Evolution makes mistakes

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Agirgis1, Jan 7, 2018.

  1. Ragic

    Ragic I need me some PIE!

    I asked does the environment dictate how things evolve or do things seek the environment that fits their evolution. Dagda said 'both'. You liked that response which I'll assume means you agree with it. As do I. I would interpret that in this way. When you cant control your environment or easily change environments, then the ability to procreate is more influenced by the environment and the process of evolution is dominated by the ability to breed. However once a species achieves the ability to overcome that pressure, then evolution is dominated by other things, drift or whatever. Or maybe also 'self imposed' pressures.

    Evolution has no 'purpose', its just a process. If you take a 'prime mover' out of the equation then I think this statement is fair enough. The RESULT of evolution can be classified as 'good' or 'bad' depending on what criteria youre using. Not going extinct can be considered a 'good' result for a species, for example.
    Geressen likes this.
  2. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    Because that's not what I am saying at all?

    Evolution itself, of course, still exists, and it's just an idea/concept. But my point is that the way humans interact with it and how it affects us HAS been fundamentally altered - this is NOT the same as saying evolution as a concept has been altered.

    It's like I am saying we put a dam so the river's course changed - we have made dryland out of wetland, and vice versa. That doesn't mean I am saying how water works changed. That's an entirely different discussion.

    I have been fairly consistent in the way I have discussed this, but you insist on twisting my words to be "evolution itself is changed" just so you can keep saying I am wrong.
  3. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    in that case what you are saying is so banal that I am not sure why you even brought it up?
  4. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    are we talking plants or animals?

    because plants generally are able to move very little.
    animals generally will try to seek out food sources and partners. and sometimes other things that they have develloped a psychological and biological need for.
  5. Ragic

    Ragic I need me some PIE!

    I would think that in an ecosystem the evolution of one species (plant or animal) is affected by the other species around it. but in general its probably safe to say the evolution of plants is dictated mostly by the environment (barring human manipulation). I'm no expert on that though.
  6. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    Your banal is my interest.

    I think humanity's increasing ability to subvert evolution is fascinating and, along with AI, are the 2 frontiers I am most interested in. It also seems reasonable to discuss the current impact of evolution on humanity in a thread about... evolution.

    Either way, glad we agree that you were arguing against something I never said for reasons unknown.
  7. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Desert Owl Games

    Alakhami likes this.
  8. badgerale

    badgerale Warchief of Wrath

    Human evolution these days is more about willingness to reproduce rather than ability to reproduce. This tends to be the complete opposite of cliched views about 'survival of the fittest'- with the poorer doing better than the rich.

    But of course, in evolutionary terms, the unemployed women with 7 kids, and the African subsistance farmer with 9... they are the fittest purely because they have proven themselves willing/able to reproduce. In the current moment, the rich, successful and educated, are a evolutionary dead end in this sense. I doubt technology will impact this general trend much, at least not for a while.

    If this was any other animal then you would expect the population decline to right itself because the genes that effected a persons desire to have children would be heavily selected for. With humans i'm not so sure, because what determines poverty, and the tendency to have many children is more cultural than genetic (leaving aside systematic inherited conditions - class systems,locality, nationality). And culture spreads on what we think is good, not on what evolution does.
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2018
  9. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty


    god damn it people drill this into your heads.

    Fittest =/= smartest
    Fittest =/= strpngest
    Fittest =/= fastest
    and yes
    Fittest =/= richest or hardest working

    what you describe is the wrong interpretation of "survival of the fittest."
    maybe that is the traditional view for the layman. but Firk those plebs.

    there is also a lot wrong with the rest of what you wrote but lets try and work from the fundamentals and work up from there.
  10. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    Just another quick note
    it's neither of those actually

    we can go over the socio-economic and evolutionary factors that go into offspring generation and rearing and how intelligence remains a beneficial trait but it's going to take huge amounts of explaining and we know I am no good at that.

    for homework look up the average amount of children per parent for both develloped western countries, develloped asian, and develloped middle eastern ( muslim if you like), and african countries, compare with lesser develloped countries in same. also look up descent with modification and the shift countries make in the child/parent ratio as medicine devellops.
    explain the conclusions you draw.
  11. badgerale

    badgerale Warchief of Wrath

    Obviously i know this, perhaps 'traditional' was the wrong word as that was never what Darwin thought.

    Anyway, i'm going to join the 'if you can't be bothered to explain yourself then firk you' train.
  12. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    but I gave you homework and everything.

    are you the one not bothering to explain yourself?

    go Firk yourself?
  13. Ragic

    Ragic I need me some PIE!

    Ok, so there may not be environmental factors that decide who can breed and who cant in a modern culture. And if that's true then one might think evolution has stopped (or slowed down) in modern man. But there are other things that can influence evolution other than whether or not you can breed. There is also how much you can breed. Let's say a blue haired family has 1 child, and a red haired family has 10 children. Both the blue haired child and the red haired children can reasonably expect to survive and reproduce. But since there are more red haired children, their impact on the future gene pool will be greater.

    Now what impact will this have on human evolution? You would think that the genes of those who breed the most often would dominate the overall genepool. Is that happening? Does racism create a natural barrier to the spread of genes like that? Is that a good or bad thing for the evolution of the human species? Is it better for our genes to all become homogenized, or is there an advantage to having different subgroups that develop independently, but only occasionally 'cross breed'?
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2018
  14. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    congratulations, you have discovered genetic drift.
  15. Ragic

    Ragic I need me some PIE!

    ok, so its genetic drift. does genetic drift lead to a homogenization of the genepool?
  16. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    depends on population size
    rate of mutations
    reproduction cycle speed.

    in humans I am going to say: no.
  17. Ragic

    Ragic I need me some PIE!

    I didn't ask if it HAS lead to homogenization but rather does it lead in that direction. one thing that i think works against the trend of genetic drift towards homogenization is racism, as it frowns upon breeding outside your subgroup. with the impact of racism becoming less over time, that's one less pressure against homogenization. How big of an impact do you think the other factors you listed have on the genetic drift of humans? more impactful than that of racism or less?

    edit: I'm trying to be very precise in my wording and not to assume anything. or at least to make sure my assertions are clearly worded as such.
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2018
    Geressen likes this.
  18. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    when you say racism do you mean partner selection preference?
    or do you mean kin-selection?

    also to answer the larger question:no, in a population as connected and large as humans currently it won't lead to homogenisation certainly some traits are more common in certain groups, nose, eye shape, hair etc but even within groups that share a similarity in fenotype traits there is still a huge diversity in genotype.

    we will not become a genetically homogenous species.
  19. Ragic

    Ragic I need me some PIE!

    good to know

    what then is the problem with 'in breeding'?

    no I don't have a sister.
  20. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    some mutations are detrimental, if you have a pair of genes of which one is healthy or if the genetic defect is recessive ( genetic defect as in it will cause life threatening disease not "kill all the redheads") it becomes a less deadly form or doesn't manifest.

    in small isolated or insular populations you can see the pile-up of trainwrecks that occurs:
    the blue bolded part basically means that because of a small mutation when the cells read the DNA strands (RNA at that point but i didn't want to overcomplicate) they makethe amino acid SER ( Serine) instead of ALA ( Alanine) which is a problem if there are no correct strands anywhere.

Share This Page