good non-technical one with a pretty high google rank) human beings have more hairs per unit area of skin than other apes. Except for certain areas (eg: the scalp), however, most humans have much finer hair than other apes, which has much less (but not zero) ability to trap air and keep us warm.

Though I think the AAH is reasonable, my personal guess at the “how we got so naked-looking” question is that it was an adaptation to the development of clothing. As the more hirsute among us can attest, even in our relatively antiseptic modern living conditions, thick hair rubbed by clothing can cause problems ranging from annoying itchiness to serious skin infections, leading some to shave their bodies for practical reasons. As humans began increasingly to artificially insulate themselves with clothing, in their more septic ancient living conditions, I hypothesize, thinner-haired people had fewer of these problems, and gained an evolutionary advantage. What ancient human or hominid would want to reproduce with the guy/gal with all the oozy, matted, scabby, smelly stuff under their cloths, when a smooth-skinned, healthy alternative mate is available?

[freeztar]

What do you think about the parasite hypothesis I linked to above, Craig?

FWIW
Here's an old thread that touches on human hair and evolution:
http://hypography.com/forums/biology...highlight=hair

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by freeztar

What do you think about the parasite hypothesis I linked to above, Craig?

Like the AAH and my “nasty itchy ape hypothesis”, the “bug-bit ape hypothesis”, makes sense (and is compatible with the NIAH, and to a lesser extent the AAH), but like them, I find it hard to imaging how it can ever be tested in such a way that it, or any explanation, becomes widely accepted.

The BBC article you linked to begins

The generally accepted theory until now has been that hairlessness evolved to control body temperature in hot climates.

While I’d not be surprised if a poll of paleoanthropologists showed that this explanation tops the list of most likely explanations, I think there’s such uncertainty and lack of compelling data supporting any one of the many hypotheses that what’s actually “generally accepted” is that there’s more uncertainty than certainty on the subject.

Though I think there’s pretty high confidence that the reduction in size (not, as noted up-thread, in number) of human body hair from that of our distant ancestors had survival value, and thus was selected for, the details of what factors influenced this selection, and how precisely it occurred are likely to, I suspect, remain mysterious for some time, possibly forever. It may be that several are right, and that different human populations selected for thin body hair for different reasons.

My personal wild speculation concerning definitive conclusion about paleoanthropology and other inquires into even the fairly recent biological and social past, is that they may not occur until it’s possible to litterally look into the past (which I wildly speculate about in this post).

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Like the AAH and my “nasty itchy ape hypothesis”, the “bug-bit ape hypothesis”, makes sense (and is compatible with the NIAH, and to a lesser extent the AAH), but like them, I find it hard to imaging how it can ever be tested in such a way that it, or any explanation, becomes widely accepted.

What if primates were dressed in clothes, furs, etc. and measured for dermal changes/itching activity?

But yes, as far as ascertaining the correct theory as it relates to primitive man, I'm afraid you are correct.

The BBC article you linked to begins

The generally accepted theory until now has been that hairlessness evolved to control body temperature in hot climates.

While I’d not be surprised if a poll of paleoanthropologists showed that this explanation tops the list of most likely explanations, I think there’s such uncertainty and lack of compelling data supporting any one of the many hypotheses that what’s actually “generally accepted” is that there’s more uncertainty than certainty on the subject.

I agree.

Though I think there’s pretty high confidence that the reduction in size (not, as noted up-thread, in number) of human body hair from that of our distant ancestors had survival value, and thus was selected for, the details of what factors influenced this selection, and how precisely it occurred are likely to, I suspect, remain mysterious for some time, possibly forever.

Yes, that link was interesting. It would be more interesting to find a site with more scientific credentials though. Nonetheless, I don't find it hard to believe.

It may be that several are right, and that different human populations selected for thin body hair for different reasons.

I think this is more to the truth. On top of the different human populations idea, I could imagine natural selection selecting for a hotter environment/mate selection/'itchy-nasty'/etc, within a "single" population.

My personal wild speculation concerning definitive conclusion about paleoanthropology and other inquires into even the fairly recent biological and social past, is that they may not occur until it’s possible to litterally look into the past (which I wildly speculate about in this post).

Wow, how did I miss this post?
I've got some reading to do!

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by charles brough

In March 2007, Cochran/Hawks in World Science reported that the main genetic changes that have taken place in us in the last almost 200,000 years have merely been a slight shrinking of body and brain size and changes in metabolism!

So, what explains what has happened to us in all that time? What caused us to build up such a cultural heritage and expand in numbers to fill, indeed, even crowd the Earth?

Social theorists have no concensus on that. Some resort to "meme"s as an "explanation." Others just won't believe it and insist that is can all be explained by some sort of biological evolution going on somehow somewhere.

Why hit our heads against the wall? The explanation is available in
HOME PAGE Natural selection has been occuring between societies---not the races as the Social Darwinists and Sociobiologists claim. Not economic systems as the Marxists claim. It is between religion-bonded entities we call "societies," "cultures" or "civilizations but which are distinct entities that compete with each other for survival.

Of course, religious believers hate that idea because it gives religion a natural cause evolutionary purpose! Natural selection working on religions!

But, hey! lets get at a real explanation of what's going on and skip the spiritualism. If we bothered to figure out what is going on, we might be able to do better. . .

I don't think Cochran/Hawks in World Science report is correct about our evolution stopping.

Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey FindsMar 8, 2006 ... Genome researchers have identified more than 700 regions in human DNA where apparently strong selection has occurred, driving the spread of ...
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html - 28k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Natural Selection Has Strongly Influenced Recent Human Evolution ...Oct 23, 2005 ... The most detailed analysis to date of how humans differ from one another at the DNA level shows strong evidence that natural selection has ...
Natural Selection Has Strongly Influenced Recent Human Evolution, Study Finds - 48k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this