Ian - thanks for your observations.
Regarding point 1, sleep, it seems to me that your argument
proceeds from the given that we need sleep to a review of what happens
to our physical body during sleep to the conclusion that this must be
necessary. That is what I question - why is something which seems to
me so obviously counter to our survival - when we are alseep we can't
defend outselves - has not resulted in being eliminated, as
evolutionary theory would seem to dictate, but nevertheless still
survives? As you note, there are organisms that don't sleep. (There is
also one that sleeps first with one half of the brain then with the
other half.) But I think it accurate to say that almost every organism
sleeps. Evolution - survival of the fittest - seems well established
to me. So again why do we sleep? Why hasn't this need been eliminated
by evolution?
Regarding point 2, intellegence, good point - it has only been
around for maybe 10,000 years which is barely an instant in
evolutionary time. So who knows if it confers an advantage? I think
each of us knows that it does. To me it seems self-evident. It has
given rise to more and more complex tools, which in turn have
conferred our dominion over all else on the earth, met all our
survival needs in ever more luxurious ways, and opened the door, it
seems to me, to our understanding everything. So while intellegence
may have only been around for an evolutionary moment, its advantages
seem to be clearly major.
If you agree with that, then consider why the age of lizards -
dinosaurs etc. which lasted for maybe 200 million years or more did
not result in absolutely brillant members of the family. Surely some
of them must have been smarter than the rest. Evolutionary theory, I
contend, dictates that these smarter individuals ar more likely to
survive. So why didn't the family, or at least some species of the
family, get smarter and smarter, to the point that they knew
everything? (I suspect one answer might be that they did, and got to
the point where they decided to leave this earthly plane.)
I look forward to your reactions to these observations. Jim
On Jul 15, 3:53 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Two points:
>
> 1) Regarding sleep. In phylogenic terms, there's a eukarotic branch where
> opisthokonts may have split, creating the genotype we call metazoa (animals,
> broadly speaking); common to all animals is the phenotypic behaviour of
> sleeping*. Other opisthokonts, like collared-flagellates and fungi, don't
> sleep as far as we can tell -- and we obviously don't think of these as our
> possible predators! Hence, in evolutionary terms, our need to sleep has not
> lead to our extinction since all competing species also sleep. You can look
> to other behaviours like shelter building and our strong tribal instincts
> for other reasons why we have been so successful in so many different
> environments.
>
> * It's not known whether sponges have circadian clocks, but they do not
> display identifiable sleeping rhythms.
>
> 2) Regarding intelligence, a thousand years is no time whatsoever in
> evolutionary terms. You can trace back the evolution of hominid intelligence
> back over 10 millions years. In fact, there's reasonable arguments that our
> intellectual capacity may even diminish as chavs -- supported by welfare
> states -- are successfully raising more children to adulthood.
>
> Ian
>
> 2009/7/15 [email protected] <[email protected]>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yet I can't help but think that we have no predetors except our selfs,
> > and we are all programed to sleep when it gets dark, and that
> > intelegence has enabled us to build secure shelters to protect us from
> > those that may harm us whilst asleep.
>
> > So I see no contradiction there at all.
>
> > On 14 July, 18:35, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > As I understand one basic premise of the theory of evolution,
> > > survival of the fittest prefers individuals that live longer, breed
> > > faster and leave more progeny. Yet two traits we possess – sleep and
> > > intelligence – seem to contradict this preference.
> > > Sleep works against survival for, while sleeping, an individual
> > can
> > > hardly defend against attack and consumption. So evolution would seem
> > > to have selected those individuals needing less and less sleep, until
> > > sleep would no longer be needed. Yet today, maybe one billion years
> > > after speciation began, we still need our 8 hours of sleep.
> > > Intelligence also seems to disprove the all-encompassing scope of
> > > evolution. Those individuals better able to recall experience and
> > > predict the future would have an advantage in food-gathering, mate
> > > selection and progeny protection. Yet we hardly seem smarter today
> > > than humans living thousands of years ago.
> > > Are these traits exceptions to evolution? Are there other
> > exceptions?
> > > I expect so. But no one discusses them. Why not?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
