Holes of evolution, randomness and unrandomness

[GrandMasterK]

Do evolution and meaninglessness fit together? Sometimes I cant help but talk about evolution as an entity of it's own because of how it seems to regulate it's own rules. I live on a planet that has places that are too cold and too hot for me to live. To make up for it, I have an intelligent brain and can fashion myself some sporty duds to keep me warm while I get mauled by a polar bear. I am creative and destructive, when you figure that one you let me know. God forbid humans develop the ability to withstand the hotter and colder temperatures of the world. Do you think science runs evolution or evolution runs science? Instead of really efficient skin, polar bars have alot of fur. Humans get sick, we get head aches, we lose our vision, we lose our hearing and we get depressed. How many species do you know that have frequent intentional suicides based on depression and an unfavored mental state? Whaddya suppose these things mean?

 

Why does evolution play fair? Is it because all things in existence advance together? Animals develop offensive and defensive features in their favor, yet not all of them live out their entire lives without being killed. It makes sense, the thing trying to kill them needs to live to, it needs to be able to catch that animal. So, is this a case of evolution moving together, an antelope can improve but so can a cheetah? Or is it a case of evolution taking off on it's own. Is adapting to our environment and shaping around our lifestyle the only thing evolution adheres to?

[bascule]

"Arms races" between predator/prey in biological evolution are perhaps the foremost example of a way in which evolution works progressively. The slowest prey get eaten and the predators who are too slow and cannot catch enough prey starve.

[insane_alien]

Do you think science runs evolution or evolution runs science?

 

not really a fair question. Science is a methodology to understand the universe around us and evolution is a very small (although on its own extremely vast field) product of this methodology. neither runs anything. evolution is a description of a mechanism and science is a method to determine that description.

 

Humans get sick, we get head aches, we lose our vision, we lose our hearing and we get depressed.

 

and so do other animals with the respective body parts and brain complexity.

 

How many species do you know that have frequent intentional suicides based on depression and an unfavored mental state?

 

1. how many other sentient species do you know of?

2. This DOES happen, animals will stop eating and become unresponsive when they are depressed. effectively suicide by starvation or letting a predator kill you.

[herpguy]

How many species do you know that have frequent intentional suicides based on depression and an unfavored mental state?

I read somewhere that some dolphins could beach themselves as suicide because they feel depressed. If I find a link I'll post it.

[Psycho]

I read somewhere that some dolphins could beach themselves as suicide because they feel depressed. If I find a link I'll post it.

Elephants do it to, they just starve to death if one of there family dies, hence why when culling elephants, they have to kill whole families.

[herpguy]

Elephants do it to, they just starve to death if one of there family dies, hence why when culling elephants, they have to kill whole families.

And I just thought of something.

 

I used to have a collared lizard that had a mate. Now collared lizards are usually solitary animals, but this one, Joan, was different. She would always be next to the other one, Walter, in its cage. They would do everything togerther, even share food. Then, one day, Walter died for unkown reasons.

 

Joan went into what I think is severe depression. She stopped eating. About a month after she stopped, she finally buried her head into the ground and sufficated. Could this be animal suicide from depression?

[Dr. Dalek]

2. This DOES happen, animals will stop eating and become unresponsive when they are depressed. effectively suicide by starvation or letting a predator kill you.

I read somewhere that some dolphins could beach themselves as suicide because they feel depressed. If I find a link I'll post it.

Elephants do it to, they just starve to death if one of there family dies, hence why when culling elephants, they have to kill whole families.

Don't forget the most obvious one; Lemmings! As far as I know they arn't sentient though, or even that smart.

[herpguy]

Don't forget the most obvious one; Lemmings! As far as I know they arn't sentient though, or even that smart.

Well, what we are trying to say is that more than just humans will go to the extreme of killing themselves from depression.

 

Is adapting to our environment and shaping around our lifestyle the only thing evolution adheres to?

Yeah, basically. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's all about survival of the fittest. An animal's goal is to live long enough to reproduce. So if a mutation happens, and it is good enough to allow the animal to reproduce, the species will most likely keep it. If it is bad, the organism will most likely die before it can reproduce. Thus, it will not continue. So yeah, as I said, basically all evolution does is shape us around our lifestyle and adapting to the environment.

[Edtharan]

"Arms races" between predator/prey in biological evolution are perhaps the foremost example of a way in which evolution works progressively. The slowest prey get eaten and the predators who are too slow and cannot catch enough prey starve.

This is wrong. The competition between members of the same species is much more influential than between predator/prey.

 

Think about this:

To escape the Lion, you only need to run a bit faster than the next person (of course once their gone, you are the slowest ).

 

If predator evolution was more influenced by it ability to catch prey, then why hasen't "the ultimate predator" evolved that coudl alwayse catch every prey it chases?

 

This is because if such a preadtor evolved it would be too good and it's population would soar. This increased amount of predators would soon reduced the population levels of the prey to a point where the predator could not survive. Now each predator that kills prey is removeing the ability of another predator to eat. They are now in competition with one another. Eventually the uberpredators will eat the last prey available and then die of starvation.

 

If an area (isolated so it doesn't get the super predator invading) didn't evolve this uberpredator and only had the more nonuberpredators, then this situation would not likely occure (it still could if the predators were too good at chatching prey). So, natural selection favours those predators who don't catch a too much prey over those that are too good.

 

The nonuberpredators will ofcourse experence death from starvation, but that will act as a negative feedback to keep the population in check.

 

Why does evolution play fair? Is it because all things in existence advance together? Animals develop offensive and defensive features in their favor, yet not all of them live out their entire lives without being killed. It makes sense, the thing trying to kill them needs to live to, it needs to be able to catch that animal. So, is this a case of evolution moving together, an antelope can improve but so can a cheetah? Or is it a case of evolution taking off on it's own. Is adapting to our environment and shaping around our lifestyle the only thing evolution adheres to?

One might as well ask "Why does gravity play fair?". It pulls all objects equally.

 

This is not ment as a snub (there are no stupid questions, just stupid answers). It is just that to provide a "Nonstupid" answer is complicated.

 

First: To ask the question "does evolution play fair?" has built into the assumption that it could "Not play fair", that it (or a designer) has some choice as to how it works. This is not the case.

 

Second: Evolution works by selection of the fittest. What fittest means is "an organism that can successfully reproduce the best". It makes no judgement on the physical attributes of the organism, only that in it current environment it can reproduce successfully (and the more the merrier ). Organisms that reproduce more will have more offspring that reproduce and so on. So being able to reproduce the most is an advantage.

 

In sexually reproduceng species, only 2 offspring are needed to, themselves, produce offspring (grow to a reproductive age and then reproduce) to maintain the population. If more are produced then the population grows. If less are produced the population shinks.

 

If a population grows too far it will outstrip the environment's ability to suport them. This will cause an increase in deaths and less of the population will be able to reproduce. If you think about this a bit, you will see that this will lead to a stabilisation of the population so that you will get 2 offspring reaching adulthood and reproduceing for every 2 adults in the population.

 

This is why, nomatter how good an organism's defence is ther will always be those that do not make it. And to make sure that at least 2 offspring make it to reproduce themselves, most organisms hedge their bets and produce lots of offspring in thier lives so that there is a chance that their offspring will be the ones to reproduce. The same applies for predators. If they get too good at killing prey, the will wipe put their prey and then starve to death.

 

This at first might sound like there is a mysterious "Hand" that guides them, but there is not. Populations of predators will become too good and they will then wipe themselves out. Evolution will produce these uberpredatos, but they will not be able to survive, wher as the nonuberpredators will (and therefore that is what we see today).

 

We also get booms and busts in the prey species too. Think of a locust swarm. This is where the ability to reproduce outstrips the ability of the environemnt to suport the organism. They swarm over the landscape consumeing all the available resources, and eventually, because there is no longer any food to keep them alive, the die.

[AzurePhoenix]

Don't forget the most obvious one; Lemmings! As far as I know they arn't sentient though, or even that smart.

To be fair, it's not even really suicide at all. Overpopulation leads to mass crowding and they get pushed over ledges or into water by the lemming-mobs.

 

If predator evolution was more influenced by it ability to catch prey, then why hasen't "the ultimate predator" evolved that coudl alwayse catch every prey it chases?

because that's not how evolution works. The predators evolve in reaction to what they need to get the prey, prey evolves to better get away, all in response to actual influencing selective factors combined with the random mutations that provide the possible traits. Organisms don't evolve towards a goal, and they are limited by rules of biology, often making tradeoffs to get certain advantages best suited to their needs. Besides, if some uberpredaotr DID evolve, likely a prey species or two with counter it with their own eventual uberness.

[GrandMasterK]

How bout evolution that doesnt serve much purpose or gain and doesnt necessarly threaten anything else. Would you pass this off as "evolution in the process"? For instace, how good our memory can be, and how bad our memory can be. My physical potential not being greater. this is why I asked of Evolution drives science or if science drives evolution. Perhaps I should say physics instead.

 

How does evolution decide that over time, a lizard needs to be able to blend into it's environment? Evolution doesnt decide anything correct? It just slowly transforms itself based on the push of the animal. Which makes me wonder, how did a lizard being able to change colors ever come about from that? If one day humans can become invisible, would a good question be "how in the hell did this come about through evolution, as a necessity"? I ask about the lizard because once again, does evolution run physics or does physics run evolution? Are our muscles this limited because of the way the universe works or because of the way we've evolved. Or should I say, one day could 200lb man bench press 5 times his own body weight? Since we keep pushing ourselves, though not a necessity, how could the process in which we evolve and advance know if it's necessity or not?

[the tree]

Evolution doesnt decide anything correct?

Yes, in the same way the aurora borealis doesn't decide much either, it isn't a thing let alone a thinking one.

It just slowly transforms itself based on the push of the animal.

What do you mean? Evolution is something that happens, it does not have any properties of its own to be transformed. And what is "the push of the animal"?

Which makes me wonder, how did a lizard being able to change colors ever come about from that?

That is an very good question. But first you need to make you understand how it works and realise that many other animals have chromatophore cells and probably try asking someone that specialises in reptiles.

(is Moleke about?).

I ask about the lizard because once again, does evolution run physics or does physics run evolution?

Physics is the study of the physical universe, that does run everything.

Are our muscles this limited because of the way the universe works or because of the way we've evolved.

We've evolved in said way because of the conditions in our small corner of the universe.

Or should I say, one day could 200lb man bench press 5 times his own body weight?

I guess so, but I would imagine that it would happen as a result of human influence rather than human evolution.

Since we keep pushing ourselves, though not a necessity, how could the process in which we evolve and advance know if it's necessity or not?

Pushing ourselves does not have an effect on evolution. Necessity does not have an effect on evolution. The only thing that does is how many offspring a specimin can produce in its lifetime.

[Mokele]

That is an very good question. But first you need to make you understand how it works and realise that many other animals have chromatophore cells and probably try asking someone that specialises in reptiles.

(is Moleke about?).

 

Chromatophores in reptiles are actually very widespread, with many species being able to change color slightly or to a great extent, and this is due to their likely origin as a mechanism of thermoregulation. The desert iguana is an excellent example: in the morning, it turns very dark grey, to absorb as much heat as possible, then, in order to prevent overheating as it forages in the hot desert sun, it becomes white. Some species co-opted this existing mechanism to serve for camoflage and display. The mechanism isn't that complicated either, just sacks of melanin (and other pigments in some species) moving around inside the skin cells.

 

Mokele

[SkepticLance]

Lemmings!

Let's nail at least one myth.

Lemmings do NOT commit suicide (except in movies by Walt Disney).

The Great Lemming Suicide is an urban myth, even if it is set in the wilderness.

 

Lemmings undergo periodic population explosions. When that happens, the death rate increases dramatically, but due to increased predation, lack of food etc. NOT suicide.

[Dr. Dalek]

In fact, the behavior of lemmings is much the same as that of many other rodents which have periodic population booms and then disperse in all directions, seeking the food and shelter that their natural habitat cannot provide. (The Australian Long-haired Rat is one example.) The actual reason for their 'suicide' deaths is because these mass migrations may last many months and the lemmings become too tired to avoid cliff edges or swim when they normally could.[/Quote]

Ok, I see

No more Disney for me.