On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 6:15 AM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> > 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. > By saying "favours" you are already attempting interpretation. The concept of "next generation", for example, is already a higher level abstraction over a bunch of molecules interacting. So by trying to impose a level of abstraction at which you think it is acceptable to reason, but rejecting other levels of abstraction, you are just arguing from authority. > > >> > 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. > "Smart" is a feature of by-products of evolution. I'm not sure what smart evolution could mean. Maybe it would generate nothing? > > > 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. > Evolution "figured out" 500K years ago that relinquishing some control to the brain was a good idea. The condom is a consequence of that. Nothing ridiculous about that. I described a perfectly reasonable scenario, and how it leads to evolution *appearing to* have foresight. You just ignored all that, distorted what I said, and jumped straight to saying I'm being ridiculous. Telmo. > > >> 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
