A note on Evolution

[Iacchus]

Also, "being advanced" is rather subjective. Are humans advanced? Well, we have the most complicated brain on the planet, but in many other respects we are far from advanced.

Hans

That's interesting now isn't it? It would almost appear as if we were put here as an afterthought, you know, with little time to adapt?

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

How do you know it's not both? Doesn't everything in effect (specifically plants) reach towards the light of the sun?

That was truly inane.

 

[Mercutio]

So then wouldn't it also be fair to say that the genes of animals which are better adapted to their environment are typically the ones which are passed on to future generations?

One neat little byproduct of this process is...organisms are shaped by their past environments, not their present. We are the product of what worked for our ancestors, not what is "best" for the current environment, and as for the future, who knows? (although we can see differences in selection for varied environment versus stable environment--compare, say, rats to koalas and you see huge differences in environmental flexibility.)

And yes, this is easily seen in humans--our taste for fats and sugars served us well when food was less plentiful, but makes for an epidemic of obesity in places like the modern U.S., where the vast majority of us do not have to struggle for our next meal.

 

[Iacchus]

That was truly inane.

Why? While I think what most people fail to realize is that the sun plays the most integral role in evolution. Don't you? In which case why shouldn't everything aspire towards that (i.e., the standard) which created it? ... in other words the light. So in that sense doesn't it suggest everything advances towards a common goal?

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

The scientists in laboratories are very intelligent and well adopted to their niche, but bacteria are unconscious but the winners anyway in the arms race between resistance, and new pesticide! It is simply a competition between human intelligence and rapid bacterial mutation!

 

[Iacchus]

The scientists in laboratories are very intelligent and well adopted to their niche, but bacteria are unconscious but the winners anyway in the arms race between resistance, and new pesticide! It is simply a competition between human intelligence and rapid bacterial mutation!

So which came first? The bacteria or the human brain? And which would appear to be the latest and most greatest advancement?

 

[Darat]

Why? While I think what most people fail to realize is that the sun plays the most integral role in evolution. Don't you? In which case why shouldn't everything aspire towards that (i.e., the standard) which created it? ... in other words the light. So in that sense doesn't it suggest everything advances towards a common goal?

You may not be aware but there are forms of life on the Earth that do not use the sun at all, that are not dependent on the energy of the Sun.

 

[Darat]

So which came first? The bacteria or the human brain? And which would appear to be the latest and most greatest advancement?

By your reasoning I’m assuming your answer is the bacteria?

In just 50 years they have gone from being almost totally destroyed by the drugs we developed by using our brains to being resistant to every single drug the human brain can up with.

As it stands today the bacteria are certainly more advanced at killing us then we are at killing them using products created/invented by our brains.

 

[Tricky]

Why? While I think what most people fail to realize is that the sun plays the most integral role in evolution.

Obviously the sun is very important. But there are many other factors as well which are vital to life on Earth.

Don't you? In which case why shouldn't everything aspire towards that (i.e., the standard) which created it? So in that sense doesn't it suggest everything advances towards a common goal?

Why do I have the odd feeling that you are about to start steering this towards standards and ideals? But in answer to your question, there is no reason to believe that organisms "aspire" to do anything other than survive. You are assuming a goal because you seek a "purpose" for life. But this is contrary to all evidence. If life was truly "seeking a goal" then there would be no evolutionary dead ends.

So which came first? The bacteria or the human brain? And which would appear to be the latest and most greatest advancement?

There are many species of bacteria which are MUCH more recent than the human brain. By your system, that would mean the bacteria are more advanced.

And many pathogenic bacteria have survived an intense effort by a "highly intelligent" species to exterminate them. They are, in fact, thriving and growing more resistant to our efforts. I strongly suspect they will be here long after we are gone. So who is more "advanced"?

 

[jimlintott]

Okay, then by what other process does the advanced come about then?

You'll never understand evolution if you cloud your thinking with words like advanced. Evolution only cares about fitness. Our perception of 'advanced' or 'higher' life forms has absolutely nothing to do with it and is entirely based on criteria we create.

 

[Iacchus]

You'll never understand evolution if you cloud your thinking with words like advanced. Evolution only cares about fitness. Our perception of 'advanced' or 'higher' life forms has absolutely nothing to do with it and is entirely based on criteria we create.

Well if that's the case, what's the point in trying to understand anything?

 

[Iacchus]

You may not be aware but there are forms of life on the Earth that do not use the sun at all, that are not dependent on the energy of the Sun.

Yes, I'm well aware of it, but that only stands in contrast to the diversity which "is" dependent on it. And somehow or another everything, with rare exception perhaps? is affected by it.

 

[Iacchus]

Obviously the sun is very important. But there are many other factors as well which are vital to life on Earth.

Of course, but it's all about the relationship now isn't it?

Why do I have the odd feeling that you are about to start steering this towards standards and ideals?

Actually no, I fee like I've said enough already.

But in answer to your question, there is no reason to believe that organisms "aspire" to do anything other than survive. You are assuming a goal because you seek a "purpose" for life. But this is contrary to all evidence. If life was truly "seeking a goal" then there would be no evolutionary dead ends.

But still, without any radiation to activate them, they would not "aspire" to do anything.

There are many species of bacteria which are MUCH more recent than the human brain. By your system, that would mean the bacteria are more advanced.

In terms of development though, how can you surpass the human brain?

And many pathogenic bacteria have survived an intense effort by a "highly intelligent" species to exterminate them. They are, in fact, thriving and growing more resistant to our efforts. I strongly suspect they will be here long after we are gone. So who is more "advanced"?

Is a rock more durable than a human skull? So what?

 

[Darat]

Yes, I'm well aware of it, but that only stands in contrast to the diversity which "is" dependent on it. And somehow or another everything, with rare exception perhaps? is affected by it.

I’m just pointing out the white crow you may have missed.

It also illustrates that evolution is not tied to the Sun; the life that doesn't require the Sun's energy also evolves.

 

[Darat]

Well if that's the case, what's the point in trying to understand anything?

Terms like "advanced" and "higher evolved" are not correct terms to use when describing what evolution is or talking about evolution.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

In terms of development though, how can you surpass the human brain?

...snip...

There are many bacterial species that have surpassed the human brain's capability to kill them. Some of these bacteria are better at killing us then we are at killing them, yet just 50 years ago they weren’t.

This is a clear example of another species surpassing the abilities of our brains.

 

[Iacchus]

I’m just pointing out the white crow you may have missed.

It also illustrates that evolution is not tied to the Sun; the life that doesn't require the Sun's energy also evolves.

Which part of evolution are you referring to here?

 

[Iacchus]

Terms like "advanced" and "higher evolved" are not correct terms to use when describing what evolution is or talking about evolution.

Fine, if you don't wish to differeniate between yourself and the primordial slime that started it all, that's entirely up to you. However, this is why we've been given such a tremendous capacity to think about things, right?

 

[drkitten]

Fine, if you don't wish to differeniate between yourself and the primordial slime that started it all, that's entirely up to you. However, this is why we've been given such a tremendous capacity to think about things, right?

You're welcome to differentiate between these things, but "advanced" isn't an appropriate way to do it.

 

[Darat]

Which part of evolution are you referring to here?

All of it. The theory of evolution does not require the Sun.