Evolution #9

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Cooker]

[ 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.

[RJT]

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. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ 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.

[RJT]

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]

[ 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]

[ 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

[RJT]

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]

[ 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.