What is the aim of evolution?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin
Why would he be trolling? One can hardly be religious without being a dualist and thinking that the mind (or "soul" or whatever they wanna call it) is separate from the body.

Well, if he would have said he was religious, then we could have had an interesting debate on the pros and cons of dualism. But he didn't do that, he just made flip responses...

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
In the human species, we've really fvcked up this whole process. I would probably be dead with my crappy eyesight and so forth. "Success" in genetic terms is how many offspring you can send off. That seems to have very little to do with physical and mental capabilities of our species worldwide compared to other non-domesticated animals.

Agreed with you up until that point. While modern medicine may keep a lot of people alive who possibly don't "deserve" to be alive, it also keeps a larger variation in the human population alive. Meaning we are more fit, as a whole, to survive any 1 single catastrophe. Your eye sight may suck, but you may end up resistant to a new strain of virus. In more dangerous times, specialization would be necessary, but specialization sets the species up for common weaknesses.

I'm just saying that we fvcked up the natural selection process. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to the eye of the beholder.

Evolution is not purpose driven. It is not designed to result in an optimized species. It is a cold unfeeling thing that only cares about what works today. If a killer virus shows up tomorrow that takes out 90% of the population, noone will care about bad eyesight, laziness and premature balding... Killer virus resistance will be the most important trait to have... If that virus never shows up, killer virus resistance serves no purpose.

That is actually a good demonstration why a diverse population is advantageous for the species as a whole - better chance of killer virus resistance being present in someone when the big one shows up...

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

It's good. Unequivocally good. You'd have to be a pretty pessimistic beholder to interpret modern medicine saving countless lives throughout the centuries as bad.

We've been playing God since the dawn of agriculture. We're now in a position to influence our own evolution directly and have indeed been doing it indirectly for thousands of years. And quality of life keeps getting better and better as a result.

Hey, I'll be the first to admit it's good from my perspective. I wouldn't be here if our species was still on an entirely natural selection in the wild side type of existence.

There are people out there that would disagree though.

People that think we should still be on a survival of the fittest type of species where physical strength is often seen as the most important factor.

People that see the current state of technology, economics, politics, etc. as our "environment" now and don't like seeing that the most "successful" (economically, politically, etc.) individuals are not the same people that are "successful" biologically.
(No social welfare programs, help for the poor, etc. would help them realize their vision of only the most "successful" surviving)

People that see "weaker" / "less fit" individuals as a drag on humanity. As in "why should I have to worry about this guy in a wheelchair or someone with cerebral palsy when they're not contributing to society".



Ok, I'm on the side that genetic variation is a good thing. There are people out there that don't agree that helping out the "weak" is beneficial.

Just two things.

First, humans now have the ability to pass on successful ideas, or "memetic" information in addition to genetic information. So "success" can also be defined as who passes on their ideas, or what ideas replicate themselves the most.

Secondly, altruism serves a definite evolutionary role in societies. What some people see as "helping the less fit" individuals and thereby preserving their genes can also be seen as a simple "misfiring" of this trait of altruism. In other words, yes, helping these "less fit" individuals does go against a strict interpretation of natural selection, but it's perfectly natural if seen against the larger Darwinian backdrop of altruism's role in society.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: dingnecros
Was seeing some video regrading the evolution/religion bull crap and a question came to my mind.

"Does evolution aim to evolve the brain or does evolution aim to to evolve the body?"

If survival of the fittest theory is applied then it means that evolution aims to evolve the body, but if concept of technologically/mentally advanced species is taken into account as in sci-fi movies, literature and aliens then most of them involve abilities associated with higher functions of the brain.

So what is the ultimate aim of evolution? to make physically adept or to make mentally adept variants of species ??

the funny thing is, the brain is part of the body..

so yeah..

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
The aim of evolution is to explain how life on this planet has evolved over the hundreds of millions of years it has been in existance. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Simple huh?

i think you are trying to explain the aim of evolutionary research. Evolution itself is just a process.

You're probably right here (about what Jules was saying), but I've heard more than one top scientist refer to the evolution of the life as the process of the universe becoming aware of itself. We are the dust of the stars and the water of the oceans. The mud rises up and looks back to the heavens.

A lot of biologists smoke a lot of pot...

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
The aim of evolution is to explain how life on this planet has evolved over the hundreds of millions of years it has been in existance. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Simple huh?

i think you are trying to explain the aim of evolutionary research. Evolution itself is just a process.

You're probably right here (about what Jules was saying), but I've heard more than one top scientist refer to the evolution of the life as the process of the universe becoming aware of itself. We are the dust of the stars and the water of the oceans. The mud rises up and looks back to the heavens.

"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
In the human species, we've really fvcked up this whole process. I would probably be dead with my crappy eyesight and so forth. "Success" in genetic terms is how many offspring you can send off. That seems to have very little to do with physical and mental capabilities of our species worldwide compared to other non-domesticated animals.

Agreed with you up until that point. While modern medicine may keep a lot of people alive who possibly don't "deserve" to be alive, it also keeps a larger variation in the human population alive. Meaning we are more fit, as a whole, to survive any 1 single catastrophe. Your eye sight may suck, but you may end up resistant to a new strain of virus. In more dangerous times, specialization would be necessary, but specialization sets the species up for common weaknesses.

I'm just saying that we fvcked up the natural selection process. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to the eye of the beholder.

I would argue against this. Natural selection is still working among humans, it's just that we have modified the environment to our advantage so that combinations that would not have survived to breed previously can now do so. If the environment changes (i.e. civilization collapses, etc.) to some new, possibly harsher and more restrictive, environment, then people unsuited to the new environment may find it more difficult to breed.

Natural selection is going to work differently on humans as a whole because we have developed as a mass-society type of creature... one with morals. eegh.

natural selection is thus going to work on a longer and larger scale... instead of hitting individuals, it hits civilizations and society. we'll be forced to adapt en mass, or we'll die. individuals merely 'adapt' to society, and society is the one the adapts to the environment. And thus, natural selection will work against us if we don't conquer the problems as the arise. So, we, for the most part, evolve our minds instead of our bodies. If we stuck a few families in a harsh environment, they might adapt physically over many generations.. but preventing our 'mind' from interfering and reaching out for help from society would be tricky.

Which raises another point brought up earlier...
the mind is NOT physical. The brain is a physical component of our body, the mind, on the other hand, is a intellectual interpretation of the brain and the decisions it naturally makes based on how the brain has been taught through prior experiences... learned through the physical stimuli and the addition of 'morals' taught in life and how they are applied. We think because of morals. No other reason. Without morals, instinctual actions would dominate. The 'mind' is the intellect in which we weigh morality and instinct.

Evolution has no aim, other than the part of evolution that arises from natural adaptation. Most evolution is merely accident. Life is also a natural accident predicted through science, albeit an extremely rare accident. Evolution takes over from there, with further accidents that account for the rise and fall of many life forms.

We may never find another life form that has a 'mind' that incorporates a sociological morality into their lives to balance instinct, a likely requirement for 'intelligent' life that gathers in civilizations and dominates the other natural life found on their home world(s). However... we may find life that varies from bacterium and viruses, to more advanced multicellular lifeforms that can be compared to the vast variety of life that ranges from insects to fish to mammals. Who knows.
It can be assumed however, that any planet that single cell life is found on, that given enough time, further evolution may hold multicellular lifeforms. It all needs time and that accidental beginning. And to find something similar to us, while we are still alive, that happens to be alive while we are still alive (not accounting for similar creatures that may exist some countless millions or billions of years in the future, quite possibly after the fall of man, unless we can conquer Earth and move into space and expand far enough that we don't seek to annihilate each other).... who knows if we'll be graced with that - what is essentially - extreme luck.

+

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Aflac
evolution doesn't "aim" to do anything. Learn more about natural selection please.

Win.

 

[LtPage1]

Fast forward a few million years and see what we look like. There's no guiding force directing evolution- the most fit just tend to end up on top (and once they get there, they're the most fit by definition, so go figure).

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Aflac
evolution doesn't "aim" to do anything. Learn more about natural selection please.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: dingnecros

Originally posted by: Aflac
evolution doesn't "aim" to do anything. Learn more about natural selection please.

so if I understand you right then you are saying that evolution is aimless ?

I think every process has an aim, because without aim there is chaos. Even a fire in the oil storage tanker has an aim. Sure it seems chaotic but Its aim is to burn until there is no fuel left....

Stop anthropomorphizing nature, fire has no aim -- nor does evolution. Fire is an uncontrolled chemical reaction.

 

[So]

Why is it that every evolution thread comes down to "those that understand the process of evolution" and "those that don't"?

 

[Xylitol]

whatever is going to let you reproduce. I believe that God made everything, but I still believe that we all do microevolution in order to better suit our environment

 

[NanoStuff]

Originally posted by: Xylitol
whatever is going to let you reproduce. I believe that God made everything, but I still believe that we all do microevolution in order to better suit our environment

Generally after this kind of response, anything potentially intelligent you might say afterwards becomes automatically disqualified. When you say 'god did it', don't bother trying to redeem yourself with scientific insight.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: So
Why is it that every evolution thread comes down to "those that understand the process of evolution" and "those that don't"?

Natural selection.

Originally posted by: destrekor
Evolution has no aim, other than the part of evolution that arises from natural adaptation. Most evolution is merely accident. Life is also a natural accident predicted through science, albeit an extremely rare accident. Evolution takes over from there, with further accidents that account for the rise and fall of many life forms.

+

Extremely rare? By what scope?
Thus far we only really have three direct comparisons: Earth, our primary example, with a little bit of study of Earth's Moon, and Mars, though Mars has hardly been thoroughly explored. Landers are currently restricted to relatively flat, debris-free terrain. And there are numerous other bodies which show activity. Some would be hostile to life as we know it, but it's a big, "creative" Universe. Who knows what might be out there.
Io - very active, with loads of available energy.
Europa - the surface is almost completely smooth, courtesy of constant resurfacing. It's theorized to have a large ocean of water underneath its crust of ice.
Titan - windy, with possible liquid oceans. Damn cold though.
Enceladus - the south pole has "geysers" that spew out ice crystals, suggesting the presence of subterranean water. Damn cold there, too.
Triton - Voyager 2 showed pictures of what appeared to be some sort of geysers on the surface there, too, though it wasn't water coming from them. Really cold place.