View Full Version : Evolution #9
I assume most folk here (especially most atheist) believe in evolution. I think (from the little I know about it) the theory is a good one (and not incompatible with Christianity, btw).
My questions have nothing to do with religion (indirectly I guess they do, but not my main reason for asking).
1) Why have we evolved into our present state - I.e. self-awareness, state of our intellect, emotional beings - as opposed to for example, strictly intellectual beings with no emotion?
2) Are we evolving on the right path? Or somewhere along the line did we take a wrong turn and now, because we are capable of surviving for who knows how long, we can’t get on the path that might have been a better one?
3) If we took a wrong path, can we find evidence of one that could have been better for us?
4) If we took the wrong path and can’t get back on one that would have been better - would it be better for humans to become extinct, so that a more correct evolutionary path get going?
5) If evolution is a river that we cannot divert, why is that? I am thinking more in terms of intellectually diverting evolution rather than through genetics, but not excluding genetics.
6) If we can direct our own evolution, how can we?
7) What are some ideas of what we are evolving into?
If these are all basic questions regarding evolution, let me know and I will do more research myself. The little I know about it has never talked much about the intellect relative to evolution and possible self directing (as a species, not individually) evolution.
Zeiros
09-08-2005, 08:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I assume most folk here (especially most atheist) believe in evolution. I think (from the little I know about it) the theory is a good one (and not incompatible with Christianity, btw).
My questions have nothing to do with religion (indirectly I guess they do, but not my main reason for asking).
1) Why have we evolved into our present state - I.e. self-awareness, state of our intellect, emotional beings - as opposed to for example, strictly intellectual beings with no emotion?
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Are we evolving on the right path? Or somewhere along the line did we take a wrong turn and now, because we are capable of surviving for who knows how long, we can’t get on the path that might have been a better one?
[/ QUOTE ]
There is no such thing as the 'right' path with evolution. It is nothing more than natural selection.
As a very artificial example imagine a cave full off two species. Owls and mice. The owls eat the mice to live, the mice try to hide from the owls to survive. Over many years, the mice that blend most closely to the colour of the floor will be most likely to survive and reproduce and so most mice will gradually change to become the same colour as the cave. If, one day, the cave were to spontaneously change colour then over the next few million years the mice would begin to change colour again to match the new cave.
A contrived example I know, but it serves to illustrate a point. Natural selection is a blind force that acts in the direction of what is beneficial at the current time. Of course, if evolution were guided or premeditated then we would probably work in a much more efficient way than we do now. We would be sleek, streamlined and efficient. As it happens animals are pretty unwieldy creatures. Just look at the appendix in humans, hip bones in whales, wings on the ostrich, the lists of useless bits in animals go on and on.
Evolution is a messy process, it often leaves marks of adaptations and failures, but it always produces animals that can survive as best as possible in the prevailing conditions.
[ QUOTE ]
3) If we took a wrong path, can we find evidence of one that could have been better for us?
[/ QUOTE ]
See answer to number two.
[ QUOTE ]
4) If we took the wrong path and can’t get back on one that would have been better - would it be better for humans to become extinct, so that a more correct evolutionary path get going?
[/ QUOTE ]
See answer to number three.
[ QUOTE ]
5) If evolution is a river that we cannot divert, why is that? I am thinking more in terms of intellectually diverting evolution rather than through genetics, but not excluding genetics.
[/ QUOTE ]
We can divert evolution rather easily. Selective breeding.
Let me illustrate with another artificial example. I have a field full of cows. I want to sell the cows to be slaughtered for food. For this reason I make a point of picking the biggest bull every year and breeding him with all of the females. If I repeat this process over many years, never mixing in any other cattle, my cows will get bigger and bigger. If we repeat this for a few thousand years I'll end up with super-massive cows that look so different from every other cow on the planet that they will be classed as their own species.
Anything that acts to change which members of a species reproduce influences evolution.
[ QUOTE ]
6) If we can direct our own evolution, how can we?
[/ QUOTE ]
See answer to number five. Google the word eugenics to find people who have thought of the human species in this way.
[ QUOTE ]
7) What are some ideas of what we are evolving into?
[/ QUOTE ]
Looking at the world today, I really don't know. Natural selection drives animals that survive most efficiently to reproduce more.
A human society faces selection effects that are vastly different to those ever seen before in the history of the Earth.
You no longer need to be strong and able to fend for yourself in the wilderness to survive. You no longer need to have four fully working limbs to reproduce and survive. You no longer need to even be mentally competitive to reproduce.
Civilization has changed evolutionary pressures greatly, and I'd like to know what is coming next!
FlFishOn
09-08-2005, 08:43 PM
"2) Are we evolving on the right path? "
For all practical purposes human evolution has ended. The unfit freely contribute their genes to the pool. The most fit seem to have no reproductive advantage, in fact in western society the most fit tend to reproduce at the lowest rates. Perhaps that's evolution after all, just not forward going.
chezlaw
09-08-2005, 08:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"2) Are we evolving on the right path? "
For all practical purposes human evolution has ended. The unfit freely contribute their genes to the pool. The most fit seem to have no reproductive advantage, in fact in western society the most fit tend to reproduce at the lowest rates. Perhaps that's evolution after all, just not forward going.
[/ QUOTE ]
evolutionary fitness is not the same as your personal view of the most fit.
chez
Zeiros
09-08-2005, 09:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"2) Are we evolving on the right path? "
For all practical purposes human evolution has ended. The unfit freely contribute their genes to the pool. The most fit seem to have no reproductive advantage, in fact in western society the most fit tend to reproduce at the lowest rates. Perhaps that's evolution after all, just not forward going.
[/ QUOTE ]
I kind of hinted at this point in a roundabout way in my first post, and it is somewhat worrying.
I guess the way I look at this is that we have removed the traditional evolutionary pressures (being fit, being clever, being cunning, etc.) and replaced them with something else.
On the surface it is a pretty depressing thought; how will humanity ever move forward without this powerful, selective force pushing it. Either we will stagnate and regress or the forces will come from somewhere else. Somewhat surprisingly, a journalist at MSNBC wrote a story about this very subject that is both thoughtful and insightful (here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7103668/)). The short of it is that already in the present day we are beginning to be moulded by technology and this process will continue.
Naturally some of the ideas in the article sound like scienmce fiction but both nature and humanity are very resourceful, so lets just wait and see what happens.
Well, we'll all be dead and buried by then, but let's just imagine we can wait and see what happens...
I understood evolution to be basically about natural selection, like you all have said. I guess I assumed (hoped) there was more to it.
If it is only that, then since we have evolved into beings that basically have the ability to survive viz a viz other predatory species then why aren’t we done evolving? I understand evolution to be a never ending process. In fact just this evening on the news, scientists at the U of Chicago (fairly sure it was there) think the human brains are still evolving. If we are still evolving then for what reason? Seems we haven't stopped evolving.
Besides, I find it hard to believe that human evolution has ended. How can it just stop after billions of years?
Also, why did we evolve into being with emotions?
I will do your recommended google search, but really I was thinking more in terms of steering evolution through thought process.
Btw, way I guess I used the wrong word - I didn’t mean the right path, so much as a different and perhaps better path.
Thanks for you post.
“Well, we'll all be dead and buried by then, but let's just imagine we can wait and see what happens... “
That’s one of the nice thing about believing in an afterlife - I will be able to see what happens. Joking of course about “seeing” what happens.
Zeiros
09-08-2005, 09:25 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I understood evolution to be basically about natural selection, like you all have said. I guess I assumed (hoped) there was more to it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'll make one slightly offtopic point here. Why did you hope that there was more to evolution than natural selection?
It seems to me to be an incredibly satisfying picture of the Universe that this one, incredibly simple principle -- 'Natural Selection' -- can give rise to humans, jellyfish, venus flytraps, clams and the rest of the weird and amazing life that exists in the Universe.
The Universe is seriously pretty damn cool.
[ QUOTE ]
If it is only that, then since we have evolved into beings that basically have the ability to survive viz a viz other predatory species then why aren’t we done evolving?
[/ QUOTE ]
The tiger on the African plains has no predators but it still evolves. Why? (two reasons: its prey keeps evolving so it must keep up, also it is in competition with other tigers)
[ QUOTE ]
I understand evolution to be a never ending process. In fact just this evening on the news, scientists at the U of Chicago (fairly sure it was there) think the human brains are still evolving. If we are still evolving then for what reason? Seems we haven't stopped evolving.
[/ QUOTE ]
See answer to last question. Also you ask for a 'reason' that we are still evolving. Natural selection doesn't need a reason, it can never stop. The fittest will always survive.
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, I find it hard to believe that human evolution has ended. How can it just stop after billions of years?
[/ QUOTE ]
It hasn't....
[ QUOTE ]
Also, why did we evolve into being with emotions?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know. This is a question that a lot of researchers thing deeply about today and nobody knows the definitive answer to.
[ QUOTE ]
I will do your recommended google search, but really I was thinking more in terms of steering evolution through thought process.
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't really understand what you mean by 'steering evolution through thought process'
Piers
09-08-2005, 09:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Why have we evolved into our present state - I.e. self-awareness, state of our intellect, emotional beings - as opposed to for example, strictly intellectual beings with no emotion?
[/ QUOTE ]
Emotion is the main motive force for higher live on Earth. If we did not have emotions we would never do anything. We could not have evolved without emotion.
[ QUOTE ]
Are we evolving on the right path? Or somewhere along the line did we take a wrong turn and now, because we are capable of surviving for who knows how long, we can’t get on the path that might have been a better one?
[/ QUOTE ]
What ever do you mean by ‘right path’. What do you man by ‘better path’. Who decides what a wrong turn is?
[ QUOTE ]
If we took a wrong path, can we find evidence of one that could have been better for us?
[/ QUOTE ]
There you go again, being on the wrong path implies that there was a right path. What’s with this path thing? Evolution is blind. There is no right or wrong path, just what happens.
[ QUOTE ]
If we took the wrong path and can’t get back on one that would have been better - would it be better for humans to become extinct, so that a more correct evolutionary path get going?
[/ QUOTE ]
Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Whose path? I see no bases for these concepts.
[ QUOTE ]
If evolution is a river that we cannot divert, why is that? I am thinking more in terms of intellectually diverting evolution rather than through genetics, but not excluding genetics. If we can direct our own evolution, how can we?
[/ QUOTE ]
Divert?
Maybe we cannot ‘divert’ our evolution because we are inside the system. Positive feedback in the form of the subject species using technology and understanding to deliberately modify itself is just another stage in the evolutionary process. Real change would have to come from outside the system.
What level are we thinking on? Is there something you want to, or would have changed?
Most of the questions you have asked show that you have a misconception about evolution which most people share. I am writing a thesis on evolutionary biology at the moment, and I have learned alot about evolutionary processes.
The most common misconception about evolution is one which you have expressed in most of your questions, namely that evolution has a defined path or a final goal. This is not the case. Evolution is a result of isolated genetic differences which occur in specific organisms and prove advantageous to the survival of the organism as a whole. For example, we have evolved to have eyelids because at some stage in our development there was a genetic anomaly which resulted in our ancestors having eyelids. These then proved to be advantageous to our ancestors in terms of survival and so those ancestors of ours with eyelids became more prominent than those without until eventually the only humans (or whatever we were at that stage) that were left were the descendants of the first ones with eyelids. This process is known as adaptation. There are some arguments which suggest that this is maybe not the only process which dictates our evolution (see Gould & Lewontin) but for the most part evolutionary biologists agree that this is the most common process in evolution. Richard Dawkins is a very well known supporter of this thesis and he has some very interesting books and theories on it.
So there is no set path, or evolutionary plan, evolution is a result of completely random genetic anomalies. There is no 'evolutionary brain' forecasting what processes must take place for our bodies as a whole to develop in a certain way, but rather our evolution is a result of individual traits adapting and proving to be more advantageous to us than the previous trait. This also debunks the common myth about evolution which suggests that we are headed towards absolute perfection. There is no such thing.
Our future evolution will be as a result of the adaptive processes just discussed, and not as a result of some predetermined path or goal. We can never know what we will become or turn into because we do not know what sort of genetic anomalies will occur.
The general consensus at the moment is that evolution in humans at least has slowed down considerably as a result of much larger gene pools when compared with the past. The adaptive process is not nearly as prevalent in large gene pools as in small ones as even if some genetic anomaly does confer an advantage to the individual in terms of survival, this anomaly might not be prevalent in enough people to break a trend in the gene pool and become a feature of everybody, more than likely it will get passed on to a few people but will eventually get swamped and will die out.
Hopefully this has gone some way to answering your questions, if you have any more just ask.
[ QUOTE ]
For example, we have evolved to have eyelids because at some stage in our development there was a genetic anomaly which resulted in our ancestors having eyelids.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sounds awfully saltationist to me. Better elaborate before somebody pipes up with the old "but what use is half an eye?" silliness. /images/graemlins/wink.gif
Cooker
09-08-2005, 09:44 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I understood evolution to be basically about natural selection, like you all have said. I guess I assumed (hoped) there was more to it.
[/ QUOTE ]
If you understand evolution as gradual shifts in species due to pressure and slight advantage, then you have an old fashioned and incomplete understanding of evolution. Current evolutionary theory recognizes this as a mechanism that can form complex adaptations such as eyes, ears, etc., but the bulk of speciation (i.e. how new species appear) is not understood to operate this way. Basically, species are fairly constant for long stretches punctuated by rapid extinctions and the rapid appearence of many new species in a burst followed by another fairly boring stretch. This theory of punctuated equilibrium is fairly well supported in the fossil record and pretty widely accepted among evolutionists. Read Stephen J. Gould's book "The Structure of Evolution Theory" to get a more modern view. There is a lot beyond natural selection in modern evolutionary theory.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"2) how will humanity ever move forward without this powerful, selective force pushing it?
[/ QUOTE ]
Surely if we have evolved to the stage where everyone is so fit that there is no question of survival of the fittest this can only be a good thing. Survival of the fittest implies that there are the unfit; surely a world without the unfit is the most desirable to live in.
Also something that just came in to my head is the concept that perhaps in the western world evolution has come to a halt as a result of medicine and general high standards of living, but this mustn't be the case in the developing world, where surely certain genetic traits mean the difference between life and death. Wouldn't this imply that that people in the poorer parts of the world such as Africa would be evolving at a greater rate than the rest of us? Just a thought, but surely there is some sense to it.
Maybe I used the wrong word again when I said “hoped” But, what I mean is a few things.
1) I guess I assumed the science of evolution has become more developed in its theory than simply natural selection that Darwin spoke of so many years ago. Certainly the science has developed, but has it come up with any further reason than natural selection? Most sciences “evolve” more - new theories, stuff like that.
2) Another reason I said “hoped” probably has something to do with my question on why emotions? There has got (I hope) to be more to life than just being. Life seems so silly to me without more reasons.
But, I am always looking for new things - whether it be things to do, things to read, projects, goals, etc.
Simply survival seems so mundane to me.
I am not exactly sure what I mean by “steering evolution through thought process” either. I guess I mean since we have a thinking brain - maybe it is there for more than just survival.
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds awfully saltationist to me. Better elaborate before somebody pipes up with the old "but what use is half an eye?" silliness. /images/graemlins/wink.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
That was just an example off the top of my head. Eyelids aren't necessary for eyes though, snakes don't have them. Practically all of our physical traits are there as a result of genetic adaptation at some stage in our history.
No, I didn’t mean to infer that had we evolved differently there would be something better we could have evolved into. Although, if I use my imagination I guess I could come up with some good ideas. Just wondering why some things that we evolved into went the way they did. ( Maybe the answer lies in the appendix - lol.)
If we can’t change evolution or influence it, then why do scientist bother to study it?
Zeiros
09-08-2005, 10:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"2) how will humanity ever move forward without this powerful, selective force pushing it?
Surely if we have evolved to the stage where everyone is so fit that there is no question of survival of the fittest this can only be a good thing. Survival of the fittest implies that there are the unfit; surely a world without the unfit is the most desirable to live in.
Also something that just came in to my head is the concept that perhaps in the western world evolution has come to a halt as a result of medicine and general high standards of living, but this mustn't be the case in the developing world, where surely certain genetic traits mean the difference between life and death. Wouldn't this imply that that people in the poorer parts of the world such as Africa would be evolving at a greater rate than the rest of us? Just a thought, but surely there is some sense to it.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
Firstly, my question was kind of rhetorical. Obviously humanity will continue to evolve, I was just trying to distill a lot of thoughts into one convenient question I could discuss.
You raise a very interesting point by mentioning Africa. My gut feeling would be that you are quite right, and that in somewhere like Africa the rate of change of the human genome (for somebody more versed in the field: is there a measure of how fast a genome is changing? say, dG/dt?) is a lot higher than in a modern Western country
I guess that if we were to observe over a long enough timescale that the 'dG/dt' (however that may be defined) would be related closely to the infant mortality rate or to the average lifespan.
Would somebody who thinks they will have enough spare time in the afterlife investigate this for me?
disclaimer: this isn't my field. I do astrophysics by trade. 72Hearts speaks very coherently so I'd suggest reading his posts!
Zeiros
09-08-2005, 10:34 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If we can’t change evolution or influence it, then why do scientist bother to study it?
[/ QUOTE ]
Why do cosmologists study how our galaxy formed? Why do palaentologists discuss the past? Why did Wittgenstein wonder about language? Why to archaeologists dig up bones? Why did Einstein think about light rays bending around the sun?
Humans have a great innate curiosity. This leads us to study both immediately useful things (building, buying, engineering, fighting, living, etc.) and also to spend a lot of time contemplating less immediately useful questions (why? how?).
It is learning about these things that, I think, sets us apart from animals.
We have an inner desire to explore the unknown and to explain the unexplained. As a result of this we now understand weather, sunlight, how plants grow, how galaxies form, how blood clots and a billion other things. Instead of putting everything down to a mysterious and unreachable force (or god), we try to figure it out and so, as a species, we grow
Ok, so if we evolve sometimes because of an anomaly sometimes and then we adapt to it:
Perhaps emotion is an anomaly and we should* be adapting this for /to our advantage or for an reason.
We certainly don’t need it now to survive.
One of my interests here is that, are we studying evolution enough “outside the box”. Are we looking forward enough with it or just looking back?
Another way to look at it. For believers, religion has a reason. E.g., “Love thy neighbor…” has a follow through on why.
Maybe if “love thy neighbor” thing has no real purpose - that is, if there is no God, similar concepts might have another purpose. Should we be using these sort of emotions to maintain the survival of our species? I ask again, rhetorically, if not, then why do we have emotions ?
Can religious concepts (or any type of thinking or emotions) be translated (adapted) into and used for scientific purposes relative to our evolution?
Or are we saying that there a lot of things that we have evolved into that have no and will have no purpose?
* I don’t mean to use the word “should” literally. I understand that evolution doesn’t work that way. But, theoretically, we can certainly direct our own evolution if we started all kinds of mass genetic controls.
Perhaps there are reasons we have intellect and emotions and we have yet to discover the why.
Zeiros
09-08-2005, 11:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so if we evolve sometimes because of an anomaly sometimes and then we adapt to it:
Perhaps emotion is an anomaly and we should* be adapting this for /to our advantage or for an reason.
We certainly don’t need it now to survive.
One of my interests here is that, are we studying evolution enough “outside the box”. Are we looking forward enough with it or just looking back?
Another way to look at it. For believers, religion has a reason. E.g., “Love thy neighbor…” has a follow through on why.
Maybe if “love thy neighbor” thing has no real purpose - that is, if there is no God, similar concepts might have another purpose. Should we be using these sort of emotions to maintain the survival of our species? I ask again, rhetorically, if not, then why do we have emotions ?
Can religious concepts (or any type of thinking or emotions) be translated (adapted) into and used for scientific purposes relative to our evolution?
Or are we saying that there a lot of things that we have evolved into that have no and will have no purpose?
[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding about evolution. I would really suggest reading a book such as 'The Blind Watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins would give you a firmer footing on which to stand.
You also seem to bring up the concept of 'purpose' and 'meaning' on a frequent basis. These are concepts that evolution (or any hard science) do not deal with directly. Maybe reading some philosophy (look for books by A. C. Grayling on morality) or theology (any recent review should do the trick) would help.
Also for a beautiful look at the innards of how we work, Matt Ridley has written beautifully about the human Genome. Steven Pinker writes very well about Psychology and Neuroscience, look for any of his books
These were a few of the books that got me interested in physics, biology, philosophy, theology and psychology. I would heartily recommend them to everybody.
Zerios,
I don’t know if I agree with you here. I would think cosmologists study the galaxies with a purpose that someday their study might be useful to ourselves, no?
Paleontologists , I’ll take your word for it.
Perhaps I am mistaken when I assumed evolutionists are not social scientist.
I think scientist generally have a curious motive, true. But don’t most hope that their research pays off in some tangible way? For some other reason than curiosity?
RJT
“You seem to have a pretty fundamental misunderstanding about evolution.”
Actually, I think it might be the opposite. That I am looking for more of evolutionist than only the study of what has happened or perhaps what can be expected to happen if this then that.
You say evolutions don’t deal with the whys - the meanings so much. I guess that is my question. Why aren’t they looking for the whys. Not the tangible whys like why the eyelids. But like I said why emotions?
I will take a gander at further reading regarding evolution. As far as philosophy and theology - I think I have a good foundation there - no expert by any means.
Thanks, buddy
[ QUOTE ]
Simply survival seems so mundane to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Species evolving to adapt and survive in their environment isn't "cool enough" for you, huh? Yeah, the fact that a single cell organism can evolve over billions of years into a thinking being capable of living in almost any environment including outer space merely as a consequence of selection based on survival is pretty boring stuff.
[ QUOTE ]
But don’t most hope that their research pays off in some tangible way?
[/ QUOTE ]
The understanding of the universe is a tangible way. You have very odd thoughts on science, as if researchers only explore in order to build a better motor engine or something.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Simply survival seems so mundane to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Species evolving to adapt and survive in their environment isn't "cool enough" for you, huh? Yeah, the fact that a single cell organism can evolve over billions of years into a thinking being capable of living in almost any environment including outer space merely as a consequence of selection based on survival is pretty boring stuff.
[/ QUOTE ]
That’s my point.
That we evolved into all of this. And evolutionist state simply - well it just happened.
[ QUOTE ]
You say evolutions don’t deal with the whys - the meanings so much. I guess that is my question. Why aren’t they looking for the whys. Not the tangible whys like why the eyelids. But like I said why emotions?
[/ QUOTE ]
Very easy answer: because at some point, they aided survival. Period. That's the only WHY in evolution. There is no "deeper meaning" or "right path." If a characteristic such as consciousness develops and those members of the species gain a survival advantage from it, then it will become more dominant as time goes on. Simple as that. Also, you'll have to define what you mean by "emotions" because even dogs feel joy, sadness, sympathy, etc. Are these emotions? Isn't "emotion" just a response to stimulus? By feeling "love" and being loved, this can be a trait which leads to more successful reproduction, rearing of offspring, etc., which thus aids selection. Again, we're back to "emotions" just being another trait that aids survival.
So you are saying (and I am not being argumentative here) that most scientist work principally for the theory. I understand that most still would if that was the only reason at all. I just assumed most study also for the intent of some, not really the right word - useful - purpose. (Hopefully you know what I mean. I mean for reasons in addition to the knowledge.)
[ QUOTE ]
That we evolved into all of this. And evolutionist state simply - well it just happened.
[/ QUOTE ]
And creationists state simply -- well it (creation) just happened. I don't know what kind of answer you want evolution to give you. Evolution is just concerned with how species adapt and evolve. It isn't mysticism that speculates why the universe exists. You are missing the point by claiming this as a deficiency in evolutionary theory. I don't expect chemists to explain why protons and electrons exist. The chemist knows they exist and explains how they interact. Just like an evolutionary biologist knows organic matter exists and explains how it evolves.
[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying (and I am not being argumentative here) that most scientist work principally for the theory. I understand that most still would if that was the only reason at all. I just assumed most study also for the intent of some, not really the right word - useful - purpose. (Hopefully you know what I mean. I mean for reasons in addition to the knowledge.)
[/ QUOTE ]
Einstein didn't create the theory of relativity because he wanted to sell a time transporter.
tolbiny
09-08-2005, 11:55 PM
If your interested in why humans evollved as emotional entities Anthropology might be of interest to you.
A basic explanation would be that humas are social beings who care for their young. For our offspring to survive long enough to develope the skills ness they are dependant upon thier parents. The emotional attachment between parent and child is important to this. It is also important for humans to be able to cooperate wth one another, we are more efficient in groups. being emotionally invested with your neighbors makes it easier to help out and recieve help.
As for you comments about humans "no longer" evolving, look up the thoery of puntuated equilibrium. In a basic sense it states that short bursts of evolution are responsible for most of the variety. Predator/prey will fall into a kind of equilibrium with neither having to big of an advantage- untill the environment changes, and those changes will strat off a procession of evolution and "counter-evolution" untill an "equilibrium" is reached again. And in other situations an animal might fit a niche so well that they don't evolve for quite some time. Certain species of sharks appear "unchanged" from ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago (clearly we can only study limited stuff like bone structure, and other parts of them might have changed).
what are we evolving to? There are tons of genes entering and being weeded out of our gene pool, and many don't do anything (neutral mutations) - but might be effective in the future. IE resistance to radiation wouldn't make you much more likely to surevive and reproduce, but should a nuclear war occur you could have a huge advantage. Basically since we don't know the conditions of the future we don't know what we are "evolving towards".
This is getting somewhere for me. So emotions do/did have a reason. If true, do they still have a purpose?
(My dogs do seem to have emotions certainly, but never knew for sure scientifically speaking if they did or not. Good to know.)
Let me put it this way.
Wouldn’t we be a stronger species if we only had intellect with no emotions? No wars, no murders, etc. If we were like Spock.
(I don’t know that I agree with the thought that it aids successful reproduction part. I mean, sure it does. But, and this is what I mean when I use words like “better”. But if we had intellect without emotions, we could figure out that things work better if you have families - or not.)
This is also what I mean when I ask can we direct our evolution. If we are better off without emotions - that is we wouldn’t have wars for example - should be directing our evolution? Or to put it another way - should we be teaching ourselves to start behaving with less emotion or even no emotion?
Or the converse, if we still need emotions, how should we be making the best use of them?
[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn’t we be a stronger species if we only had intellect with no emotions?
[/ QUOTE ]
If you had no emotional responses, what incentive would you have to want to choose a mate, produce offspring, and raise offspring through all the difficulties over years of its maturity? There is an intellectual need to sustain the species I suppose, but would the species be stronger for it, or don't you agree that "love" is one incredibly powerful drive which helps the species nurture, protect, and develop its next generations?
And anyway, you are missing all the points everyone is making to you. The goal of evolution isn't to build a stronger species, it is simply natural selection given the currrent environment. If men who are emotionless like Spock are less likely to find mates than men who are more emotional and nurturing, then the emotional traits have a greater chance of being passed on, even if the emotionless Spock is a "stronger" specimen.
I didn’t say we are no longer evolving (someone else said we stopped evolving.)
I understand it that we might be not evolving now, but we probably will or at least might evolve sometime in the future.
All I am saying is - It would seem to me that evolutionists would want to consider if information from other social sciences have any relation to their study. It sounds like they either think there is none or that they aren’t interested if there is, since they are only interested in the theory in and of itself.
tolbiny
09-09-2005, 12:34 AM
" I understand it that we might be not evolving now, but we probably will or at least might evolve sometime in the future."
Not to be picky, but its not that we aren't evolving, there are genes still being selected for and against, and new mutations appearing and old ones dissapearing, and this process is vital to having a good mix that will allow the species to move on should an environmental change take place.
"It sounds like they either think there is none or that they aren’t interested if there is, since they are only interested in the theory in and of itself."
What i think you are referring to is that big picture evolutionists are not particularly interestd in humans, but more that they are interested in general evolutionary thoery. Thats just what they like- there are plenty of anthropologists and sociologists who are interested in evolution. I am actually taking an Anthro class this semester which is titled "human evolution: the fossil evidence" in which we will be tracing the physical changes in hominids while studying the the environment that they lived in and thier social interactions.
edit- here's a link to a brief description in case your interested class (http://my.case.edu/mycase-jpdk/htdocs/studentsfirst/soc/soc-result-single.jsp?crn=16345&yyt=661)
So are you saying that evolution is only concerned with the here and now? (I realize I am personifying evolution here.) That it does not concern itself in natural selection with the future of species?
True for species other than humans I would assume.
But we have the ability to think past, present, and future.
If we are only beings that evolved and evolution is not concerned with building a stronger species, then why are so many of us concerned with the future of our species? And should we be at all? If so why (I ask rhetorically.)?
Perhaps because it is such a relatively new field they that have to get the basics down first. The - what happened so far in history and how stuff.
I am suggesting though that in the future, questions of why this? and why not that? and for what reason this and not that? and could this if? are good questions to look into.
Thanks all.
Dan Mezick
09-09-2005, 12:51 AM
The theory of evolution is exactly that. A THEORY.
The evolutionist people are JUST AS dogmatic as the religionists. Hmmm. That's suspect too.
Evolution as described by Darwin is utterly dependent on mutation-- not exactly a robust path for genetic material to follow, into the next generation.
Clearly progress does take place. Existing species do change and adapt.
The "theory of evolution" provides a nice, safe, "everyone agrees on this" kind of consensus that everyone can get behind. Kind of exactly like a religion. Both types of dogma allow a very truncated thought process, since some else does the thinking FOR you.
There are many serious scientists that look askance at evolution as the explanation for origin of life and progression of species. Many of these same scientists now say that the origin of life on earth originated from outer space, theorizing that primitive life came in here on meteors and other fragments of matter that pierced our atmosphere. They then theorize (with strong evidence) that DNA is actually a kind of time-release capsule that activates dormant segments (certain "introns") into active use. Such activation is based on event-driven, environmental factors, i.e. when the environment is right DNA "knows" to activate certain introns. This is not mutation. It turns out DNA may contain a "program" of progress. As such, it opens up enormous new questions about the pre-existence of this self-adjusting process, and the hidden, dormant "programs" that are waiting to be activated by environmental forces.
Introns are over 97% of the DNA strand. (The human genome is coded in exons, comprising less than 3% of DNA.) Introns are often called 'junk DNA' because no one ACTUALLY knows what's inside introns, which do contain non-random coding that has not been translated. Yet.
If most of the above turns out to be correct, what looks like Darwinian evolution is actually just programmatic, self-adjusting DNA driving what looks like an "evolutionary" process. The kicker is that this process is NOT random per Darwin, but rather programmatic and pre-existing.
Darwin provides a nice neat package of explanations that tend to encourage some very lazy thinking. Some of the laziest thinkers convert convenience into dogma. The kind of thinking that promotes absolute Darwinian dogma is the same kind of thinking that asserted the world was 'obviously' flat.
Everyone accepted that one for a long time, also. Now we know better. It's as if, for the set of all humans, any explanation is typically better than none at all.
Use your head !! Challenge Darwinist DOGMA. Darwin IS religion. It just seems like science. Learn more about genetics and alternate views on these subjects.
See:
http://www.panspermia.org/faq.htm
See:
http://www.panspermia.org/
siegfriedandroy
09-09-2005, 03:34 AM
Im pretty sure that within a few hundred million years, humans will begin evolving 'backward' into apes, reptiles, birds, etc. They will in turn regress into simpler, less complex organisms. Eventually, all that will be left on earth are the simple prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Finally, another pre-Cambrian type disaster will strike, leaving only one fortunate single celled organism on the earth. Then the process will repeat infinitely, even though the universe is not eternal.
[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying (and I am not being argumentative here) that most scientist work principally for the theory. I understand that most still would if that was the only reason at all. I just assumed most study also for the intent of some, not really the right word - useful - purpose. (Hopefully you know what I mean. I mean for reasons in addition to the knowledge.)
[/ QUOTE ]
May I recommend you read G. H. Hardy's A Mathematician's Apology? Though written from the perspective of a mathematician, I suspect it applies more generally.
[ QUOTE ]
Im pretty sure that within a few hundred million years, humans will begin evolving 'backward' into apes, reptiles, birds, etc. They will in turn regress into simpler, less complex organisms. Eventually, all that will be left on earth are the simple prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Finally, another pre-Cambrian type disaster will strike, leaving only one fortunate single celled organism on the earth. Then the process will repeat infinitely, even though the universe is not eternal.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd be willing to bet against this and lay 2:1.
pc in NM
09-09-2005, 06:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"2) Are we evolving on the right path? "
For all practical purposes human evolution has ended. The unfit freely contribute their genes to the pool. The most fit seem to have no reproductive advantage, in fact in western society the most fit tend to reproduce at the lowest rates. Perhaps that's evolution after all, just not forward going.
[/ QUOTE ]
The genes that survive are, by definition, are "the most fit".
That's the "thing" about evolution - it's merely a descriptive explanation about the descent of species; its not a value-laden theory - there's no "better" or "worse"....
benkahuna
09-10-2005, 06:51 AM
I feel your pain. I studied biology in high school and as a major in college and people here have serious misunderstandings about evolutionary theory.
The discussion on emotion here is a inaccurate in the context of its occurance in the brain and neurobiological evolution.
Emotion is strongly tied in with the hypothalamic output, not with complex decision-making, more recently evolved areas of the brain (neocortex). Emotions appear to serve a function as a coordinating mechanism for certain reflexive behaviors. The most recently evolved features of cognitive functioning seem to be a greater emphasis on reflex suppresion, not emotion. We have the greatest ability of all animals to consciously inhibit reflexive behavior or neurobiological action.
There are far too many misconceptions here to be worth my time dispelling. I recommend everyone here that is told they don't get evolution read a text on the topic. Be careful with the wording because small misunderstandings can easily lead you astray. When you understand the definition within the context of biology of the following terms, you'll be on your way:
natural selection
selective pressure
fitness
gene frequency
mutation
species
speciation
theory
common ancestor
Good luck. Learning the basics of genetics wouldn't hurt either. This should be 2-3 chapters worth of reading in a standard biology text. Shouldn't take more than maybe two hours. Basic genetics, maybe another hour.
Keep in mind that evolution is a theory. It cannot be proven (because we don't have the timescales necessary to do studies). However, it's almost universally accepted within the many subdisciplines of biology, even by the religious biologists (a few intelligent design types snuck in), largely because given the available evidence it's a very reasonable theory of which there is no working evidence-based alternative.
pc in NM
09-10-2005, 12:57 PM
I'd recommend as the best introduction to evolution the various collections of essays by Stephen Jay Gould. These collections are readable, address many diverse topics in relation to evolutionary theory - hard to beat that combo....
Hedge Henderson
09-12-2005, 02:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'd recommend as the best introduction to evolution the various collections of essays by Stephen Jay Gould. These collections are readable, address many diverse topics in relation to evolutionary theory - hard to beat that combo....
[/ QUOTE ]
I'd recommend them as well, but I'd start with the earliest ones, such as The Panda's Thumb and Ever Since Darwin. They're in an intelligent, yet conversational style that just about anyone can read and enjoy. Gould's later collections are much more... verbose, often annoyingly so.
[ QUOTE ]
Cooker sez:
This theory of punctuated equilibrium is fairly well supported in the fossil record and pretty widely accepted among evolutionists.
[/ QUOTE ]
Punctuated equilibrium is a lot more intuitive if you've read Ernst Mayr. Given that most of the best theoretical work on population genetics was already done by the late 1940s, I'm surprised it took another two decades to come up with punctuated equilibrium. I'm even more surprised that the idea was so controversial when introduced. I guess gradualism wasn't exclusive to geology.
[ QUOTE ]
Read Stephen J. Gould's book "The Structure of Evolution Theory" to get a more modern view. There is a lot beyond natural selection in modern evolutionary theory.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sheesh! A fine book, true, but it's 1300+ pages! Have some compassion, man! Give 'em something to wade in before you throw 'em into the ocean.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.