Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is evolution going backwards?
LDSdude
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 84 (179125)
01-20-2005 9:15 PM


hmmmmm.......
Well, I can see how adaptation could occur if there was evolutionary chains, but if it's not for survival, than what is it's point? Is mankinds current state the PHYSICALLY best we can ever be? In the future, do you think we might have to worry about survival again because people all become to slow to move? To slow to build buildings? To slow to organize society? Too slow to stop wolves and tigers from attacking?
In my mind evolution would go backwards if it's adaptations begin to threaten survival, rather than compensate for it. So I think it is somewhat possible for unstoppable adaptations do more bad then good.

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by CK, posted 01-20-2005 9:38 PM LDSdude has not replied
 Message 34 by contracycle, posted 01-21-2005 6:45 AM LDSdude has not replied
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2005 3:41 PM LDSdude has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 32 of 84 (179138)
01-20-2005 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by LDSdude
01-20-2005 9:15 PM


Re: hmmmmm.......
Oh dear - I really don't know where to start, however I do perfer a certain method of teaching so....
quote:
Is mankinds current state the PHYSICALLY best we can ever be?
How do you think we use the term "best" in regards to evolution?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-20-2005 21:39 AM

Literalistic young earth creationism is an insult to God, suggesting that he would arbitrarily and capriciously break his own exquisite laws whenever it suited him. Worse, the evidence for the fact of evolution is so knockdown overwhelming that we can reconcile it with young earth creationism only by assuming that God deliberately planted false evidence, in the rocks and in the genetic molecules, to trick us. Could a cruder blasphemy be imagined?
The Bishop of Oxford

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by LDSdude, posted 01-20-2005 9:15 PM LDSdude has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 84 (179239)
01-21-2005 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
01-13-2005 1:09 AM


quote:
Eventually all populations reach K, or the carrying capacity of their environment, where they stop growing. At that point more for me does mean less for you; that's true if we're humans, cheetas, or what-have-you.
Stable populations of any species are zero-sum games, just as you described for humans.
I'm not coinvinced this situation is comparable. Are there any studies of organisms who essentially live by self-predation? Becuase it seems to me that changes things significantly. I fully understand the zero sum game based on limited resources. But my suggestion is that humans are playing a different game.
This is because in the human game there is both the more-for-me-means-less-for-you situation, AND the I-get-mine-by-killing-you situation.
I'm actually inclined to think that human beings probably exceeded K a long time ago, making auto-predation a necessity. this implies that a selected feature that improves the lot of the individual may be propagated precisely becuase it causes maximum death in the individuals own species; that is, further adapatations to improve the fitness of the individual DECREASE the fitness of the species overall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 1:09 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2005 3:49 PM contracycle has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 84 (179240)
01-21-2005 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by LDSdude
01-20-2005 9:15 PM


Re: hmmmmm.......
quote:
Is mankinds current state the PHYSICALLY best we can ever be? In the future, do you think we might have to worry about survival again because people all become to slow to move? To slow to build buildings? To slow to organize society? Too slow to stop wolves and tigers from attacking?
Not really. If we adaopt a new physical form it will probably be through genetic engineering. One idea would, for example, revert the legs from walking mode to climbing mode for use in the microgravity of space. Get an opposable toe, that sort of thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by LDSdude, posted 01-20-2005 9:15 PM LDSdude has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 84 (179383)
01-21-2005 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by LDSdude
01-20-2005 9:15 PM


Is mankinds current state the PHYSICALLY best we can ever be?
Evolution doesn't optimize; physical perfection is not likely to be an evolutionary outcome, no matter what environmental stress.
It's like that old joke. I don't have to outrun the bear; I just have to outrun you.
In my mind evolution would go backwards if it's adaptations begin to threaten survival, rather than compensate for it.
By definition, adaptations cannot threaten survival. Adaptations cannot be maladaptive. Only rarely is there a situation where there's even the possibility for positive selection for maladaptive traits; and there's considerable scientific debate over whether or not maladaption even actually occurs. There's always the possibility that a selected-for trait carries some benefit that we just don't percieve yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by LDSdude, posted 01-20-2005 9:15 PM LDSdude has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Brad McFall, posted 01-21-2005 3:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 36 of 84 (179384)
01-21-2005 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
01-21-2005 3:41 PM


quote:
adaptations cannot threaten survival
are you sure you want that printed under your name. Adaptation came into the lit BEFORE selection. You need simply imagine an onclave of NASA leaving Earth and Us behind and reproducing in space gaining an adaptation and knowledge of this post adapting their technology to return nothing but death to the rest of us ON EARTH and should this be actually like Mutally Assured Destruction thier own survival as a pop could kill every thing except their advanced genetic enigineering they would have had to have practiced in space to accomplish it. There is too much info on this web site to stick ONLY by the standard Zimmer style writings about change. net Economics gives otherwise.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 01-21-2005 15:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2005 3:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 37 of 84 (179385)
01-21-2005 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by contracycle
01-21-2005 6:42 AM


Are there any studies of organisms who essentially live by self-predation?
Uh, what are you talking about? Humans are not, largely, cannibals. We need resources that we cannot manufacture ourselves; we do not live by "self-predation."
The word you're looking for is "competition", and yes, every species competes with its conspecifics for resources. Often that competition is lethal; most species (including our own) develop behaviors that allow individuals to compete for resources without killing each other. (Head-butting rams, etc.)
This is because in the human game there is both the more-for-me-means-less-for-you situation, AND the I-get-mine-by-killing-you situation.
That's the same game. Intraspecific competition. It's often lethal in species; it's often lethal in ours. It needn't always be lethal in species; it's often not lethal in ours. (When was the last time you had to kill someone to have sex? Come to think of it don't answer that.)
I'm actually inclined to think that human beings probably exceeded K a long time ago
It's not possible to exceed K exept over short periods of time. What has happened is that humans are able to modify their environments to increase the K value. The only upper limit I can think of for this is that humans need a certain value of calories to live, and the Earth only recieves a certain number of calories from the sun. Turning those solar calories into human calories is essentially an engineering problem.
that is, further adapatations to improve the fitness of the individual DECREASE the fitness of the species overall.
Equivocation on the term "fitness".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by contracycle, posted 01-21-2005 6:42 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 01-21-2005 3:53 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 39 by contracycle, posted 01-25-2005 10:05 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 38 of 84 (179386)
01-21-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by crashfrog
01-21-2005 3:49 PM


ok
0k

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2005 3:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 84 (180415)
01-25-2005 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by crashfrog
01-21-2005 3:49 PM


quote:
Uh, what are you talking about? Humans are not, largely, cannibals. We need resources that we cannot manufacture ourselves; we do not live by "self-predation."
Yes, I think we do - because the largest part of our materials acquisition is through expropriation. All the imperial and feudal states existed as coercive powers; their fitness was directly proportional to their exercise of violence against others.
While we seldom perpetrate actual cannibalism, we certainly have done so for the purposes of state formation and the like. Thus, we do live by self-predation in the fitness of a person necessarily requires the direct expropriation, and often killing, of another person.
quote:
The word you're looking for is "competition", and yes, every species competes with its conspecifics for resources. Often that competition is lethal; most species (including our own) develop behaviors that allow individuals to compete for resources without killing each other. (Head-butting rams, etc.)
Yes and no - we have no competitors. Our intra-specieis competition is often extremely violent - such as, for example, the barbarian migrations into the Roman empire. So while some of our competition is non-violnet, a sizable propportion, possibly the simple bulk, is violent.
quote:
(When was the last time you had to kill someone to have sex? Come to think of it don't answer that.)
All armies commit rape. It might as well be a law of nature.
quote:
It's not possible to exceed K exept over short periods of time. What has happened is that humans are able to modify their environments to increase the K value.
Sure. But my argument is that subordinating another human population to your servitude increases K. The lives of that captive population become a buffer between you and the uncaring world. And this function is orders of magnitude more efficient than major engineering projects in the physical world.
quote:
Equivocation on the term "fitness".
Not equivocation, but different context. If my fitness increases becuase I am equipped with Bronze-age technology, then the proportional fitness of any person equipped with neolithic technology falls off dramatically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2005 3:49 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2005 10:35 AM contracycle has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 84 (180423)
01-25-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by contracycle
01-25-2005 10:05 AM


Yes, I think we do - because the largest part of our materials acquisition is through expropriation.
As I said, the word you're looking for is "competition." When a pack of hyenas chase a tiger from her kill, that's not expropriation or predation, that's competitive scavenging.
Predation is a specific behavior that doesn't apply to where you're applying it. Humans do not, largely, hunt and kill each other as a food source.
Yes and no - we have no competitors.
Again, we compete among our species, a nearly universal situation in biology.
So while some of our competition is non-violnet, a sizable propportion, possibly the simple bulk, is violent.
Which is exactly what I said happens in all species. Your point?
If my fitness increases becuase I am equipped with Bronze-age technology, then the proportional fitness of any person equipped with neolithic technology falls off dramatically.
To the degree that you have greater access to resources and mates, of course. Again, a nearly universal situation in biology and not anything special.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by contracycle, posted 01-25-2005 10:05 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by contracycle, posted 01-25-2005 11:40 AM crashfrog has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 84 (180433)
01-25-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
01-25-2005 10:35 AM


quote:
As I said, the word you're looking for is "competition." When a pack of hyenas chase a tiger from her kill, that's not expropriation or predation, that's competitive scavenging.
What if - there are only two groups of hyenas fighting, and the kill is itself a dead hyena?
You see you keep introducing multiple species into the situation, and my argument is that this is not accurate as a model of humanities present situation. And all-hyena food chain is a better model.
quote:
To the degree that you have greater access to resources and mates, of course. Again, a nearly universal situation in biology and not anything special.
Except you still aren't able to give an example of one, which is what I was asking for. I'm suggesting that humans are not in fact in a zero sum game at all - but one that has a negative sum.
What I'm looking for is a mechanism to explain what I understand to be our very low degree of genetic variability by comparison to other species. Becuase while you are correct to say we seldom kill and EAT our fellows, we very often kill them for the express purpose of seizing the stuff they were intending to eat themselves. We are still killing for food, its just that our primary target is not cows, but people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2005 10:35 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by pink sasquatch, posted 01-25-2005 12:30 PM contracycle has not replied
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2005 3:29 PM contracycle has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 42 of 84 (180444)
01-25-2005 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by contracycle
01-25-2005 11:40 AM


And all-hyena food chain is a better model.
we very often kill them for the express purpose of seizing the stuff they were intending to eat themselves. We are still killing for food, its just that our primary target is not cows, but people.
You seem to be making a serious contradiction here, no?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by contracycle, posted 01-25-2005 11:40 AM contracycle has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 43 of 84 (180482)
01-25-2005 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by contracycle
01-25-2005 11:40 AM


What if - there are only two groups of hyenas fighting, and the kill is itself a dead hyena?
Still competition, as when a lion chases another weaker lion from its kill. I don't know how common it is for animals to actually predate and consume other members of their own species, although simply consuming bodies of their conspecifics isn't unknown, especially in the insect world.
But for the large part, humans do not eat other humans. So I'm not quite sure how this example applies.
You see you keep introducing multiple species into the situation, and my argument is that this is not accurate as a model of humanities present situation.
The major human food source for all populations are other species - plant species like grains, or animal species. Human flesh is not a source of sustenance for any human population that I'm aware of; those few cannabalistic societies eat human flesh only ritually.
On the other hand, the only competition we have for food sources are other humans, but this is not "self-predation", this is competition, which is universal in the biological world. I think that you're conflating these two points.
Except you still aren't able to give an example of one, which is what I was asking for.
One of what? Where species compete with other members of their own species for resources? Where a successful adaptation in one individual's gene line means the extinction or reduction of another's?
You keep changing what you're asking for examples of, and changing what you think is so special about humans, so maybe if you clarify exactly what you're asking for an example of, I'll be able to provide you one.
I'm suggesting that humans are not in fact in a zero sum game at all - but one that has a negative sum.
Now you've just lost me. You believe that human populations are shrinking, not growing?
We are still killing for food, its just that our primary target is not cows, but people.
The word you're looking for to describe this situation is, as I've repeatedly said, "competition", not "predation." Let me see if I can spell it out for you. Predation is when you kill a cow and eat it. Competition is when you kill a man and eat his cow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by contracycle, posted 01-25-2005 11:40 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by contracycle, posted 01-26-2005 6:39 AM crashfrog has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 84 (180718)
01-26-2005 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
01-25-2005 3:29 PM


quote:
But for the large part, humans do not eat other humans. So I'm not quite sure how this example applies.
Becuase in many human societies, the killing of humans is a fundamental mode of production. So for example, we have both Norse and Greek daramtic poems that refer to the "red spear" as the means by which this person "ploughs".
IMO this is directly analogous to predation. Like predation, this mode of production NECESSARILY results in a dead prey animal, while most COMPETITION does not.
quote:
The major human food source for all populations are other species - plant species like grains, or animal species. Human flesh is not a source of sustenance for any human population that I'm aware of; those few cannabalistic societies eat human flesh only ritually.
On the other hand, the only competition we have for food sources are other humans, but this is not "self-predation", this is competition, which is universal in the biological world. I think that you're conflating these two points.
Yes, purposefully; I'm suggesting that in human context the concepts of competition and predation are interchangeable. You see this arises from your observation of farming above - farming is not our aborriginal mode of production, hunting is. So it seems to me that we hit the carrying capacity of our natural environment about 6000 years ago when human density was such that subsistance farming became the necessary norm. From that point on, signifanc human competition became versus other humans and almost invariably to the death - a very different envrionment than that of natural competition.
quote:
One of what? Where species compete with other members of their own species for resources? Where a successful adaptation in one individual's gene line means the extinction or reduction of another's?
You keep changing what you're asking for examples of, and changing what you think is so special about humans, so maybe if you clarify exactly what you're asking for an example of, I'll be able to provide you one.
Actually I have not changed anything. Yes, an example of a species that competes exclusively with members of its own species, and where a succesful dapatation of one individuals gene line requires extinction or redcution of anothers.
Becuase it seems to me that that is what happens in much of human history. Something like 80% of the gene lines of European feudal nobility have been exterminated, I have read, although I have no citation for this. But that should reveal the direction I am going in, I hope.
quote:
Now you've just lost me. You believe that human populations are shrinking, not growing?
Not as such necessarily. Whats odd about our situaiton is that the raw, technical means of subsitance keep improving, but they occur only in human hands thus all competition is against humans. Those two factors eem to me to coincide with a reduction in genetic variation of the specieis as a whole - that is, our species is not becomeing numerically reduced, but is beceoming genetically reduce. In that respect evolution could be said to be "going backwards".
But a coroloary oif this situation is that we have in fact been in excess of the nonhuman K we find in nature, then ALL continuance of our species depends on the continuation of culture. A signifcant cultural collapse would instantly put us in a situation in which we exceeded K by a massive degree, and the die-off would be huge.
quote:
The word you're looking for to describe this situation is, as I've repeatedly said, "competition", not "predation." Let me see if I can spell it out for you. Predation is when you kill a cow and eat it. Competition is when you kill a man and eat his cow
Well I don't think thats quite accurate, by comparison with the way animals actually compete in the wild. The vultures are first at the casrcass, the small scavanger next, the big scavengers last. Very few encounters will actually result in the immediate death of any of the animals involved. Sure, the result over the long term may mean that one of them dies from a lost opportunity cost, but that is not a NECESSARY outcome of the competition.
Where we see human societies carrying out cattle raids, then the death of the competing animal, the other human, is a necessary prerequisite for aquiring the cow. This is why I say it is "more like" predation than competition; all significant competitive acts in this context result in human mortality. That does not seem to me to be the same situation that pertains in any other species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2005 3:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 01-26-2005 11:23 AM contracycle has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 45 of 84 (180793)
01-26-2005 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by contracycle
01-26-2005 6:39 AM


Becuase in many human societies, the killing of humans is a fundamental mode of production.
No, Contracycle, no. We only eat other species. We need resources like water, energy, minerals, etc. We don't get these from other humans. We get these from the environment, and we compete with other humans for them.
It's amazing to me that this distinction is so totally lost on you.
Like predation, this mode of production NECESSARILY results in a dead prey animal, while most COMPETITION does not.
Predation specifically refers to the killing and eating of another organism. We predate cows. We don't predate other humans because we don't eat them!
I'm suggesting that in human context the concepts of competition and predation are interchangeable.
Look if you want to define words however you see fit, why should I bother? My patience is at an end with you because you refuse to use terms in the way that they've already been defined.
Yes, an example of a species that competes exclusively with members of its own species, and where a succesful dapatation of one individuals gene line requires extinction or redcution of anothers.
That's every single species. Literally, every single one. That's how evolution works in a stable population - the more fit outcompete the less fit, and the gene lines of the less fit are extinguished. That's how mutations become fixed in a population - literally any stable population whatsoever.
In that respect evolution could be said to be "going backwards".
I don't know that evolution necessarily predicts that a population will increase in overall genetic diversity.
A signifcant cultural collapse would instantly put us in a situation in which we exceeded K by a massive degree, and the die-off would be huge.
Yes, it would.
Well I don't think thats quite accurate, by comparison with the way animals actually compete in the wild.
It's precisely accurate. Predation is the killing of another animal and eating it. Competition is the killing or rivalry of another animal for resources. Again, if you feel absolutely free to redefine the terms as you see fit, then I don't have time for this.
Where we see human societies carrying out cattle raids, then the death of the competing animal, the other human, is a necessary prerequisite for aquiring the cow.
But killing each other isn't the only way we allocate resources, though in our history it has played a large part. For instance, instead of killing the owner of the cow, I might become the leader of a government and simply tax cows. Or we might gamble for the cow, or engage in ritual, non-lethal combat. Or arm-wrestle.
This is why I say it is "more like" predation than competition; all significant competitive acts in this context result in human mortality.
I absolutely disagree. Throughout human history the majority of resources have been allocated non-lethally, just like every other species. You're simply engaging in circular definitions - the only competition you find significant is the lethal competition; as a result you conclude that all significant human competition is lethal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by contracycle, posted 01-26-2005 6:39 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by contracycle, posted 01-27-2005 6:41 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024