SOMEBODY GET ME A DOCTOR...who knows evolution ;)

I think EVERYTHING should be looked at under the microscope of evolution. I think we could come up with better air conditioners, cars, medicines...hell, everything could be better if we approached from a "natural selection" attitude.

Answering the question about medicine needing an evolutionary prospective...I do. I often times think that we (humans) look to much into the short-term and not into the long. By looking at WHY human immune systems react the way they do, not just HOW they react may lead to better methods of dealing with illness. The first thing I would like to see is a shift away from the stigma attached to evolution education. The story about some med students complaining that evolution was "forced on them" is sad. Some aspects of ecology are uncomfortable for me, but as a scientist I explore them and try to gain an understanding. Avoiding evolution, or demonizing it, must not lead to a well rounded scientific mind. I would love to know if my doctor had any kind of evolutionary education before I become a patient. If more people understood evolution, I'm betting they would too. So, education becomes priority number 1.

Understanding human past (and disease past) seems crucial to certain situations. I think doctors could better prescribe less invasive treatments, or more natural ones, if they have an understanding of WHY humans react like they do...take the breast cancer example. As a high school teacher, I shudder at the idea of teens becoming pregnant as a method for fighting breast cancer (not to mention the economic and environmental impact of all those babies!), but knowing how humans evolved could lead to better PREVENTATIVE measures over time.

I think dealing with common ailments like cough and fever might be better handled if doctors AND patients had more knowledge about WHY cough and fever are beneficial. However, we live in an "immediate cure" world and patience and time aren't things we value (some of us do...but many in society want it NOW).

As for the analogy, I WOULD want my mechanic to know the history and evolution of the car I have. Perhaps the older model had a better solution for a problem that the mechanic faces now. If the mechanic understands the evolution of a system, perhaps (s)he could fix the problem quicker/easier/cheaper than if simply going on training. I'm not saying that you HAVE to have evolutionary knowledge to fix it, but it surely must be an advantage.

Here is an article on engineers using Darwin's principle of natural selection for designing analog circuits using Genetic Algorithms. Kinda advanced for my knowledge base of electronics, but I hope it makes my point that everything could be made better through evolution!

www.mrc.uidaho.edu/~knoren/GAs/B-159_paper.PDF

MOM...You mean that we came from MONKEYS?

What led to bipedal locomotion? Well, Africa is much different than it is today. The ancestors of "Lucy" or Australopithecus afarensis were most likely tree-dwellers in a more rain forest-like environment. However, Africa started to "dry out" and the rain forests were becoming more grassland. As the environment changed, so did our ancestors. There are many hypotheses on what happened at the forest shrank.

Some of these ideas include:

• Standing up to see over tall grass
• Pick fruit from trees
• Cool more efficiently (less surface area being warmed by the sun)
• Saves energy

As the forest changed, and the area between food patches increased, walking on all fours made it difficult to carry items (like food) and walking on two legs was "inefficient" for long distances, bipedal locomotion was a hell of a benefit.

Thus, walking on two legs saved the organism energy. And that gave our ancestor a competitive advantage. More food, more land coverage and more efficient energy usage is a huge advantage in the game of natural selection.

Now, for the brain size "thing"...I'm going off the reservation for this one. I feel like sharing some ideas that I have read before and some of my own (they are all starting to run together...). I think that our brain size is a direct response to the role of food. The powerful jaw of apes need an anchor point, and that anchor point would have restricted the amount of room that was available for the brain to expand. As diet changes, the need for the extremely strong jaws and different teeth start to disappear. As more protein is available, and the need for stronger jaws decreased, the brain has more room to expand. As food energy increases, more brain activity (which is very energy intense) is available.

I think that food drove evolution. But, I've been wrong before...and will be again. As I continue to read I'm sure that I will find more answers...or more questions. Deep, huh?

Out...

JBlack

On the Evolutionary Road...and other musings...

Dawkins warns of "a pair of temptations" in chapter 1. Those warnings were:

1.) historians are tempted to scour the past for patterns that repeat themselves.
2.) the idea that the past works to deliver our particular present is "the conceit of hindsight

Addressing #1: The idea that we can predict the future based on looking at events of the past may lead us to make mistakes and ignore what matters now. When addressing evolution (and especially human evolution), looking for patterns may point us in a direction that "misses the current point".

Addressing #2: The "conceit of hindsight" shows us how we (humans) think that we are the end-of-the-line for evolution. I think this is why (at least most people in the United States) are uncomfortable with human evolution discussion. In fact, only 4 in 10 Americans "believe" in evolution!

(http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx)

Now that has a lot to do with evolutionary education (you'd be amazed at the number of colleagues that avoid the topic) I think that people are uncomfortable with the idea that all the steps of evolution weren't aimed at creating us. This makes people's heads hurt, and I've noticed that most people avoid what makes their head hurt. ;)

As far as the "mtDNA eve", the mitochondrial DNA of all humanity pinpoints the 'people' common ancestor in the all female line and "Y-chromosome Adam" is the equivalent in the all-male line. They are two out of a multitude of most recent common ancestors (MRCAs) that could be used to trace humans back. This answers the question of being the entire picture (it isn't).

Scientists use coalescent gene trees to help resolve the long-standing debate over human origins. The 'out of Africa' theory has many competing ideas over who, when and how many times humans left the continent (OOOA) and if we evolved separately once we arrived at a new destination (YOOA). However, based on the coalescent gene trees, we can be both descendants of a recent African exodus, and simultaneoulsy descen

Seriously...I will finish this later 'cause I've got students who expect me to answer their questions...the audacity!

Black