Yes, the Cheetah got a bad deal. The reason for it can be explained by observing something that humans have known and practiced, even long before the time of Darwin - selective breeding.
We selectively bred the fastest strongest horses so we could compete them in races. The next generation of horses would then be fastest. We then take the fastest from that generation, and breed them too, meaning that the next generation is even faster than the last. We can observe the increase in average speed of a species due to selective breeding over the course of only 3/4 generations. The slower animals of any given generation are often cast aside. Cheetah's have been doing the very same thing with their Gazelles. They have been catching and killing the slowest Gazelles, leaving the fastest Gazelles to survive and breed among themselves. This meant that the next generation of Gazelles were even faster than the last, and therefore, the slow Cheetahs of the next generation couldn't catch them, and died out, meaning that the Gazelles had, themselves, 'selected' the fast Cheetah's to 'feed', meaning that they suvived and bred among themselves, meaning that the next generation of Cheetahs was even faster than the last. Then those fast Cheetah's killed off the slower Gazelles in that generation, leaving the fastest to survive and breed among themselves. As you can see, I am repeating myself. The predator-prey model of Cheetahs and their prey (not JUST gazelles, but commonly!) has entered a system of positive feedback. And the thing being constantly amplified by this feedback is the speed of both the prey and the predator. It's just unfortunate that the Cheetah's physiology was less able to adapt to the rapid changes it was having to undergo, while the physiology of the Gazelle had not yet reached its limit. So in the long term, the battle for survival between these two species was not one of 'who could be the fastest', but rather, it was one of 'who could adapt to rapid changes the longest'. However, if it had been the other way about, and the Gazelle's physiology had faltered first, then the Cheetah wouldn't be much better off. The Cheetah kind of relies on some of its prey being too fast for it, therefore giving them the opportunity to breed and produce more prey. Had the Gazelle given out first, the Cheetah (and other prey) would effectively have sent the Gazelle population into extinction, leaving its future generations with little prey on which to feed, and that, itself, would endanger it. As for back pain among humans, a lot of it is invoked by external injury. But there is an inherent condition for back pain that occurs regardless of injury, and that is due to the rapid changes in our physiology that our species has not yet had enough time to deal with. In fact, we probably never will deal with it, because we have created an environment where very few people die from it, so the genes for back pain are not restricted as they would be in a natural environment. On Jul 21, 1:24 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > Understood. The Cheetah example is interesting; I've always perceived > from the way they move when not hunting that they seem to be > uncomfortable. Now I know why. As for chronic back pain; I tend to > believe it's caused by injury or/and lack of physical exercise for > most people. I know it's not like that for everyone but I think it's > probably the biggest reason. I had problems after I was rear-ended > for years until I finally found a doc that stopped prescribing pain > killers and told me to get off my ass and do some core training. > (Pilates) Apparently, weak abdomen muscles contribute to back pain. > Who knew? As for pain associated with disease such as cancer you may > have something there, I don't know. > > dj > > > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:35 PM, GarrieMushet<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Situational pain is an evolutionary benefit, but chronic phsyiological > > pain as the result of our particular course of evolution is not. > > > We have nothing to learn from having chronic back pain other than that > > we should perhaps have evolved more gradually to be animals which walk > > on its hind legs - and that's not a lesson for us. > > > A comparison to things like back pain is within the species of the > > Cheetah. Cheetah's have had to evolve rather quickly to account for > > the increasing speed of their prey. Their physiology, however, is > > having a hard time compensating for these changes, and as such, the > > modern cheetah has very chronic inherent problems with its limbs. This > > is largely the reason why the modern cheetah is near extinction. That > > kind of pain and suffering simply isn't beneficial to the species. > > Situational pain and suffering is, I grant you. But that's not what > > we're discussion when we talk about the things I was talking about. > > > On Jul 20, 4:27 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> "Natural selection has no inclination to remove the > > >> > characteristics which cause us great pain and discomfort. Natural > >> > selection doesn't care if we live or die. " and while careful to not > >> > be interpreted as asserting the opposite again I claim: Facts not in > >> > evidence. You just don't know. > > >> I missed this quote in the original so I might be taking it out of > >> context but our vulnerabilities to pain and discomfort are absolutely > >> a survival benefit. We learn what not to do and how to be more > >> careful by learning what causes us pain. Some people with rare > >> conditions don't experience pain and have to be very, very careful to > >> avoid injury. Lepers come to mind. Various neurological disorders > >> that might cause insensitivity to pain are very dangerous. > > >> djOn Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Justintruth<[email protected]> > >> wrote: > > >> > It seems like a ridiculous argument to me. With regard to "After all, > >> > sleeping for 8 hours a day only makes us vulnerably for 1 > >> > third of our lives.." > > >> > First, it seems that by sleeping we stop moving around. To a nocturnal > >> > predator we might be MORE vulnerable at night if we stayed awake and > >> > thrashed around alerting them to our presence. But even with that, the > >> > fact that we build fires and post guards and are "afraid of the > >> > dark".... I am just not sure if we are more vulnerable at night. It > >> > would be interesting to check experimentally whether species that > >> > sleep are more vulnerable at night or whether their daytime activity > >> > is the necessary risk they take to get food and they actually die in > >> > greater numbers when awake. The little I remember of my childhood says > >> > that I was "...tucked *safely* away in my bed". Also it would be > >> > interesting to compare caloric consumption in sleep and out of it. > >> > Both are "facts not in evidence" to me. > > >> > In any case it seems that tuning to nighttime or daytime environments > >> > is very fundamental in evolution. See:" Is Evolution an Algorithmic > >> > Process?" onwww.researchchannel.org. There is a distinct survival > >> > BENEFIT in being either nocturnal or a daytime species. Given that > >> > fact, it seems that sleeping is a good choice and as it is akin to > >> > hiding, it is probable it provides a survival advantage. > > >> > But then we know it does don't we? By the circular logic of evolution: > >> > If it has a survival benefit it survives implies that if it survived > >> > it must have a survival benefit! ;) > > >> > As for this: "Natural selection has no inclination to remove the > >> > characteristics which cause us great pain and discomfort. Natural > >> > selection doesn't care if we live or die. " and while careful to not > >> > be interpreted as asserting the opposite again I claim: Facts not in > >> > evidence. You just don't know. > > >> > On Jul 19, 12:52 pm, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Jim, > > >> >> In evolutionary terms, the most important goal is to hand down your > >> >> genes. The prerequisites to this goal are reproduction and survival. > >> >> Therefore, there is NOTHING more important than survival in > >> >> evolutionary terms. > > >> >> So no, I wouldn't say that sleep serves a purpose more important than > >> >> survival. I would say that sleep serves the purpose of survival, in > >> >> fact. > > >> >> You are entirely right that sleep makes the sleeper vulnerable to prey > >> >> that is not asleep. But natural selection does not know this. > > >> >> Many people see evolution and natural selection as independent > >> >> conscious agents who constantly and actively refine the organism to > >> >> make it better and better at surviving. This just isn't the case. > >> >> Natural selection and evolution aren't 'aware' of anything. They do > >> >> not know that sleeps makes up vulnerable. I daresay that if evolution > >> >> and natural selection were conscious creative agents, then sleep would > >> >> have been abolished long ago. > > >> >> It hasn't though. Why? This is your question, I believe. Why haven't > >> >> we evolved to not require sleep, when in fact, it is a danger to the > >> >> organism to be a sleep. > > >> >> Well first of all, let me say that sleep is not the only phenomenon of > >> >> living creatures which would seem to be a disadvantage to individual > >> >> survival. Let me introduce to you a few of them within our own > >> >> species: > > >> >> 1) The human brain. > > >> >> Around 2 to 2.5 million years ago, our ancestors had brains with a > >> >> volume of only 400 cubic centimetres. Around that period, it bloomed > >> >> to about 650 cubic centimetres. Around 500,000 years ago, it jumped to > >> >> 1,200 cubic centimetres. And then around 150,000 to 200,000 years ago, > >> >> when the first 'homo sapiens' walked the plains of africa, it jumped > >> >> to its current volume of around 1,400 cubic centimetres. > > >> >> But the problems that came from the increase in the volume of the > >> >> brain were quite substantial. For starts, millions upon millions of > >> >> women have died in the last 200,000 years because their pelvises have > >> >> been unable to pass the head of a baby needed to house this massive > >> >> organ. Quite a lot of the time, the baby perished too. > > >> >> Not only that, but the brain takes up one fifth of the entire human > >> >> energy reserve. So 200,000 years ago, our ancestors found themselves > >> >> having to hunt and eat a lot more food than they had to when their > >> >> brains were only 400 cubic centimetres. > > >> >> Our heads are now so heavy that the risk of a human suffering from a > >> >> broken neck is massive compared to that of our chimpanzee cousins. > > >> >> 2) Walking on 2 legs. > > >> >> Humans still haven't adapted to walking to 2 legs as fully as they > >> >> could be. Walking on two legs is a relatively recent practice among > >> >> the species, and as such, we haven't quite had the chance to > >> >> assimilate to it. The statistics for the number of humans with chronic > >> >> back problems are enough to convey this, and almost every single human > >> >> will have personal experience of it at one point in their lives. Going > >> >> back 200,000 years, the notion of back trouble was even more daunting > >> >> than it is today. For us it means annoyance when rising from our > >> >> chairs, but for our ancestors it was the difference between escaping > >> >> predators and being gored to death. It was the difference between > >> >> catching the extra prey necessary to provide the energy that our > >> >> brains required and lying on the african plains, dying from > >> >> starvation. It was the difference between between being sexually > >> >> attractive and sexually selected, and being cast aside to die without > >> >> ever passing on their genetic codes. > > >> >> So why oh why has natural selection not ridded us of these burdens? > > >> >> Well, because Natural Selection really doesn't care. Natural selection > >> >> is indifferent to what makes us vulnerable. Natural selection has no > >> >> inclination to remove the characteristics which cause us great pain > >> >> and discomfort. Natural selection doesn't care if we live or die. > >> >> Because natural selection isn't capable of caring, or thinking, or > >> >> realising what characteristics are beneficial, and which are > >> >> burdensome. > > >> >> The reason we continue to sleep, walk on 2 legs, and have massive > >> >> brains is the NET effect they have on us, as a species, is a > >> >> beneficial one. So although, if you look at sleep from one angle, it > >> >> seems to be a great disadvantage, if you look at it from another > >> >> angle, you see that the benefits we gain from it far outweigh the > >> >> disadvantages. > > >> >> Afterall, sleeping for 8 hours a day only makes us vulnerably for 1 > >> >> third of our lives, but it keeps us fresh and awake and able to escape > >> >> predators and catch prey for 2 thirds of our lives. If we never slept, > >> >> the nature of our physiology would make us vulnerable for 100% of > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
