On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote:
> > >> That is incorrect. Evolution will favor whichever strategy is better >> in the *SHORT* run. >> > > > There is a point where the antropomorphisation of evolution breaks, > Yes, but I'm very far from that point. > Evolution favours nothing. > That is incorrect. Evolution favors getting genes into the very next generation and Evolution favors absolutely positively NOTHING else. > > There are trees of organisms descending from other organisms. Sometimes > a mutation will create a local advantage that is maladaptive in the long > run. > That is certainly true, and because Evolution has no wisdom and has no long term plan that mutant gene that was successful for one generation will go extinct after that. > Meanwhile, another population that suffered a more subtle mutation with > advantages in the long run, does not suffer from resource depletion and > ends up enjoying the benefits of a mutation that is better in the long run. > And it doesn't matter one bit how wonderful that gene would be in the long run, if it is unsuccessful for just one generation it will go extinct. That would never happen if Evolution was smart, but it isn't. And if Evolution was smart it would see that it is a pointless arms race to increase the muscles in a prey animal so it could run faster and get away from predators and then increase the muscles in predator animals so they can run faster and catch the faster prey. The genes of both predator and prey would be better off if the muscle size was kept the same and all that energy was put into having more offspring, it would be the smart thing to do, it would be the wise thing to do, but Evolution is neither of those things. > The condom is one of these things. It seems like a disadvantage in the > short run but transforms into an advantage in the long run. Poor > populations that are stuck in the catholic reproductive algorithm suffer > from resource depletion, while condom users prosper in the long run. > And Evolution figured all this out 500,000 years ago did it? Don't be ridiculous. > A phenotypical improvement is only possible if it can be produced by a > sequence of genetic mutations such that every intermediary organism is > viable. > Obviously. > This doesn't mean that every intermediary organism has to be better. > It doesn't have to be perfect but it does have to be equal to or better than the competition. And by "better" I mean the ability to get genes into the very next generation. > In the long term, neutral mutations + survival bias can lead to something > that looks like foresight. > Neutral mutations are not stable, there is no pressure for them to be so. To a creature who lives it's entire life in a dark cave a mutation in the gene that produces the eye is neutral, that's why cave animals have no eyes. > You talk as if evolution had a goal, but it does not. > It does have a goal, get genes into the very next generation, but that's the end of the story. You're the one who talks as if Evolution had some sort of long range master plan and knew all about condoms and Catholics and the educational aspirations the poor have for their children and had a cunning way to exploit these things to it's advantage. John K Clark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
