Is evolution intelligent?

[Sisyphus]

Other species are fairly intelligent but despite this none of them have technology.

 

That's not quite true. Chimps have been demonstrated to make specific tools for specific purposes, and pass on the knowledge of how to do so by intentionally teaching and imitating one another. That's technology (and culture). I know that's tangential to your point, I just think it's interesting.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

i ask why has evolution preferred the group's benefits to the individual's, by means such as morals.and i get an answer that starts off like this:

 

...... i mean, really? ever heard of facepalms? "doh"? circulr arguments? or just cicular, cuz i'm not sure that can be counted as an argument..

 

It's not a circular argument. Individuals that play well with others have a clear survival advantage over those that don't. In every case? No. But then, humans are not moral in every case, are they?

 

And of course, humans don't always work to their individual advantage. Self-sacrifice for the group is not unheard of, even when it destroys reproductive chances. But this is just further evidence that evolution is not intelligent - it can and does have counterproductive side effects. Like male tropical birds that become wildly colorful due to sexual selection, at the expense of their ability to hide well. If evolution had a goal of keeping things alive, this wouldn't happen.

[forufes]

Just because you don't like the answer does not mean an accurate response to your question has not been provided. You're really something else, kid... You know that?

just because you think you have answered the question doesn't mean you did..

my main question was:

there has never been recorded an event where evolution worked for the benefit of a creature's survival against it's species' survival, and i ask, why?

manifested as an example in:

so why do we hold morals? where did we "get" them?..why? what good are they, Mr.Skeptic?

and what i get from you is that because animals live in groups, then ones who go astray are bound to die..i mean WTH? I'M ASKING WHY HUMANS FREAKING HOLD MORALS WHILE SOCIALIZING IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHEN THEY CAN STAB EACH OTHER IN THE BACKS AND LIVE BETTER AS INDIVIDUALS..WHERE DID THE SENSE OF A WHOLE WE CARE FOR COME FROM? WHERE DID MORALS ORIGINATE FROM?

i mean, seriously, was such a simple concept that hard?

 

 

Speaking of morality outside of humans, this dog risked its life to save another after it had been hit by a car (warning: sad to see the animal hit).

oh poor doggy, one who asked for morality outside humans raise their hands please..

 

 

Nonsense question. Without death there would be no evolution.

nonsense answer.

so evolution doesn't work on live beings?:rolleyes:

 

let me help you here..if yes it works on live beings, then why didn't it eliminate death?

It's not a circular argument. Individuals that play well with others have a clear survival advantage over those that don't. In every case? No. But then, humans are not moral in every case, are they?

"play" mean help and be helped, the umbrella of morals.

the bit of morals that gives a "clear survival advantage" is the "get helped" part of "playing", the "helping" part wrecks evolutions concept*, it goes in it's opposite direction*, it is against individual reproduction chances*, yet it exists.. just because not all people illogically follow it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

*regarding the individual, but the opposite towards the species.

 

but the umbrella exists, along with the "helping" part...why? how come?

And of course, humans don't always work to their individual advantage. Self-sacrifice for the group is not unheard of, even when it destroys reproductive chances. But this is just further evidence that evolution is not intelligent - it can and does have counterproductive side effects. Like male tropical birds that become wildly colorful due to sexual selection, at the expense of their ability to hide well. If evolution had a goal of keeping things alive, this wouldn't happen.

i ask you to reread this, if you analyze it correctly, you will find it is the opposite..check post #42.

[iNow]

Your ignorance wouldn't be so annoying if you were trying to eliminate it and seeking to learn from what people are teaching you. However, your indignation and insistence that you are correct... despite the fact that your claims are directly counter to reality... is what causes you to get the reaction you do.

 

Hello again, red boxes.

[Sisyphus]

WTH? I'M ASKING WHY HUMANS FREAKING HOLD MORALS WHILE SOCIALIZING IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHEN THEY CAN STAB EACH OTHER IN THE BACKS AND LIVE BETTER AS INDIVIDUALS..WHERE DID THE SENSE OF A WHOLE WE CARE FOR COME FROM? WHERE DID MORALS ORIGINATE FROM?

i mean, seriously, was such a simple concept that hard?

 

No, it isn't hard. You're just not accepting the simple answer. So, again:

 

A) Most of the time, you don't live better as individuals by stabbing each other in the back. Living in and benefitting from a society means maintaining a level of trust and living by its rules. It's a tradeoff.

 

B) Humans do stab one another in the back. Especially when there aren't strong social institutions (like effective law enforcement) to deter it. Where did you get the idea that everybody lives morally all the time? There are competing tendencies of altruism and selfishness, which really are just two different (and not mutually exclusive) strategies for individual reproductive success. Either one can backfire. But then, evolution is not rational.

 

nonsense answer.

so evolution doesn't work on live beings?:rolleyes:

 

let me help you here..if yes it works on live beings, then why didn't it eliminate death?

 

It doesn't work on immortal beings, no. The primary mechanism of evolution is

natural selection. This means that individuals with certain traits are more likely to die (or otherwise fail to reproduce) than others. No death/reproduction -> no natural selection -> no evolution.

 

In order for something to evolve, there has to be a way to get there via natural selection.

 

the bit of morals that gives a "clear survival advantage" is the "get helped" part of "playing", the "helping" part wrecks evolutions concept*

 

No, it doesn't. We're much more successful in a society (helping and being helped) than we would be as individuals in the wilderness. The "being helped" is the benefit on the individual level, and you only get help if you agree to live by the rules and help others. Obviously, the trade off is worth it.

 

i ask you to reread this, if you analyze it correctly, you will find it is the opposite..check post #42.

 

I read post #42. What part are you referring to?

Edited October 13, 2009 by Sisyphus

[forufes]

my ignorance wouldn't be so annoying if it wasn't a dagger of doubt reaching through the layers of bigotry and self delusions and scratching through your founded beliefs, squeezing them hard against reality and rationale, enough for you to resort to the only weapon you have left, your precious little red boxes, which you haven't gained except by telling people what they want to hear, in the name of superior science, which ironically have long told people what they didn't want to hear, many of those people who claim to be of its followers....

 

evolution, is undergoing a morphing stage from a scientific fact, to a countering argumant adhered to by atheists in their war against theists, it is becoming their philosephy's backbone in the same sense religions do, it is being sucked into atheists' dogma.

 

and that is why, when evolution sprouts out a new bit of reality which doesn't support their agenda, they reach for their clippers, and engage in mindless ignorant disgusting debates from the points of "evolution supports our cause, so how does it do so?"..and so when a piece of evolution which strongly supports their claims fall off by the unearthing of new evidence, new arguments, new POVs, they reach for their super glue, insisting that "that is reality, no matter what you think, say, prove or provide"

 

i have asked many questions concerning evolution, questions with the goal of filtering everything else and reaching it's scientific core, and got positive reaction at first, untill i was labeled as one who ventures into taboo sectors, one who presents logic in a dangerous way, in a way that might blow wind in a direction that might blow off the wig off the pretty blond, and then people might start having question marks..oooo, not good..let's take this to a personal level to gain ground for more red cards, till we get rid of him...well it's your loss really, what will happen to this place when all people agree?

 

i've had a weak sense that ophiliote and Mr.skeptic seem to hold a difference between ID and creationism, but can't speak it out loadly so not to be grouched upon by the elders of the scienceforums tribe..

 

A Tripolation IMO can't offer his different opinion without being extremely apologetic..

 

if iNow thinks religion hijacks neuroscience, then i think atheists' evolution hijacks neuroscience as well, both do so by order of real evolution..

 

IMO it is very normal for people who don't hold some kind of explanation to their existence, to come up with one themselves, or to unconsioucly steer of their general thinking in a direction that will make them find an answer...evolution has become that scapegoat among others...that is why theists are more accurate in their study of it, they are less biased, they have no hidden personal agenda they are trying to pesticide on something..

 

that is also why most scientist in the world are theists, meaning they know of evolution, they know of physics, but they all unite in not making the assertions a certain group of scientists make, philosephers all around the world exist, theist ones are more than atheist ones, what is the majority missing then?................or should i say what is the minority missing?

and so it seems we have two typs of science, devided based on the scientist's theistic status. this forum is composed mostly of one type, who can't always deal with members of the other group, and so in the end, they need to get rid of them, to maintain peace in their hard to get sanctuary...

 

and so yes, i have finally realized why you are all fighting tooth and nail to keep evolution aimless......................

[iNow]

that is also why most scientist in the world are theists

 

I'm going to ignore most of your silly rant, except to go ahead and call bullshit on the quoted bit here. Feel free to prove me wrong with a reference or two.

[Ophiolite]

i've had a weak sense that ophiliote and Mr.skeptic seem to hold a difference between ID and creationism, but can't speak it out loadly so not to be grouched upon by the elders of the scienceforums tribe......

You almost got that right. On the other hand you were horribly wrong.

 

I believe ID and creationism are practically indistinguishable. The difference between the two is that creationism is honest in its bigoted insanity whereas ID is not. However, I think the concept of intelligent design (not Intelligent Design) is a potentially interesting one.

 

I do not engage in discussion of this point on internet forums, not out of a fear of being 'grouched upon', but rather because through observation I have concluded that most scientists and scientifically trained individuals are far too dogmatic on this point to be capable of conducting an objective conversation.

 

Please note that this in now way supports your view but merely reveals the arrogance of my own.

[Sisyphus]

Alright, let's tone down the drama, people. If we can't keep to the topic of the thread, moderator action will be required. That goes for everyone.

 

To address the angry rant above, I'll just say that it is not taboo and it is not dogma. There are competing views on evolution, and consensus changes over time, the same as any other branch of science. If it seems like people are ganging up on you, it's probably because nobody but you seems to find your reasoning sound. You're not being silenced, and other people are discussing differences of opinion. I think Mr Skeptics questions are interesting, and I'm glad he's asking them, even though I'm unconvinced by the hypothesis.

[JillSwift]

nonsense answer.

so evolution doesn't work on live beings?:rolleyes:

 

let me help you here..if yes it works on live beings, then why didn't it eliminate death?

No, evolution does not work on live beings - not as individuals at any rate. Death - and its specific timing in an individual's life - is largely the selector involved in natural selection. If individuals didn't die, and were never replaced, all species would be static. Thus, no evolution.

[bascule]

why did evolution come up with reproduction instead of immortality?

 

Without reproduction there would be no evolution.

 

If evolution came up with optimal solutions our retinas would be on the right way around. But evolution doesn't come up with optimal solutions, because it isn't intelligent. Evolution comes up with "just good enough" solutions that are better than the available alternatives.

[GDG]

No, evolution does not work on live beings - not as individuals at any rate. Death - and its specific timing in an individual's life - is largely the selector involved in natural selection. If individuals didn't die, and were never replaced, all species would be static. Thus, no evolution.

 

Not exactly: as long as you have reproduction with variation, and selection based upon reproductive success, you will have evolution. Consider microorganisms that reproduce by division: does the "parent" die?

 

Of course, having your ancestors continue to hang around, competing for resources, may not benefit offspring.

 

As for "why" we didn't evolve immortality, the question supposes that there is a reason. It just didn't happen.

[CharonY]

Precisely. Differences in reproductive success is the main point. Death is but only of the possibilities that can affect it.

Immortality (as defined as immune to age effects) is basically a trait of relatively simple organisms. The mechanisms necessary for that (e.g. rapid cell proliferation) is probably unsustainable in more complex (in terms of cellular complexity) organisms. For instance, cancer cells are essentially immortalized cell lines. And they clearly do not promote reproductive success....

[JillSwift]

Not exactly: as long as you have reproduction with variation, and selection based upon reproductive success, you will have evolution. Consider microorganisms that reproduce by division: does the "parent" die?

 

Of course, having your ancestors continue to hang around, competing for resources, may not benefit offspring.

 

As for "why" we didn't evolve immortality, the question supposes that there is a reason. It just didn't happen.

Yeah, the "parent" dies. Eventually. Something kills it, likely that which doesn't kill it's modified "child". Or both. Well, really, or neither. I guess "immortal" organisms would be weeded out occasionally as the population outstripped supporting resources. But that's not immortality as I think of it, 'cause they die.

 

Eh. Well, death is still part of the evolutionary landscape.

[iNow]

So, just to sum up the thread:

 

• Evolution is NOT intelligent
  
• Evolution is not synonymous with improvement or survival
  
• Improvement is context dependent, and depends on the environment
  
• We're not immortal because that's not how we've evolved
  
• Selection acts at the level of reproduction, and is less centered around survival (if you can reproduce prior to dying... or, if you reproduce and don't die at all... evolution is still occurring and will favor those who reproduce more successfully)
  
• It's almost 2010, and there are still lots of people who fail to grasp the basics of evolution
  
• Too many of those people substitute indignation and refusal to accept valid counter points instead of correcting their misconceptions and ensuring their points are aligned with reality
  

 

Cheers to people who are willing to share knowledge with others, to teach folks, and to help ammeliorate some of the common misunderstandings we see time and again on boards such as this one.

Edited October 13, 2009 by iNow
Forget a bullet

[JillSwift]

Ok, seems immortality has been a result of evolution in Turritopsis nutricula.

 

A species of Jellyfish that returns to its polyp stage after reaching sexual maturity. Apparently it can do this indefinitely, rendering it biologically immortal. How cool is that?

[tar]

Mr. Skeptic,

 

http://www.psrast.org/junkdna.htm

 

More than 98 percent of all DNA, was called "Junk DNA" by molecular biologists, because they were unable to ascribe any function to it. They assumed that it was just "molecular garbage". If it were "junk", the sequence of the "syllables", i.e. the nucleotides in DNA should be completely random.

 

However it has been found that the sequence of the syllables is not random at all and has a striking resemblance with the structure of human language (ref. Flam, F. "Hints of a language in junk DNA", Science 266:1320, 1994, see quote below). Therefore, scientists now generally believe that this DNA must contain some kind of coded information. But the code and its function is yet completely unknown.

 

When I read about junk dna years ago, my thought was that it wasn't garbage at all, but a store of possibilities. A grabbag that an organism carrying them might use.

 

Survival of the fittest, is an obvious fact. An organism that fits, that works, that survives and reproduces, is the one that passes on it's pattern. The pattern includes the junk dna. 2 percent of the pattern is active, has a function, that works, that makes sense, that builds the internal organisation of the organism. But the junk dna is passed along to the next generation, with equal fidelity. The other 98 percent of the pattern, just hanging around, waiting to be useful, waiting to fit. Very clever arrangement.

 

 

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Forufes,

 

If you have time to read 77 paragraphs, here is a excellent report (with diagrams), that gives someone like myself, with just some college biology understanding of genes, an excellent summary of what we know and what we are looking to answer, about cellular differentiation. It has everything to do with the questions we are asking here, so worth the read. It's got scientific terminology, but defined and phrased in laymen's terms. I learned a lot from it, and it gave me plenty of food for thought.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/scireport/appendixA.asp

How does a single cell—the fertilized egg—give rise to a complex, multicellular organism? The question reflects one of the greatest mysteries of life, and represents a fundamental challenge in developmental biology. As yet, knowledge about the processes by which a fertilized egg divides (cleavage), forms a ball of cells (morula), develops a cavity (blastocyst stage), forms the three primary germ layers of cells that will ultimately give rise to all the cell types of the body (gastrula stage), and ultimately generates all the specialized tissues and organs of a mature organism is far from complete. Little is known about the specific genes that regulate these early events or how interactions among cells or how cellular interactions with other factors in the three-dimensional environment of the early embryo affect development. The processes by which a fertilized egg becomes an embryo, called embryogenesis, include coordinated cell division, cell specialization, cell migration, and genetically programmed cell death [24, 35].

 

 

Regards, TAR

[Edtharan]

why did evolution come up with reproduction instead of immortality?

 

and i beg of anyone who answers to try not to be a new source of dissappointment to me..

Well the simple answer would be that reproduction is more advantageous than immortality.

 

The more complex answer is: Entropy.

 

Well, it is a bit more complex than just one word. Let me explain:

 

No system is immune from decay. The energy can be expended to prevent, or reverse that decay, but it is difficult to do and takes a lot of energy. Also, if the repair mechanisms decay, then the system breaks down and nothing can be repaired (of course, you can have backup repair mechanisms, but even then something can go wrong with all backup systems too).

 

So an organism that spent so much energy and effort into maintaining their own repair mechanisms would not be all that efficient at gathering food.

 

If an other organism comes along that has discarded these repair mechanisms in favour of reproduction, then even though the parent might die, there will be more of them and they will not be as inefficient at gathering their foods.

 

Eventually, because of reproduction, there would be many more of these "reproducers" than the Immortals. Not only that, these reproducers would be better adapted at living off smaller amounts of food.

 

Because there are so many reproducers, the finite influx of nutrients (food) will be used up. Then, only organisms that have the ability to live off these smaller amounts of food will be able to survive.

 

So these immortals, who need a lot of nutrients to maintain themselves against entropy (see it does have something to do with it all ) will not be getting enough nutrients to maintain themselves. Entropy then starts to cause them to fail (including their repair mechanisms) and they die.

 

However, the Reproducers will still be alive (as they can survive on much smaller amounts of nutrients because they are not constantly trying to fight entropy - although they do to some extent, but not enough to make them immortal).

 

However, in ecological niches where an abundance of energy/nutrients are available and very little competition, then immortality might just be a viable trait.

 

Notice in all that, I didn't actually refer to evolution. This was because the differences between Immortality and Reproduction in this situation does not require any referral to evolution. There is no need for reproduction with variation, all you need is reproduction as compared to immortality.

 

Because Immortality is a high resource consuming strategy (to fight off entropy), then any organism that uses a lower cost strategy (reproduction) will be automatically better adapted for situations where resources are scarce.

 

Reproduction naturally leads to a scarce resource situation, and as it has a lower resource cost than Immortality, it is therefore better adapted than Immortality (and it creates, by its existence, the very situation where it is better adapted for).

 

I hope this helps.

[tar]

Edtharan,

 

I like this line of thought. It justifies a belief I have had for the last three decades, that life's main aspect is the maintanence of form and structure, its pattern, in a universe that tends toward entropy.

 

 

Regards, TAR

[Edtharan]

There is no "trying". All that is occuring is that a stable structure is better able to reproduce itself (but too stable and it can't adapt).

 

Because reproducing structures will dominate over non reproducing structures, then what we see is reproducing structures that are stable (because they are the ones that will dominate).

 

There is no direction, trying, purpose or end point. It is only in the immediate (repeated many times).

[Mr Skeptic]

Here's a post by lucaspa where he describes some of the attributes evolution has that are usually associated with intelligence.