Where is evolution taking us?

[West]

True enough, there are some morons on this forum.

 

[bilby]

This is precisely what people like Ray Kurzweil are thinking. Having been following technological advances for some time now, I feel like there's a good chance that he's right. Since his book, The Singularity is Near, came out in 2006 technology has continued its pace of acceleration by leaps and bounds as he predicted. The only snarl I can see with his predictions is that we've since found out that the brain is far more complex than we thought. This may slow down his timeline a bit, but there's no reason to believe it's a show-stopper. I think we may well create the next step in our evolution. Global climate change may also force some changes in our path. That remains to be seen.

Evolution isn't about survival; it is about reproduction.

So what is stopping these billions of people from reproducing?

And survival is a big part of evolution.

Well, it is and it isn't. I'd say that survival plays a role in evolution, but bilby is correct: evolution is about reproduction.

And shit ... I've lost my train of thought wherein I was going to piggyback on what bilby said. Ah well, he's probably got a better response anyway. If I think of it, I may post it.

So you haven't heard of the term "survival of the fittest" then.

I mean, how difficult do you think reproduction is? Let me assure you that if you put a male and female animal in a room together they will very quickly copulate and you would soon have hundreds of thousands of offspring and their descendants (think rabbits, mice, etc.).

The only thing preventing these animals from reproducing is natural selection and predation.

The definiton of evolution is as follows-

[E]volution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next (Curtis and Barnes 1989: 974). The fundamental evolutionary event is a change in the frequency of genes and chromosome configurations in a population (Wilson 1992: 75).

Natural selection deals with allele frequency changes brought about by differences in ecology among heritable phenotypes; evolution includes this as well as random effects and the origin of these variants (Endler 1992: 221).

As for Bilby having any better of a response, no chance.

Survival without reproduction leads to extinction.

Reproduction without survival is a common strategy - ask the Praying Mantis, or any number of male Arachnida.

"Survival of the fittest" is a poor description of evolution, and perhaps one or the most misunderstood phrases in history; Few biologist use it any more, because it is more likely to confuse that it is to inform.

Endler's definition quoted above is much better - and doesn't support your position over mine in any way.

 

[skepticalbip]

This is precisely what people like Ray Kurzweil are thinking. Having been following technological advances for some time now, I feel like there's a good chance that he's right. Since his book, The Singularity is Near, came out in 2006 technology has continued its pace of acceleration by leaps and bounds as he predicted. The only snarl I can see with his predictions is that we've since found out that the brain is far more complex than we thought. This may slow down his timeline a bit, but there's no reason to believe it's a show-stopper. I think we may well create the next step in our evolution. Global climate change may also force some changes in our path. That remains to be seen.

Evolution isn't about survival; it is about reproduction.

So what is stopping these billions of people from reproducing?

And survival is a big part of evolution.

Well, it is and it isn't. I'd say that survival plays a role in evolution, but bilby is correct: evolution is about reproduction.

And shit ... I've lost my train of thought wherein I was going to piggyback on what bilby said. Ah well, he's probably got a better response anyway. If I think of it, I may post it.

So you haven't heard of the term "survival of the fittest" then.

I mean, how difficult do you think reproduction is? Let me assure you that if you put a male and female animal in a room together they will very quickly copulate and you would soon have hundreds of thousands of offspring and their descendants (think rabbits, mice, etc.).

The only thing preventing these animals from reproducing is natural selection and predation.

The definiton of evolution is as follows-

[E]volution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next (Curtis and Barnes 1989: 974). The fundamental evolutionary event is a change in the frequency of genes and chromosome configurations in a population (Wilson 1992: 75).

Natural selection deals with allele frequency changes brought about by differences in ecology among heritable phenotypes; evolution includes this as well as random effects and the origin of these variants (Endler 1992: 221).

As for Bilby having any better of a response, no chance.

Survival without reproduction leads to extinction.

Reproduction without survival is a common strategy - ask the Praying Mantis, or any number of male Arachnida.

"Survival of the fittest" is a poor description of evolution, and perhaps one or the most misunderstood phrases in history; Few biologist use it any more, because it is more likely to confuse that it is to inform.

Endler's definition quoted above is much better - and doesn't support your position over mine in any way.

Or the mayfly, salmon, squid, etc. all only survive to the age of sexual maturity only to die immediately after reproducing.

Evolution requires only the individuals to survive until they reproduce. Species survival is another matter and is guaranteed by reproduction. What happens to the individuals after the individuals reproduce is irrelevant to evolution.

 

[George S]

What happens to the individuals after the individuals reproduce is irrelevant to evolution.

Except, of course, when cooperative groups are involved.

The group's how-we-do-it is often the elder's job. Spinsters are caretakers or teachers for the reproducer's offspring. The bachelors protect the group, favoring reproductive females and the young.

When there are survival differences between groups evolution can certainly occur.

Are we designed for this society and environment? How could it be otherwise. If we weren't designed to fit so that we were unfit to survive here and now we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

Is our group a group that is good enough to survive in the future? Evolution doesn't know nor care, mostly. Only mostly. In times of environmental stress more ancestral characteristics occur. Evolution knows its history. Knows it has survived a prior catastrophic extinction or a dozen. It is most likely a change back to conditions the ancestral line survived before. Unless conditions get so bad there is literally no life on earth, if even one reproducer survives, evolution has continued. In an extinction event the question is how far back will we have to go up the ancestral tree to find a survivor-type. Evolution is ready for this kind of event at every scale. We have sent our life into space. Tardives can survive in space naked. Maybe they seeded earth or are going to seed somewhere else.

Maybe... anything. Evolution in the sense of those fittest to survive rules at every scale. The tautology is that what survives is what survives. Why? That's what survival means. Evolution in this barest sense, survival of the fittest to survive, is not only real it is reality itself. To be or not to be. A survivor as conditions change at the expected (historic) rate. Evolution answers one yes-no question at every location at every scale. Does something continue to exist here*. Evolution is sister to every god Q* who does the same about "beginning" as evolution does about "continuing."

Evolution begins when something real at any scale can survive or not.

The theory of biological evolution begins at the scale of genes. It presupposes on basic evolutionary theory (survival of those things whose nature is to survive right there, right then) that obviously some conditions led to genes-as-far-back-as-we-can-trace-them. We don't "know" what came before, of course. The tautology is in "as far back as we can trace them."

_________
*Evolution is a killer, isn't she.
* (Q*)

 

[West]

Those who claim that evolution is only about reproduction know nothing about evolution. George S is right.

Copulation (and therefore reproduction) is the simplest of acts. As I have already said if you put a male and female of the same species in a room together they will very quickly copulate and before you know it will have hundreds of thousands of descendants. This is why cats and dogs for example are frequently spayed and neutered because if not, we would quickly be overrun by them.

The only thing stopping an animal from reproduction is non survival.

Natural selection relys on non survival, it is a negative process only.

 

[bilby]

Those who claim that evolution is only about reproduction know nothing about evolution. George S is right.

Copulation (and therefore reproduction) is the simplest of acts. As I have already said if you put a male and female of the same species in a room together they will very quickly copulate and before you know it will have hundreds of thousands of descendants. This is why cats and dogs for example are frequently spayed and neutered because if not, we would quickly be overrun by them.

The only thing stopping an animal from reproduction is non survival.

Natural selection relys on non survival, it is a negative process only.

Don't tell me that; tell it to the worker bees. Survival is nothing; sacrificing survival for reproduction - even of a close relative - that is the essence of evolution. Survival is for one lifespan. Reproduction is for posterity.

George S is right; but you are wrong.

Natural selection relies on reproduction. Non survival is irrelevant, as long as reproduction is assured; if reproduction is blocked, no amount of survival will help in the long run.

Reproduction is easy for all current species, because it is selected for.

Survival can be hard - because it is not selected for, except as a means to reproduction.

 

[West]

Still terrible ignorance.

Something that increases an animal's chances of survival will also include its reproductive rate, ie, an animal that survives for 30 years will have more offspring than an animal that survives for 5 years.

Reproduction being selected for, WTF, theres a made up statement if ever I heard it. What animals can't reproduce?

Biological traits are selected for, such as the dark coloured moth being better able to hide from predators on soot covered trees during the industrial revolution in England, than their lighter coloured counterparts. Hence they became much more common.

There is no such thing as reproduction being selected for. LOL.

The thing that stops an animal reproducing dead in its tracks, is non survival.

 

[Kharakov]

Reproduction being selected for, WTF, theres a made up statement if ever I heard it. What animals can't reproduce?

Mules. I mean, they can, but not very well.

Quote from Darwin on mules " The mule always appears to me a most surprising animal. That the offspring of the horse and the ass should possess more reason, memory, obstinacy, social affection, powers of muscular endurance, and length of life, than either of its parents, seems to indicate that art has here outdone nature. "

If you think about it- that a mule is healthier, hardier, stronger, and more intelligent than its parents, and only lacks the reproductive capacity (in most cases- it's hard for a mule to conceive). The mule's existence is a direct argument that greater ability to reproduce is selected for.

 

[George S]

Biological evolutionary theory is about genes.

Genes themselves are complex groups.
Do genes evolve?
There are generations. There is variability. There are survival differences due to this variability.

Go up a level to the cell.
Do cells evolve?
There are generations. There is variability. There are survival differences due to this variability.

Up a level to a group of codependent cells which all survive or none survive. Organisms.

An individual of a species is group of trillions of cells and trillions of genes.

Colonies, groups, and tribes, a level up. Ant colonies, prides of lions, and packs of wolves announcing territory rights to the moon.

Cross-group cooperation generates multi-species groups. The human organism happily cooperates with gut bacteria and some dogs.

The organism which survives to reproduce in ants and bees is the queen. The others are extensions of her body. Her arms and legs and hands and feet. If we could detach a mini-me and send him off to forage it would be similar. Worker mini-me's who are programmed with my best interests in mind. Programmed to love and care for my children even more than me. The parallel human organization we call communism.

The mule is merely a sign that two species are not quite distinct yet. There is never a mule-equivalent between cats and dogs. Lions and tigers are close enough. They just don't see each other as attractive enough to have sex with when their ranges intersect.

It is all about reproduction. Being an ancestor. Being a being whose gene pool is such that it builds an organism which is capable of being an ancestor, too.
In humans it is having children who have children. Anything in the gene pool that favors exactly that will be selected for. The gene pool is an evolving group.

It is natural to favor reproductive females and children. They have the best chance of being ancestors. "Women and children first!" the unmarried sailor ordered.

 

[West]

Reproduction being selected for, WTF, theres a made up statement if ever I heard it. What animals can't reproduce?

Mules. I mean, they can, but not very well.

Quote from Darwin on mules " The mule always appears to me a most surprising animal. That the offspring of the horse and the ass should possess more reason, memory, obstinacy, social affection, powers of muscular endurance, and length of life, than either of its parents, seems to indicate that art has here outdone nature. "

If you think about it- that a mule is healthier, hardier, stronger, and more intelligent than its parents, and only lacks the reproductive capacity (in most cases- it's hard for a mule to conceive). The mule's existence is a direct argument that greater ability to reproduce is selected for.

That's a total non argument as absolutley nothing is being selected for here.

As long as donkeys and horses exist, then they will still be able to breed mules and mules will always exist.

 

[West]

The fact that evolution, as defined earlier, describes changes in allele frequencies within a species or population shows how much ignorance there is about evolution and how ignorant it is to say that evolution is about reproduction.

Reproduction takes place at the individual level.

Also, given that all animals have an inbuilt very strong urge to reproduce, what is this as yet unmentioned thing that is stopping them from reproducing?

What is this thing that has a far greater effect on them reproducing, than whether they survive or not?

 

[Kharakov]

Mules. I mean, they can, but not very well.

Quote from Darwin on mules " The mule always appears to me a most surprising animal. That the offspring of the horse and the ass should possess more reason, memory, obstinacy, social affection, powers of muscular endurance, and length of life, than either of its parents, seems to indicate that art has here outdone nature. "

If you think about it- that a mule is healthier, hardier, stronger, and more intelligent than its parents, and only lacks the reproductive capacity (in most cases- it's hard for a mule to conceive). The mule's existence is a direct argument that greater ability to reproduce is selected for.

That's a total non argument as absolutley nothing is being selected for here.

As long as donkeys and horses exist, then they will still be able to breed mules and mules will always exist.

The reason that mules have not become a dominate species, despite the fact that they are stronger, more social, more willful, and intelligent than horses and asses is that they do not breed as quickly as horses and asses.

They would have a much greater impact upon the environment and the gene pool if they had the same ability to reproduce that horses and asses have.

The fact that evolution, as defined earlier, describes changes in allele frequencies within a species or population shows how much ignorance there is about evolution and how ignorant it is to say that evolution is about reproduction.

How stupid people are to side with Darwin, over you, in matters of evolutionary theory. You're to Darwin what Albert Einstein was to Newton! Great to meet you, ohh glorious reformer and great advancer of evolutionary theory. Undoubtedly you have great wisdom to impart, and I will gladly kneel at your feet to receive your knowledge, which far surpasses that of any individual on this forum.

Darwin was obviously wrong when he inferred that individuals who were less suited for the environment were both less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce.

Also, equally as obvious, if genes are not propagated through reproduction of some sort, there is a magical increase in their prevalence in the environment through what we call "Westism", a form of creationism in which genes are propagated without reproduction.

What is this thing that has a far greater effect on them reproducing, than whether they survive or not?

Lots of animals survive. Animals that lack the ability to reproduce as quickly don't spread their genes as much.

 

[West]

That's a total non argument as absolutley nothing is being selected for here.

As long as donkeys and horses exist, then they will still be able to breed mules and mules will always exist.

The reason that mules have not become a dominate species, despite the fact that they are stronger, more social, more willful, and intelligent than horses and asses is that they do not breed as quickly as horses and asses.

They would have a much greater impact upon the environment and the gene pool if they had the same ability to reproduce that horses and asses have.

The fact that evolution, as defined earlier, describes changes in allele frequencies within a species or population shows how much ignorance there is about evolution and how ignorant it is to say that evolution is about reproduction.

How stupid people are to side with Darwin, over you, in matters of evolutionary theory. You're to Darwin what Albert Einstein was to Newton! Great to meet you, ohh glorious reformer and great advancer of evolutionary theory. Undoubtedly you have great wisdom to impart, and I will gladly kneel at your feet to receive your knowledge, which far surpasses that of any individual on this forum.

What is this thing that has a far greater effect on them reproducing, than whether they survive or not?

Lots of animals survive. Animals that lack the ability to reproduce as quickly don't spread their genes as much.

Unbelievable, I'm the one siding with Darwin not you.

Your argument is a naive and misunderstood version of evolutionary theory based on not even knowing that evolution describes changes in allele frequencies within a species or population.

Then there was the utter nonsense about animals reproducing QUICKLY.

You're to Darwin what Ray Comfort is to Darwin.

As we say in the UK, go sling your hook.

I'm not wasting my time arguing with the likes of you.

 

[George S]

Mules are sterile. No sperm, no eggs. A herd of them would be evolutionary dead ends. Horses and donkeys, two species that can produce offspring. They don't do it much in nature. No, the way to become an ancestor is to breed with your own species. When viewed from the gene's eye the mule is a waste of space. Gene's success is whether or not it still is in the gene pool thousands of generations hence. (There are a basic few in all of today's gene pools. Now that is "being an ancestor" writ large. All the way back, all today's genes were riding in a body that bred and produced offspring that bred. Some died soon after. Some had just one child. Some survived disaster by being just a bit stronger than his cousin. We each are but just one of the trillions of trillions of ways since life began that genes have had a try at "being an ancestor." Often wasteful having only 1 success in a million, so generate a trillion experiments in parallel and laugh at odds. Somebody always wins the lottery. Getting lucky all the way. )

But we can fool those pesky genes and make for an arranged marriage. Useful offspring for our purposes (our gene's purposes, not the mule's).

 

[bilby]

Still terrible ignorance.

Indeed.

Something that increases an animal's chances of survival will also include its reproductive rate, ie, an animal that survives for 30 years will have more offspring than an animal that survives for 5 years.

My father's mother died at the age of 45; she had six children. My mother's mother died at the age of 87; she had two children. Still terrible ignorance indeed.

Reproduction being selected for, WTF, theres a made up statement if ever I heard it. What animals can't reproduce?

Lots of animals can't reproduce - Mules are one example.

Biological traits are selected for, such as the dark coloured moth being better able to hide from predators on soot covered trees during the industrial revolution in England, than their lighter coloured counterparts. Hence they became much more common.

There is no such thing as reproduction being selected for. LOL.

You think that reproduction is not a biological trait? Still terrible ignorance.

The thing that stops an animal reproducing dead in its tracks, is non survival.

Not the only thing. Not by a long chalk. Your lack of knowledge or imagination is not a good argument for anything. Still terrible ignorance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Mules are sterile. No sperm, no eggs. A herd of them would be evolutionary dead ends.

Oh, come on now! They're too stubborn to let that stop them!

 

[skepticalbip]

...................snip..................

Biological traits are selected for, such as the dark coloured moth being better able to hide from predators on soot covered trees during the industrial revolution in England, than their lighter coloured counterparts. Hence they became much more common.

That is a good example of the evolutionary process. It's a shame you don't seem to understand it.

The moths that were born with the darker shades on the normal distribution of hues for the species had a better chance of passing on their genes to their offspring. Again, their offspring that were in darker shade of hue distribution had a better chance of passing on their genes to their offspring. Again and again the darker hued moths were more successful in passing on their genes through reproduction, shifting the whole normal distribution to darker hues.

If not for natural selection (part of the evolutionary process) selecting for the successful reproduction of those moths that were darker in coloration, the species would not have changed to a darker hued moth.

This seems to me to be a case of genetic drift rather than random mutation, but it is still the process of evolution.

It was successive reproduction with natural selection favoring the darker hues that caused the change. The shift to darker hues was not not due to longevity.

There is no such thing as reproduction being selected for. LOL.

This reminds me of an old one liner joke about evolution... "If your parents didn't have children then chances are you won't either."

 

[Kharakov]

Mules are sterile. No sperm, no eggs. A herd of them would be evolutionary dead ends.

Oh, come on now! They're too stubborn to let that stop them!

Apparently they can breed- reproductive success is just rare.

 

[Kharakov]

I'm not wasting my time arguing with the likes of you.

Yeah. Read the wikipedia articles on  reproductive success and  Fitness (biology). Shockingly enough, the reproductive success article references mules- although it isn't completely accurate when it states that mules are sterile. There have been rare cases in which a female mule (a hinny) has produced offspring. That's not the point however.

The point is that reproductive success has a direct impact on what genes are passed on.

Rate of reproduction has an impact on reproductive success, although you might not be able to make the connection between the 2. If you need help understanding the concept, I'm sure someone here will more than happily explain it to you, if you don't act too immature.

 

[West]

That is a good example of the evolutionary process. It's a shame you don't seem to understand it.

The moths that were born with the darker shades on the normal distribution of hues for the species had a better chance of passing on their genes to their offspring. Again, their offspring that were in darker shade of hue distribution had a better chance of passing on their genes to their offspring. Again and again the darker hued moths were more successful in passing on their genes through reproduction, shifting the whole normal distribution to darker hues.

If not for natural selection (part of the evolutionary process) selecting for the successful reproduction of those moths that were darker in coloration, the species would not have changed to a darker hued moth.

This seems to me to be a case of genetic drift rather than random mutation, but it is still the process of evolution.

It was successive reproduction with natural selection favoring the darker hues that caused the change. The shift to darker hues was not not due to longevity.

There is no such thing as reproduction being selected for. LOL.

This reminds me of an old one liner joke about evolution... "If your parents didn't have children then chances are you won't either."

You don't have even the slightest understanding of the evolutionary process, I mean not even a clue.

What you wrote above was ignorant and embarrassing.

The moths born with darker colours did not have a better chance of reproducing. Their chances of reproducing where exactly the same as the lighter coloured moths.

The only difference between the two was that lighter coloured moths had a greater chance of being spotted and eaten by predators, ie, non survival. Didn't you even read what I wrote.

The light and dark colours would have had the same number of offspring per head.

After the clean air act of 1956 the soot disappeared from the trees and the numbers of dark and light coloured moths balanced up again to what it had been before the industrial revolution. So much for your Nonsensical claim of successful reproduction.

You really are clueless on these matters.