I invite you to speculate on the next step in evolution

[Sillychris]

Biologists think that the classes of mammals and birds descended from reptiles. In both cases, new characteristics not previously seen in life emerged.

ie Mammals became warm blooded, grew hair, and gave live birth (to name a few of the new characteristics that separated this new class of animal).

My question is this: Allowing evolution to run its course, what kinds of new characteristics may show up in a new class of animal?

Postulates for the sake of this discussion:

1) New characteristic means: Does not currently exist in any organism whatsoever (ie Putting gills on a mammal doesn't count. Use your imagination).

2) Allowing evolution to run its course means: Humans do not interfere. Although human evolution may be hypothesized on, assume that nature runs uninterrupted.

Postulate #2 has the following consequences:

-Cyborgs/computers as the next step is NOT a valid answer

-We are just going to blow ourselves up is NOT a valid answer

-Turning into pure energy is NOT a valid answer

Generally, try to keep humans out of the discussion. However, you can discuss human biological evolution with careful discretion.

3) Regardless of your personal beliefs, we shall treat the current scientific model of natural selection as the mechanism of species diversity

[Brotoro]

Does "humans do not interfere" mean we are going to stop messing with the environment and animal habitats? Because what natural selection "chooses" is going to depend on what the Earth's environment is going to be like...and so I can't speculate unless I know what we are up to (be it taking away habitats, protecting the planet from asteroid impacts, tossing around interesting chemicals, etc.).

[Klingon Admiral]

Evolution does not work this way.

[Sillychris]

Does "humans do not interfere" mean we are going to stop messing with the environment and animal habitats? Because what natural selection "chooses" is going to depend on what the Earth's environment is going to be like...and so I can't speculate unless I know what we are up to (be it taking away habitats, protecting the planet from asteroid impacts, tossing around interesting chemicals, etc.).

Yes, it means we will stop messing with the environment. In fact, for the sake of this speculation let's just pretend humans never even showed up.

[Kryten]

In that case 'speculate the current stage of evolution' might be a better question, given the effects of humans on fauna pretty much everywhere on the planet.

[Rakaydos]

The next "level" of evolution would be life that could not have naturally formed out of the organic soup- only possible now by emergent properties and ever increasing complexity. If it is possible, it would have beeen a mutation at one point. If it was benificial (at the time the mutation occured) it becomes part of the species. The only things left are that which was not possible... not natural.

In a sence, your Facebook, cell phones, and credit records are all aspects of your evolved being, as a form of hivemind comunication. At some point, we will deveop an enitely Synthetic life (probably related to Siri), and THAT will be the next life form to evolve.

[Nibb31]

Evolution doesn't work in "steps" or "levels". This isn't WOW.

[Faark]

In fact, for the sake of this speculation let's just pretend humans never even showed up.

That's exactly the point. On the long run, another species would have evolved that also has intelligence as a key skill. Thus you would most likely end up with a similar result.

As for mankind, our primitive, "natural" evolution process has most likely ended. There is barely any selection mechanic still ongoing that would improve us in any regard. So we will just mutate... and ofc compensate with out key skill... intelligence. Though we likely develop fast enough to not have to care about such slow stuff anyway.

[Red Iron Crown]

That's exactly the point. On the long run, another species would have evolved that also has intelligence as a key skill. Thus you would most likely end up with a similar result.

Possibly, but I don't think it's a given that intelligence and tool use will evolve. Dinosaurs had millions of years to develop it and we have no evidence that they did.

As for mankind, our primitive, "natural" evolution process has most likely ended. There is barely any selection mechanic still ongoing that would improve us in any regard. So we will just mutate... and ofc compensate with out key skill... intelligence. Though we likely develop fast enough to not have to care about such slow stuff anyway.

I agree with this, if anything humans are devolving. Genetic disorders that would have been weeded out by natural selection have become more and more common, and the theory that more intelligent people breed less than less intelligent people can only mean bad things for us.

My guess for humanity's future would be that we give up on evolution and move to intelligent design. That is, start genetically engineering desirable traits into the species.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Red Iron Crown
Fixed a typo

[Albert VDS]

Evolution does not work this way.

Evolution doesn't work in "steps" or "levels". This isn't WOW.

Exactly. Evolution is how organisms change over generations and evolve in to different organisms due to mutations and environment changes.

When a change doesn't work they die, if it does then it's carried on to the next generation

This doesn't mean the new generation is better/superior than the previous, it's only different.

This is a way to get to more complex organisms, but it not a sure path as the next generation could be less complex.

For instance you could have a octopus with 8 tentacles and many generations later it might only have 4.

As long it doesn't hinder the survival of this organism.

[AngelLestat]

Postulates for the sake of this discussion:

1) New characteristic means: Does not currently exist in any organism whatsoever (ie Putting gills on a mammal doesn't count. Use your imagination).

Sorry, but this question is too vague. I would not know where to start.

It depends on each species and their environments.

Besides, if we take out the human impact from all this. All our our estimations are kinda pointless.

For example, humans change the enviroments very fast, this does not gives much time to any evolution process (at least for species with more than 1 year of reproduction cycle), but species behaviors change faster.

[Faark]

Possibly, but I don't think it's a given that intelligence and tool use will evolve. Dinosaurs had millions of years to develop it and we have no evidence that they did.

That's exactly the point. Being successful in terms of evolution doesn't just mean being on top of the food chain or the dominant race for some time, but that your branch on the tree of species will go longer than the competition, preferably for ever. Dinosaurs had millions of years to develop but that didn't prepare them for a radical environment change. Give mankind another 100 years and we might even start spreading throughout the galaxy. That's a level of evolutionary success no other branch originating on earth could even dream about. Ofc only the future will show whether we will be evolutionary successful. We might run into an evil alien race that tries to extinguish any possible competition but wouldn't have found us otherwise. Not even mentioning that our intelligence made us a serious threat to ourselves.

But a key requirement to "win" evolution is being able to adopt. The only ways I'm aware of to do so are a. mutation + selection and b. "intelligence".

[Simon Ross]

It's an interesting question

In terms of natural selection, evolution has pretty much done with us as a species, we kinda topped out 80,000 years ago, since then there has been no actual increase in brain mass, although there has been massive increases in our size and weight due to better diet, hygiene etc...

I think the jury is still out as to intelligence being a successful survival characteristic, after all, we haven't actually been around very long

It could be that we simply end up as another roll of the dice by nature, what the next roll will bring, I really have no idea

[Red Iron Crown]

That's exactly the point. Being successful in terms of evolution doesn't just mean being on top of the food chain or the dominant race for some time, but that your branch on the tree of species will go longer than the competition, preferably for ever. Dinosaurs had millions of years to develop but that didn't prepare them for a radical environment change. Give mankind another 100 years and we might even start spreading throughout the galaxy. That's a level of evolutionary success no other branch originating on earth could even dream about. Ofc only the future will show whether we will be evolutionary successful. We might run into an evil alien race that tries to extinguish any possible competition but wouldn't have found us otherwise. Not even mentioning that our intelligence made us a serious threat to ourselves.

But a key requirement to "win" evolution is being able to adopt. The only ways I'm aware of to do so are a. mutation + selection and b. "intelligence".

I agree that intelligence + tool making is the ultimate in evolutionary success (so far, at least), but the point I was trying to make is that they're not inevitable. Your statement "On the long run, another species would have evolved that also has intelligence as a key skill." is not necessarily true. The dinosaur example was meant to illustrate that, as they had a much, much longer run in which to develop them but never did.

[Dispatcher]

You want us to take a guess, but then you remove some significant variables out of the process. Then you want us to assume that homo sapiens never "showed up".

They did show up, along with their ability to alter the environment and themselves (to a greater degree than other life forms). Your original premise is the "next step", not an alternative situation. Accordingly, I choose "The Sixth Finger", an episode of the original Outer Limits series; starring David McCallum.

[Sillychris]

The first time I asked this question was to my grade 5 teacher. His answer was similar to those in the forum.

I have since asked it to very many people, including professionally trained biologists.

To date, everyone has been unwilling or unable to speculate a response, which leads me to believe it is a fundamental limitation of the human mind.

I'd be really impressed if someone did, though.

[Kryten]

To date, everyone has been unwilling or unable to speculate a response, which leads me to believe it is a fundamental limitation of the human mind.

Have you considered it's actually a 'fundamental limitation' of the question? As it is it's meaningless, for all the reasons people have already given.

[Sillychris]

Some feedback in the forum is that I have removed conditions of evolution or not provided them.

Imagine some. Imagine whatever you want. That's why it's called speculation. It is a fundamentally creative question. I'm just trying to remove the obvious answers like pollution resistance, the ability to feed off nuclear radiation, and technology integration.

Also, I know that evolution doesn't work in discrete steps, but if we let enough time pass and take snapshots, it can appear so. A new characteristic would gradually appear, but once it had, it would still be new.

Mammals have hair, that was simple and new. Baby steps, people.

[Sillychris]

Have you considered it's actually a 'fundamental limitation' of the question? As it is it's meaningless, for all the reasons people have already given.

The question is totally answerable. Somebody did speculate a sixth finger, although that's not really a new characteristic since cats have it but at least he's playing nicely!

Here's an example: What about nitrogen respiration? Nitrogen is reactive, but animals can't utilize it's atmospheric form. Oxygen levels have been gradually decreasing for millions of years now. Nitrogen is reactive. Maybe animals would develop a way to harness it.

[Rakaydos]

Hermite crabs use found shells for protection. Otters use rocks to crack open shellfish.

If these things count as evolutions, so does your Driver's Licence and your Credit History- while they are not intristically part of your being, they shape human behavur as part of social evolutionary pressure.

[Dispatcher]

The question is totally answerable. Somebody did speculate a sixth finger, although that's not really a new characteristic since cats have it but at least he's playing nicely! ...

Uh, thanks! Actually, the "sixth finger" is merely a catchy title for that particular Outer Limits episode. That characteristic was insignificant in relation to the primary development of the character: a much larger brain, and its attendant abilities, which included telekinesis and telepathy. If you watch the entire episode starting from part one, you will see the individual develop over the time of the episode, rather than being changed instantly.

[Awaras]

The more complex an organism is, the less able it is to radically alter its physiology. The chance that a mammal would evolve a way to use nitrogen instead of oxygen are virtually zero.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Awaras

[Sillychris]

The more complex an organism is, the less able it is to radically alter its physiology. The chance that a mammal would evolve a way to use nitrogen instead of oxygen are virtually zero.

That's the best contribution to the discussion I've heard so far. It seems that in the case of vertebrates, structural adaptations are much more likely. Maybe new organs?

Also consider insects: They are belligerently diverse due to their short life spans and rapid adaptation. Perhaps they could develop new characteristics?

[Kryten]

Here's an example: What about nitrogen respiration? Nitrogen is reactive, but animals can't utilize it's atmospheric form. Oxygen levels have been gradually decreasing for millions of years now. Nitrogen is reactive. Maybe animals would develop a way to harness it.

It's not going to be possible to just replace oxygen with something else in a process as complex as respiration; the only known animal that's been able to develop an anaerobic metabolism has it end after what is just the first step in the aerobic version, yielding roughly 1/16th the energy. You're going to run into this kind of problem a lot if you focus speculation on more derived organisms; the more complex and differentiated something is biologically, the more constrained it is.

EDIT: In other words, basically what Awaras said...

[Sillychris]

If you watch the entire episode starting from part one, you will see the individual develop over the time of the episode, rather than being changed instantly.

Curiosity piqued. I will be watching that episode in the near future.