Does evolution mean improvement, and does it have a direction?

[forufes]

ok, there was something that was bugging me ever since i read "hijacks" in the OP title, i was misunderstood in the first time so i'll try to be clearer this time..

 

i DO understand that this thread isn't about whether or not god exists, but more of an explanation and discussion of how the belief in a deity exists between humans, and why it's very common..

 

first i'll state what i take as facts, pieces of information which i'll base my conclusion upon, if there's any disagreement on any of them, then we should clear that first:

 

1-the belief in god is a product of evolutionary processes humans undergo.

 

2-the whole idea of evolution is to, well, evolve, to become better, to be suited better to survive, adapt, continue on living, it's an important process to a race's survival.

 

any disagreements?

 

please state them.

 

if not, we'll move forward, so no need to jump ahead of things.

 

[iNow]

2-the whole idea of evolution is to, well, evolve, to become better, to be suited better to survive, adapt, continue on living, it's an important process to a race's survival.

 

any disagreements?

Yes, I disagree, but this is not the thread to explore that disagreement, as it would be FAR off-topic. Evolution does not have any direction, it does not have any goal, and it is NOT about improvement. It is just about change. If you wish to explore this further, or ask more questions about this tangent, then please do so in another thread.

[forufes]

Please note also that this thread is about more than just the video in the OP. While that was the catalyst for my creating it, there has been a lot of additional information which has been submitted since the OP... information which gives a much clearer and bigger picture about the topic. Be sure to explore that, too, if you are, in fact, curious to learn more about the human mind and human beliefs.

....

 

to make it simple, if it supports atheism, welcome aboard and thanks for posting, if it seems to be going in a direction i don't like, then excuse me, this isn't about whether god exists or not, it's about how the belief works, big difference, but even if you want to discuss that by terms other than ours even better,it's off topic, go discuss it somewhere else.

 

is that the case? cuz that's what it seems to me.

 

what am i supposed to do when you see my argument flawless,and no way for you to refute it, and so cowardly discard it as off topic? when you say:

Evolution does not have any direction, it does not have any goal, and it is NOT about improvement. It is just about change.

change huh? well how can anything change to something if not in SOME direction? what is improvement, other than change? what is change from inanimate rocks into live organisms with emotions and logic and complex biological systems, what change could that be called, other than improvement..?

 

oh, but you already know how weak your point is,if it can be considered a point to begin with, and so you plant your shield and hide behind it:

If you wish to explore this further, or ask more questions about this tangent, then please do so in another thread.

it seems you are not

curious to learn more about the human mind and human beliefs.

 

 

if you're not gonna pat me on the back and tell me how right i am, then please let me stay asleep, huh?

 

you have a serious problem, one which you might share with many others,and you people seriously need to fix it.

 

it is at times like these that i feel ashamed to have my professional person related to science.

[ydoaPs]

....

 

to make it simple, if it supports atheism, welcome aboard and thanks for posting, if it seems to be going in a direction i don't like, then excuse me, this isn't about whether god exists or not, it's about how the belief works, big difference, but even if you want to discuss that by terms other than ours even better,it's off topic, go discuss it somewhere else.

 

is that the case? cuz that's what it seems to me.

Not at all. And it's hard to see how one would reach that conclusion based upon the quote provided.

 

what am i supposed to do when you see my argument flawless,and no way for you to refute it, and so cowardly discard it as off topic?

Your "argument" is far from flawless.

 

change huh? well how can anything change to something if not in SOME direction? what is improvement, other than change? what is change from inanimate rocks into live organisms with emotions and logic and complex biological systems, what change could that be called, other than improvement..?

Evolution indeed lacks a goal(or specified direction). Nothing is evolving toward anything. I find it hard to believe that you're actually interested in learning about evolution when you completely ignore provided resources and you dismiss our answers out of hand.

 

oh, but you already know how weak your point is,if it can be considered a point to begin with, and so you plant your shield and hide behind it:

And how, exactly, is it weak?

 

you have a serious problem, one which you might share with many others,and you people seriously need to fix it.

Pot, meet Kettle.

 

it is at times like these that i feel ashamed to have my professional person related to science.

What is it that you do?

[tar]

iNow,

 

Forufes is jumping to a lot of conclusions, and being a bit rude and defensive to boot.

 

But I have also noticed in scientific discussions of evolution that particular care is made to avoid the ideas of direction, or design, or planning, since they suggest the guiding hand of a diety.

 

And in discussing Why So Many Believe in a Deity, the fact that things appear so well put together, to humans, has to be investigated.

 

Also, there seems to be a human aspiration, since at least the "enlightenment", to transcend our own humanity. To figure we can take a stance, and observe ourselves, free from the animal beginnings, that formed our neurostructure. That we are somehow better than human. As in the H+ link you pointed out to us somewhere.

 

Now this need for immortality is wound up in religion, and it is wound up in H+.

The sources of the need for immortality are probably very similar in diety believing humans, atheist humans, agnostic humans, and H+ humans. And it could be as easily explained as "we know we are going to die, and we don't want it to happen." So we look for a rationale to expect it is not as final as it appears, when we lose a tribe member. So we think about the spirit of the tribe member in some way or another, continuing. He/she is still in our memory, we still see the body, we can still talk to him/her in our imaginations and imagine what they would say back, the things he/she built are still standing, his children are running around. How could his/her consciousness have just winked out, and disapeared. Must be in the loving embrace of Jesus Christ. Must have returned to the force. Must be with God. Must be in a holding room, waiting to come back as a horse, or a rat or is the soul in the baby just being born. Or maybe his/her consiousness can be transferred to a man made machine through advanced technology. Just end? How could that be? What's the point in that? How is that even possible? How can you be of and in reality, inescapably, and suddenly be removed from it? Doesn't follow the law of conservation of counsiousness. (made that up for the scientists among us.)

 

I know I talk to a lot of atheists on this board. I am one myself, but I have also admitted defeat when it comes to what happens to my consciousness when I die. TAR is gone. Only my works, and the thoughts I shared, and the memory of me, in other human minds remains. And my children and the others I assisted in staying alive.

 

But still, even though I tell myself that, and I say that, and I believe that, I still entertain the thought that my consciousness somehow returns to the general stuff and nature of the universe. Whatever my consciouness was, before I was born, it will be again. Not TAR, but something. That I was able to experience the universe as TAR, and once I die, I will just be an unaware part of the universe, but still a part.

 

We have some requirement for belief in spirit, and an explanation. I don't think that is a bad thing. I don't think that is something we need to rise above. I don't think that is something we CAN rise above.

 

And although others may have a worldview that differs from mine, I don't think one can detach their consciousness sufficiently enough, from their physical, animal, human form, to consider themselves more than human. We are more or less stuck with being us. To imagine more than that is to believe in a supernatural thing. And that puts everybody, pretty much on an equal par when it comes to dealing with mortality.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

I have also noticed in scientific discussions of evolution that particular care is made to avoid the ideas of direction, or design, or planning, since they suggest the guiding hand of a diety.

 

You see, I avoid those ideas because they are simply inaccurate, and show a profound misunderstanding of the process of evolution. No tooth fairies or unicorns required. The ideas are avoided because they are wrong.

 

 

Evolution does not have a direction. It is not guided. Some organisms survive, and others don't. Those that survive were simply best equipped to pass on genes to their offspring in the given environment in which they found themselves. No more, no less.

 

Again, though... This thread is not about evolution itself, nor am I interested in clarifying one particular misunderstanding about evolution for one particular member. There are probably hundreds of existing threads which already serve that purpose, and this is not one of them. This thread is very focused, and I am trying to ensure it remains that way.

[A Tripolation]

So this thread is about how evolution has indirectly given humans a predisposition towards belief in a deity?

I actually thought forufes had some good points, though he was incredibly rude about it.

 

And if you wouldn't mind clarifying iNow, can't evolution be considered to have a direction of improvement? Since only improvements are able to survive, we only have improvements in species due to evolution, right? There's no such thing as "de-evolution" is there? Like how distance always has to be a positive value (not magnitude), evolution always has to be an improvement?

[iNow]

And if you wouldn't mind clarifying iNow, can't evolution be considered to have a direction of improvement?

Again, mate... No. It's false to assume improvement. It's about best adapted to the given environment. Change the environment, change the circumstances, and what was previously an "improvement" is now a "detriment."

 

Evolution does not have a direction. It does not have a goal. It is not about improvement. It's simply change. Some changes are good, some are bad.

 

 

Since only improvements are able to survive, we only have improvements in species due to evolution, right?

No, but you're certainly close. Only the adaptations which are best suited to the environment survive. That could, however, be a detriment (not an improvement). Evolution is just the change, regardless of what that change is. Some changes offer an adaptive advantage, other changes offer a disadvantage, but those advantages and disadvantages are a function of the environment.

 

For example, polar bears are really well adapted to the extreme cold, but would suffer in the heat. If you moved them to the desert, would you still say that "evolution only improved them?" No, of course not. You'd say they were adapted to a given environment... That they adapted to the environment via evolution... Not that they had "improved" in any objective sense... If you change the environment or you change the circumstances, the adaptations which were previously helpful may suddenly be detrimental.

 

 

There's no such thing as "de-evolution" is there?

It's all just evolution, even if it's bad. In order to posit de-evolution, you need to remain thinking of evolution as if it conferred improvements only. Since evolution is NOT about improvements, it's just about change, it's meaningless to think about pro-evolution or de-evolution.

 

Think of when people say "reverse psychology." There's nothing "reverse" about it... It's just psychology. This is a similar concept.

 

 

Like how distance always has to be a positive value (not magnitude), evolution always has to be an improvement?

Evolution would probably best be described as a vector quantity, not a scalar one. Those vectors change all of the time.

Edited September 22, 2009 by iNow

[tar]

iNOW,

 

I shall seek an evolution thread to carry on my thought. (but I do think it applies to this one.)

 

Regards, TAR

[Severian]

Evolution does not have a direction. It is not guided.

 

Can you prove that? Can you "provide even one single shred of evidence in support of your assertion"? Or maybe it wasn't an assertion?

[padren]

Can you prove that? Can you "provide even one single shred of evidence in support of your assertion"? Or maybe it wasn't an assertion?

 

There really should be an evolution thread split. It's really all about sampling bias. The idea of evolution having a 'direction' is similar to saying water has a direction - water, when dumped on the ground will find a very clever path to the lowest point, but it's not pushing in that direction, it's pushing in all directions and where it is pushing that also happens to have a path of least resistance - which is the most existing part to look at. (hence, sampling bias)

 

In a similar fashion evolution pushes in every direction, but the ones that go nowhere are not noticed nearly as much as the mutations that lead towards better replication.

 

That is the context of the use 'direction' and 'guided' in the previous statement. There is a common misconception that evolution primarily introduces beneficial adaptations when evidence suggests mutations primarily introduce benign or malignant changes but also introduces at times ones that improve replication.

It terms of the context - evolution is no more guided than water is, as evidenced by the fact water applies pressure in the full spectrum of directions, just as mutations create changes in the full spectrum of malignant to beneficial - even if only a handful of outlets appear eyecatching.

[JillSwift]

Can you prove that? Can you "provide even one single shred of evidence in support of your assertion"? Or maybe it wasn't an assertion?

I'm not sure how you prove that something "isn't".

 

The current conclusion that evolution has no direction or purpose or goal arises from a lack of evidence of such things. Just like it's logical to conclude there are no faeries at the bottom of the garden because there is no evidence of such.

[Severian]

It's really all about sampling bias. The idea of evolution having a 'direction' is similar to saying water has a direction - water, when dumped on the ground will find a very clever path to the lowest point, but it's not pushing in that direction, it's pushing in all directions and where it is pushing that also happens to have a path of least resistance - which is the most existing part to look at. (hence, sampling bias)

 

Well, water flows still have a direction. You can predict that it will move downhill. Similarly evolution has a direction. It will more towards organisms which can better reproduce. iNow's assertion "Evolution does not have a direction. It is not guided." is in contradiction with that.

 

But on a deeper level, I presume that iNow's statement was meant to say that it is not guided by any mechanism other than natural selection. So I think the question remains, can he prove that? It seems like quite a strong statement to make.

 

If he can't prove it, he should stop making baseless assertions.

[padren]

Well, water flows still have a direction. You can predict that it will move downhill. Similarly evolution has a direction. It will more towards organisms which can better reproduce. iNow's assertion "Evolution does not have a direction. It is not guided." is in contradiction with that.

Context. Water pushes in every direction, but moves downhill due to less resistance. Evolution may move towards better replicators, but it's still pushing in all directions, including those that do not create better replicators. That is the context of the term 'direction' not whether we can retroactively identify patterns.

 

But on a deeper level, I presume that iNow's statement was meant to say that it is not guided by any mechanism other than natural selection. So I think the question remains, can he prove that? It seems like quite a strong statement to make.

If you have to presume to read into the deeper level of a statement perhaps it's not quite as strong of a statement to make after all.

 

For the record - it's not a strong statement if we are talking within the sciences. It's a strong statement if it was extended to religious contexts. Given how clear iNow has been that he has no desire to muddy up this thread with religious arguments for or against, I don't think that is at all likely.

If he can't prove it, he should stop making baseless assertions.

All evidence supports natural selection as the driving force of evolution. There is no evidence of any other forces. That hardly makes the assertion baseless.

If someone was to suggest that the last ice age ended one million years ago and I said "no, it was 10,000 ago" would that be a baseless assertion because I wasn't able to prove it, since I could only refer to established evidence?

Would the thread simply have to derail while that issue was settled?

 

 

I'm not going to pursue this topic until a thread split, but at that time I am happy to continue. It just has no relevance to Neurocortical Mechanisms.

[Severian]

Evolution may move towards better replicators

 

Then it has a direction!

 

If you have to presume to read into the deeper level of a statement perhaps it's not quite as strong of a statement to make after all.

 

I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I am just a nice guy

 

All evidence supports natural selection as the driving force of evolution. There is no evidence of any other forces. That hardly makes the assertion baseless.

 

I agree, but then the proper statement is "there is no scientific evidence of any effect, other than natural selection, directing evolution". Not the same thing at all.

 

If someone was to suggest that the last ice age ended one million years ago and I said "no, it was 10,000 ago" would that be a baseless assertion because I wasn't able to prove it, since I could only refer to established evidence?

 

Huh? Why shouldn't you refer to established evidence? Do you think that would be constructive? The end of the ice age does have good established evidence, so it is not the same thing at all.

 

I'm not going to pursue this topic until a thread split, but at that time I am happy to continue. It just has no relevance to Neurocortical Mechanisms.

 

So you don't think it is relevant to challenge unsupported statements made earlier in the thread?

[iNow]

I'm not going to pursue this topic until a thread split, but at that time I am happy to continue. It just has no relevance to Neurocortical Mechanisms.

 

Padren - Have you already requested a thread split from the staff, or do I need to start reporting posts myself to make that happen?

 

Please let me know. I'm not about to play these semantic games within a thread which has a very specific topic.

 

 

TO MAKE THIS SIMPLE:

Mods - Kindly please move ALL posts from 55 to (and including) 63, as well as ALL posts from 67 to (and including) 73 to a new thread on "Does evolution mean improvement, and does it have a direction?"

 

Thank you.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm not going to pursue this topic until a thread split, but at that time I am happy to continue. It just has no relevance to Neurocortical Mechanisms.

With much appreciation to Pangloss, we're good to go. This discussion now has it's own thread.

[Mr Skeptic]

1-the belief in god is a product of evolutionary processes humans undergo.

 

I would put that in the past tense, point out that it is more related to how we think, and not discuss this further in this thread.

 

2-the whole idea of evolution is to, well, evolve, to become better, to be suited better to survive, adapt, continue on living, it's an important process to a race's survival.

 

No. Evolution is a process whereby organisms change from their ancestors in the direction of increased adaptation to the current environment. However, the current environment is almost always changing (if not the inanimate parts, the biological parts). Like a dog rapidly chasing its tail, this doesn't mean that it will get anywhere. For example, fish which find their way into a cave eventually adapt by getting rid of any protection they had from the sun and lose their eyes.

 

Due to the descent with modification aspect of evolution, some adaptation to the previous environment can remain in addition to the adaptations to the new environment. However unless they are still advantageous they will fairly quickly decay. Overall, I think that if you average over all species evolution has a cumulative positive effect, but if you ware wanting to apply that to any specific situations just forget it.

[dr.syntax]

ok, there was something that was bugging me ever since i read "hijacks" in the OP title, i was misunderstood in the first time so i'll try to be clearer this time..

 

i DO understand that this thread isn't about whether or not god exists, but more of an explanation and discussion of how the belief in a deity exists between humans, and why it's very common..

 

first i'll state what i take as facts, pieces of information which i'll base my conclusion upon, if there's any disagreement on any of them, then we should clear that first:

 

1-the belief in god is a product of evolutionary processes humans undergo.

 

2-the whole idea of evolution is to, well, evolve, to become better, to be suited better to survive, adapt, continue on living, it's an important process to a race's survival.

 

any disagreements?

 

please state them.

 

if not, we'll move forward, so no need to jump ahead of things.

 

 

of evolving more complex organisms at an accelerating rate. Some variation of many of the earlier life forms co-exist with us today. Often forming symbiotic relashionships. I do not believe there is some God force at work here. But, being an agnostic I cannot say with certainty there is not. ...Dr.Syntax

Edited September 24, 2009 by dr.syntax
spelling

[Ophiolite]

The exclusion of teleology from evolutionary theory was arguably a necessity when the theory was being developed. Since then this exclusion has become a largely unquestioned part of the evolutionary paradigm. If this exclusion is taken for granted, as iNow appears to do, it becomes mere dogma and wholly out of place within a science. Periodically the exclusion and the reasons for it need to be reevaluated. I take it that this is what we are doing in an informal manner in this thread.

 

I'll make two linked observations that I think are important. If the emergence of life is inevitable; if the emergence of complex life is inevitable; if the emergence of self aware, intelligent life is inevitable, then it seems that evolution does have a direction.

If it has a direction then we are likely only part of the way towards the 'goal' of that process.

[Sisyphus]

The exclusion of teleology from evolutionary theory was arguably a necessity when the theory was being developed. Since then this exclusion has become a largely unquestioned part of the evolutionary paradigm. If this exclusion is taken for granted, as iNow appears to do, it becomes mere dogma and wholly out of place within a science. Periodically the exclusion and the reasons for it need to be reevaluated. I take it that this is what we are doing in an informal manner in this thread.

 

I wouldn't agree with that description. Whether organisms are the way they are "on purpose" is a question I think most beginning students of biology wonder, just from a common sense "watch needs a watchmaker" perspective. However, they learn how it happens, and teleology just never enters into it. It's not actively excluded, it's just irrelevant. It's "carefully avoided" in certain contexts just because everyone knows it's a common misunderstanding, like having to clarify that black holes don't "suck things in."

 

I'll make two linked observations that I think are important. If the emergence of life is inevitable; if the emergence of complex life is inevitable; if the emergence of self aware, intelligent life is inevitable,

 

Are these things inevitable, though? I'm not aware of anything to indicate they are. Perhaps "under the right conditions, on an indefinitely long timeline." But you could say the same thing about winning the lottery.

 

then it seems that evolution does have a direction.

 

Does it?

 

If it has a direction then we are likely only part of the way towards the 'goal' of that process.

 

If there was an end goal, it's true that there would be no reason to think that we're it. But even assuming a direction, does that imply an end goal? I don't think so.

[Mokele]

The exclusion of teleology from evolutionary theory was arguably a necessity when the theory was being developed. Since then this exclusion has become a largely unquestioned part of the evolutionary paradigm. If this exclusion is taken for granted, as iNow appears to do, it becomes mere dogma and wholly out of place within a science. Periodically the exclusion and the reasons for it need to be reevaluated. I take it that this is what we are doing in an informal manner in this thread.

 

The problem is that there's no real evidence of teleology, nor is there a plausible mechanism. There's plenty of evolutionary "trends" (digit reduction in cursorial tetrapods, limb reduction in squamates, changes in body size over time, etc.), but all are merely the product of natural selection, developmental biology, and, quite often, physical constraints (drag, inertia, area-volume scaling, etc.).

 

Without a plausible instance of teleological evolution that cannot be explained otherwise, and without a plausible mechanism by which such teleological evolution could occur, it's rather superfluous.

 

I'll make two linked observations that I think are important. If the emergence of life is inevitable; if the emergence of complex life is inevitable; if the emergence of self aware, intelligent life is inevitable, then it seems that evolution does have a direction.

 

That's a lot of "if" and "inevitable" for my taste, particularly the "inevitable" part.

 

Consider sharks, dolphins & ichthyosaurs. All were subject to the same physical constraint (drag), and all turned out very similar. That could be seen as "direction" or "a goal", when it's simple convergence.

 

I'd also note that you could make the same chain of "ifs" with regard to many common strategies - the existence of parasites, of social insects, of migration, etc. Just as one could predict streamlining in aquatic organisms, one could predict the evolution of certain strategies such as these.

 

Plus, I think we humans place too much emphasis on our minds. Remember, as far as we know, our sort of highly advanced thought has evolved only once, in one group of organisms. That puts us on par with flying snakes and the platypus. One could actually put forth a much more convincing argument that evolution trends towards armor plating (turtles, assorted bugs, etc.), or flight (4 separate evolutions of it), or jointed limbs (arthropoda for the win).

[bascule]

There are what Richard Dawkins calls "watershed events", things like the advent of the DNA-based lifeforms, the eukaryotic cell, multicellular life, neurons, brains, tetrapods, mammals, humans, etc.

 

There's no real teleological thrust to it, the process was merely meandering about on its own, permutating through the various possibilities when it happens upon something pretty awesome, and these watershed events pile upon each other to form increasingly complex forms of life.

[forufes]

i really can't believe how this has been dragging on, evolution intentionally or unintentionally makes species more suited to live... by actually having us able to describe what it does, by it actually doing SOMETHING, then it has a direction, as it isn't doing nothing as in unmoving, nor is it doing nothing as in moving in a direction of unrecognized pattern..

 

improvement may not be the same depending on the circumstances, but evolution IS heading toward improvements, reword it as you like.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

i'm also yet to discover why're you all fighting tooth and nail to keep it purposeless, aimless.. what does it bring down in evolution? what part does it screw up?

[JillSwift]

i really can't believe how this has been dragging on, evolution intentionally or unintentionally makes species more suited to live... by actually having us able to describe what it does, by it actually doing SOMETHING, then it has a direction, as it isn't doing nothing as in unmoving, nor is it doing nothing as in moving in a direction of unrecognized pattern..

 

improvement may not be the same depending on the circumstances, but evolution IS heading toward improvements, reword it as you like.

"Improvement" is a word suggesting a value judgment. All evolution describes is what functions in a given environment and what does not. That function does not even have to function "well" or "perfectly" it just has to function.

 

 

 

i'm also yet to discover why're you all fighting tooth and nail to keep it purposeless, aimless.. what does it bring down in evolution? what part does it screw up?

What is being fought for "tooth and nail" is your understanding of the theory.

 

Reality doesn't change because you've made a clever argument against it.

[Mokele]

It's pretty simple - natural selection responds only to local conditions at the time. If there's a harsh winter, natural selection will improve cold tolerance in the population, even if on the whole, heat tolerance is more important and that harsh winter was just a random fluke.

 

The difference between evolving to suit local, immediate pressures and "long-term goals" becomes important when dealing with mass extinction. Obviously, extinction is a total genetic failure for any species. If there were any long-term goal going on in evolution, species would adapt to face inevitable catastrophes like mass extinction, but ample evidence from the fossil record shows otherwise - species adapt to local conditions and immediate selection pressures, even if this makes them more likely to die out when a volcano goes off or an asteroid hits.

 

Another problem is that "improvements" is poorly defined. An improvement for an ape is not the same as an improvement for a tapeworm (and there's a LOT more of the latter). If you define it by circumstance, it becomes no different from saying that evolution happens.

 

Additionally, there is non-selective evolution - genetic drift, founder effect, etc. all can change population genetics (which is the very definition of evolution) and even serve to aid speciation, but either offer no real "improvement" or may even make the new species "inferior" to their ancestors (consider how many island species are easily wiped out by mainland competitors introduced by man).

 

Now, there are *trends* in evolution, especially within certain groups - loss of limbs, increasing body size, increasing toxicity, sleeker body form, etc. But these are usually due to physical interactions (reducing drag, better surface area to volume ratio, etc.) or simple, potent evolutionary drives (a potent venom and a mild one cost the same calories, but the potent one has advantages).

 

It's also important to note that many species have retained basically the same general form for many, many millions of years. Crocodilians are pretty much the same now as they were 100 million years ago.

 

Finally, there's the issue of local vs global optima. Imagine a hilly landscape. Evolution directs you to move always uphill, so soon you'll be on top of a hill. But there's no guarantee that you're on the highest hill of all, and once you're up there, you can't get to any other hill without going downhill (reduced fitness), which evolution will not allow.