Do species actively evolve toward a certain outcome...

[Ophiolite]

Not strictly true. Evolution is a very backward looking phenomena: it uses a genetic heritage rooted in the past and tested by the present. It can do nothing to anticipate future environmental changes, for it has zero predictive capacity.

An interesting aspect of humanity's intelligence is that this provides a means to change evolution from a Darwinian form, whose paths are dictated by chance, to one that is directed, and might be reasonably be called neo-Lamarkian.

[Mokele]

evolution is going to one certain place and ONE place only...-SURVIVAL-

 

Tell that to male spiders. Survival is certainly important, but most important is reproduction. After all, think of how many species will self-sacrifice is it means more representation in the next generation's gene pool.

 

An interesting aspect of humanity's intelligence is that this provides a means to change evolution from a Darwinian form, whose paths are dictated by chance, to one that is directed, and might be reasonably be called neo-Lamarkian.

 

I've actually noticed as much myself. In fact, even more than Lamarkian, since a Lamarkian giraffe could only transmit the stretched neck to its offspring, and thus there is still only "vertical transmission", while humans also have "horizontal transmission" in that, if I learn to do something, I can pass it on to my friends, not just my kids.

 

In a way, one could almost say we evolved into a new paradigm of evolution, based on cultural inheritance and technology rather than genetic inheritance and protiens.

 

Mokele

[rakuenso]

if you think about it, we are evolving towards a greater hiearchy all the time. for example eukaryotes forming it tissues, then organisms, then populations, then societies, and etc... where will this lead to?

[Mokele]

On the other hand, look at monogenan flukes. Formerly a complex multicellular animal, they've become nothing but parasitic sacks of gonads.

 

Mokele

[Skye]

Life doesn't need to actively evolve towards greater complexity for it to become more complex. If greater and lesser complexity can occur randomly through mutations, then (without other influences) you would expect that over time there would be increase in complexity. This is because there is a minimum level of complexity (there has to be something), but there is no limit on complexity. So if we have two species, and by chance alone one becomes more complex each generation and the other less, then first can keep increasing in complexity while the second must stop at some point, or cease to exist.

 

Of course, there are advantages to simplicity in reality.

[Radical Edward]

well said skye. A good analogy is imagine a crowd of people stood against a wall. if they all randomly meander around eventually the mean location of the growd will drift away from the wall. This is the case with biology. Life started off in abiogenesis, and most likely with a simple self replicating chemical. this is more or less the ultimate wall.

[KholdStunner]

Mokele: Tell that to male spiders. Survival is certainly important, but most important is reproduction. After all, think of how many species will self-sacrifice is it means more representation in the next generation's gene pool.

 

ur saying evolution is going towards reporduction more than survival??? Nothing would be what it is today if it didnt 'grow-up' in a different environment than other creatures in its family (ie. humans and apes) Evolution happens when a creature is forced to adapt to a new environment. Creatures dont evolve because they want to populate the world more, they evolve if they HAVE to.

 

 

P.S. how do you quote what some1 says?

[Radical Edward]

the quote button is in the bottom right corner of the post you want to quote.

[Deified]

Organisms will evolve towards anything that increases their representation in the gene pool. If the most effective way to do this is by killing themselves (unlikely) then it is likely that they would evolve a way to kill themselves quickly and effectively. A more realistic example is a mother putting herself in harm's way for her child. This is a trait that clearly increases the representation of the mother's genes in the gene pool. Someone sacrificing themselves for their offspring doesn't seem like pure survival to me.

[coquina]

Organisms will evolve towards anything that increases their representation in the gene pool. If the most effective way to do this is by killing themselves (unlikely) then it is likely that they would evolve a way to kill themselves quickly and effectively. A more realistic example is a mother putting herself in harm's way for her child. This is a trait that clearly increases the representation of the mother's genes in the gene pool. Someone sacrificing themselves for their offspring doesn't seem like pure survival to me.

 

What about salmon? They don't intentionally kill themselves, but they die after they breed. The males and females swim upstream to spawn, and then die. The salmon fry feed on their parents' bodies.

 

Going all the way to the head of a stream where the water is still, there is an ample food supply, and less predators than the open ocean gives the salmon a better head start at life.

[Sayonara]

Organisms will evolve towards anything that increases their representation in the gene pool.

No they won't. Evolutionary change is expressed retrospectively.

 

 

A more realistic example is a mother putting herself in harm's way for her child.

That's individual behaviour. It has nothing to do with the evolutionary fitness of the species.

 

 

This is a trait that clearly increases the representation of the mother's genes in the gene pool.

No it doesn't.

[Deified]

No they won't. Evolutionary change is expressed retrospectively.

Not quite sure what you mean by that but I think the problem arises from the semantics used.

 

 

That's individual behaviour. It has nothing to do with the evolutionary fitness of the species.

Surely you don't mean that. You mean to tell me that individual behavior is not governed by genetics and therefore evolution? How about the individual behavior of eating? I suppose that a species that doesn't have the tendency to eat is just as evolutionarily fit as one that does because thats individual behavior...

 

 

No it doesn't.

Lets do a thought experiment. A mother (any parent really) is forced to decide between sacrificing her own life or her child's life. If she allows the child to die then she has no representation in the next genration of genes (assuming she has only one child) therefore the tendency to allow the child to die would not be passed on through her. IF she was still of mating age then she might have another child so this gene would have a decreased chance of surviving.

 

Now lets suppose that a different mother is posed with the same question. If she allows herself to be killed then she is more likely to pass on the trait for allowing herself to be killed. Obviously these results vary slightly with the number of children.

 

coquina- I think that the salmon thing is a more extreme form of what I outlined above.

 

Forgive me for not being clear enough as I am pressed for time.

[coquina]

coquina- I think that the salmon thing is a more extreme form of what I outlined above.

 

 

I think it is the more simple explanation, because it does not require active thought, it just happens.

 

(Just for the heck of it, and because I like anecdotes, my mother told me about her father taking her to the salmon spawning grounds in Scotland, when she was a small girl. As they approached, mother said the stench was horrible. Her dad showed her the tiny fish feeding on the dead adults and explained the process to her and said, "That, my dear, is life everlasting." - My grandfather was an organist in the Anglican Church).

[Mokele]

To put it succinctly, a species will only evolve suicidal behaviors if the benefits of an early demise outweight any potential benefits of continued life.

 

An excellent example is australian redback spiders. The females live alone in webs that are widely scattered through the landscape. Like nearly *everything* in Australia, they're extraordinarily venomous, so things tend to leave them alone.

 

The males, however, a tiny, venomless, non-feeding (though that's probably something that evolved after suicidal behavior became the norm), and roam widely to find females. The mortality is *very* high on their excursions. Basically, once they find a female, they're unlikely to live long enough to find a second, and even less likely to find a 3rd.

 

However, length of copulation is a *very* strong indicator of paternity. The longer the male mates, the more eggs he fertilizes *and* the less likely the female will be to mate with subsequent males. Suicide by being eaten allows a much longer copulation than he'd otherwise get.

 

So, if a male self-sacrifices, he gets more kids on this female, and less chance of his sperm being displaced by subsequent males. If he doesn't, he gets less reproduction from this female, and *might* be able to balance that out by mating with a second, but the odds are against him surviving that long.

 

It all comes down to "how can I have the most offspring?" In some cases, male suicide is the way to go.

 

Mokele

[Sayonara]

Not quite sure what you mean by that but I think the problem arises from the semantics used.

To put it another way, "evolution in action" is directionless.

 

 

Surely you don't mean that. You mean to tell me that individual behavior is not governed by genetics and therefore evolution?

Being governed by something is not the same as determining something, is it?

 

How about the individual behavior of eating?

Eating per se is not individual behaviour.

 

 

Lets do a thought experiment. A mother (any parent really) is forced to decide between sacrificing her own life or her child's life. If she allows the child to die then she has no representation in the next genration of genes (assuming she has only one child) therefore the tendency to allow the child to die would not be passed on through her. IF she was still of mating age then she might have another child so this gene would have a decreased chance of surviving.

Yes, but you stated that it would increase her representation, which it won't. At best self-sacrifice will keep it the same while removing potential future representation.

 

Assume any individual with her genes can be represented as G. Assume that the theoretical number of offspring she could produce can be represented by N.

 

Representation if no threat or no self-sacrifice:

G_mother + G_infant + GN

 

Representation if successful self-sacrifice:

G_infant

 

G < 2G + GN

 

(Actually we can probably discard G_mother to be more accurate, so we have G < G + GN).

 

Even assuming the mother only gives birth to one infant, we end up with G = G, and the infant can still die.

[Deified]

Ok first off, the infant dies if there is no self sacrifice so it is just G*N. Secondly, this is clearly more advantageous in older mothers. Secondly G < G + GN is also false. Without the self sacrifice the correct expression is G < GN which is not necessarily a true statement. Both G(infant) and N can die. But the probability of N survivng is greater than G surviving because N has a mother to care for it. That result may change depending on the age of the original child.

 

If I'm wrong about this, which is quite possible, then it's is still true that many mothers are willing to sacrifice themselves for their children.

[Sayonara]

Ok first off, the infant dies if there is no self sacrifice so it is just G*N.

If that's a requirement of your argument then this must be one weird species.

 

Secondly, this is clearly more advantageous in older mothers. Secondly G < G + GN is also false. Without the self sacrifice the correct expression is G < GN which is not necessarily a true statement. Both G(infant) and N can die. But the probability of N survivng is greater than G surviving because N has a mother to care for it. That result may change depending on the age of the original child.

 

If I'm wrong about this, which is quite possible, then it's is still true that many mothers are willing to sacrifice themselves for their children.

G < G + GN is not "false", it's "not necessarily true in all cases" - for example the mother could have had more than one infant before we starting iterating N. There are various trivial combinations we could look at, but I wasn't going to sit there typing them all out (lunchbreak ).

 

The point is that all the combinations involving self-sacrifice (for the species you gave in your example, anyway) lead to either equal or reduced representation, not an increase. That's the only point I was disputing.

[KholdStunner]

hahaha, you can't possibly be saying that when a mother sacrifices herself to save an infant could possibly represent evolution. That is a very unlikely theory of evolution. And on top of that, you guys are using animals killing themselves as an example of evolution. And you guys are using examples like: if a red-back-something-or-other-spider killed itself in order to better represent itself in its gene pool, than that is considered evolution and maybe it will 'evolve' itself to kill itself more efficiently or quickly and some of you think that might be considered evolution. I would have to disagree. That would be considered mastering something. Mastering a technique and evolution are 2 different things (similar in some ways but still different)

 

Example: if a family of deer hunters have been hunting deer for, lets say, 10 generations. Then that doesnt mean that every child born in that family will necessarily have good 'deer-hunting' skills. The child will have to work hard in order to gain certain skills. And i think that evolution means that you genetically enhance as your born.

[john5746]

I think you are confused by the way some of the posts are written. In regards to the spider: The longer they copulate, the more likely thier genes will be carried to further generations. I'm sure the males don't want to die or enjoy it, it's just that the behavior of copulating longer gets rewarded more. Apparently, the reverse is true for humans! (I am an exception)

 

This can also explain why their are still many jerks running about. Being a faithful father doesn't spread your genes quite as well as playing the field.

[Skye]

hahaha' date=' you can't possibly be saying that when a mother sacrifices herself to save an infant could possibly in any way shape or form represent evolution. That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. And on top of that, you guys are using animals killing themselves as an example of evolution. And you guys are using examples like: if a red-back-something-or-other-spider killed itself in order to better represent itself in its gene pool, than that is considered evolution and maybe it will 'evolve' itself to kill itself more efficiently or quickly and some of you think that is considered EVOLUTION, but its not. That would be considered mastering something. Mastering a technique and evolution are 2 different things (similar in some ways but still different)

 

Example: if a family of deer hunters have been hunting deer for, lets say, 10 generations. Then that doesnt mean that every child born in that family will necessarily have good 'deer-hunting' skills. The child will have to work hard in order to gain certain skills. And i think that evolution means that you genetically enhance as your born.[/quote']

It's blindingly obvious they are talking about inherited traits.

[Radical Edward]

Organisms will evolve towards anything that increases their representation in the gene pool. If the most effective way to do this is by killing themselves (unlikely) then it is likely that they would evolve a way to kill themselves quickly and effectively. A more realistic example is a mother putting herself in harm's way for her child. This is a trait that clearly increases the representation of the mother's genes in the gene pool. Someone sacrificing themselves for their offspring doesn't seem like pure survival to me.

 

It is rather interesting to note that there are cases of altruistic suicide in tropical moths. In cryptically coloured (camouflaged) moths one would expect them to die shortly after breeding. this is to ensure that their lives are short and hence birds do not get a chance to recognise them - their "tactic" of not being eaten is to not be seen. Brightly coloured moths on the other hand whose mechanism of putting off predators is a bad taste, would be expected to live longer, so that the odds of a bird eating an older moth that has bred are increased, and also so the birds get to learn what not to eat. We observe behaviours that agree with this, for example in old age, the cryptically coloured moths become more and more excitable and do not stop flying and die relaticaly quickly, while the brightly coloured bad tasting moths live much longer after their breeding life has ended. Again, these traits increase the instances of the genes coding for those traits in the population, and so the populations evolve. of course we are talking about the simultaneous survival of a number of different genes here which all use one another as part of this mechanism (i.e. the genes for colour and taste and behaviour after breeding) but in essence they are all ensuring their own survival within the gene pool.

 

Sorry I can't remember the names of the particular moths here, I can find them if you like though.

[Radical Edward]

hahaha' date=' you can't possibly be saying that when a mother sacrifices herself to save an infant could possibly in any way shape or form represent evolution. That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. And on top of that, you guys are using animals killing themselves as an example of evolution. And you guys are using examples like: if a red-back-something-or-other-spider killed itself in order to better represent itself in its gene pool, than that is considered evolution and maybe it will 'evolve' itself to kill itself more efficiently or quickly and some of you think that is considered EVOLUTION, but its not. That would be considered mastering something. Mastering a technique and evolution are 2 different things (similar in some ways but still different)

[/quote']

the example of the moths given above shows precisely the sorts of behaviour that you are saying isn't evolution. Remember that these moths are tiny stupid things, they don't learn these behaviours - they are just coded in the genome. mastering something is the improvement of some activity within an organism over it's lifetime i.e. learning. learned skills are not passed to the next generation. we are talking about inheritable traits here.

Example: if a family of deer hunters have been hunting deer for, lets say, 10 generations. Then that doesnt mean that every child born in that family will necessarily have good 'deer-hunting' skills. The child will have to work hard in order to gain certain skills. And i think that evolution means that you genetically enhance as your born.

no evolution doesn't mean that. I think you need to learn what it does mean before making such proclamations.

[Sayonara]

hahaha, you can't possibly be saying that when a mother sacrifices herself to save an infant could possibly in any way shape or form represent evolution.

Good job we can make the distinction between genetic representation in a generation, and "representing evolution" then, isn't it?

[Deified]

If that's a requirement of your argument then this must be one weird[/b'] species.

I merely meant that when the child is threatened and the mother sacrifices herself.... if she doesn't then the child dies.

 

 

G < G + GN is not "false", it's "not necessarily true in all cases" - for example the mother could have had more than one infant before we starting iterating N. There are various trivial combinations we could look at, but I wasn't going to sit there typing them all out (lunchbreak ).

 

The point is that all the combinations involving self-sacrifice (for the species you gave in your example, anyway) lead to either equal or reduced representation, not an increase. That's the only point I was disputing.

with the point above taken into consideration I think you will find that it is false. There is no G outside of the GN term on the right side because the original baby has died without the self-sacrifice.

 

I agree with your larger point, I chose a terrible example and since that time several much better examples have been given much more ably than I managed.

 

It is true that any adaptation that will increase representation in the gene pool is likely to be adopted by the species in question whether it includes survival or not.

[Sayonara]

I merely meant that when the child is threatened and the mother sacrifices herself.... if she doesn't then the child dies.

And unless that's true in all cases for that species, your example has nothing to do with the evolution of that species.

 

If it IS supposed to be true in all cases for this species, then calling it "atypical" is being very kind.

 

 

with the point above taken into consideration I think you will find that it is false. There is no G outside of the GN term on the right side because the original baby has died without the self-sacrifice.

I don't accept the premise.