Evolutionary Value of Specific Traits

[Kermit]

Why not get this all turned into a debate?

[Mokele]

That actually brings me to a question--only the end result matters, but wouldn't evolution try to make the end result itself? The evolutionary process (as far as I know) isn't sentient, so clearly it can't know "oh, they don't need good eyesight--they have laser eye surgery and glasses," and thus let eyesight die out. Wouldn't it instead try to create better eyesight as much as it could (and I know that talking about the evolutionary process this way is awfully tough, as "it," again, isn't sentient) and then we would correct it in the long run?

 

Well, in the absence of selective pressure, genes for good and bad eyesight will not increase or decrease except by randomness (genetic drift). Since selection acts on the phenotype, and surgery/glasses alter that phenotype, surgery/glasses to give everyone good vision will reduce or eliminate most selective pressure.

 

People without appendices have been born in this world, and that is basically upon what I based my argument.

 

Do you have a source for that? And was that the *only* difference? Most developmental genes affect a myriad of processes and results. That's why 6 fingers hasn't caught on; because the process behind fingers and penii is the same, and if you screw one up, you screw both up, so the advantage of 6 fingers is offset by the damage to reproductive potential.

 

It's entirely possible, and I'd argue probable, that anyone born without an appendix would likely suffer from serious detrimental effects elsewhere in the digestive system.

 

---------

 

As for IQ, it's technically impossible for the average IQ to ever change from 100, because IQ *only* measures how different from the average an individual is. All IQ tests are calibrated so that 50% of a population is above, and 50% is below, and tests cannot be moved between populations and still generate valid results.

 

Mokele