Biological Energy Redistribution?

[MRC_Hans]

Okay. Btw don't we see few communities or species who can not reproduce more and are on the threat of extinction? If they are, how they got evolved accordingly?

This is because evolution is not intelligent. A species may evolve itself into a blind alley. If a species has no natural enemies, it may evolve into something that has no defences (because defences cost energy). If some enemy then arrives on the scene, it may be goodnight.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

But people also get genetic cause to infertility and diseases. Does is not oppose to survival & fitness due to evolution?

It does. Eventually, such populations will die out. Actually, at a time, in Europe, there was a Christian sect that held that sex, even for reproduction, was sinful, and should be avoided at all costs. Guess what happened to them.

Hans

 

[DaveC426913]

This is because evolution is not intelligent. A species may evolve itself into a blind alley. If a species has no natural enemies, it may evolve into something that has no defences (because defences cost energy). If some enemy then arrives on the scene, it may be goodnight.

This is part of a larger evolutionary strategy.

The ecology has periods of stability and periods of rapid change. Evolution has strategies that conform to those periods.

Specialists do well in stable climates/ecologies, where their traits can be fine-tuned to a specific ecology - like Koalas, who only eat Eucalyptus (and have no major predators).

Generalists do well in changing climates/ecologies, where they keep their options open. Rats and humans are good generalists.

So, specializing is not a dead-end - it works very well during long periods of stable climate. But it certainly is at a disadvantage when the climate or the eco-system changes (such as the introduction of an invasive predator).

 

[KUMAR5]

Evolution has no morals or ethics. Yes, if overpopulation exists in an environment, evolution might favor species that breed slowly. There is certainly a destructive side to evolution. An example: Lions are flock animals. They live in prides of several females with one male. This male, of course, sires all cubs in the pride. To avoid over-population, and to ensure good conditions for already born cubs, females do not get into heat till their cubs have come of age. Now, sometimes, a younger, or stronger, male lion will fight the male of a pride, kill him or drive him away and take over the pride. Then its first action will be to kill all cubs. .. Because then the females will get into heat again, he can mate with them and sire new litters of cubs, which will carry HIS genes. Destructive, but favored by evolution because it progresses the new male's genes.

Hans

Thanks. Good post. I feel, it justify, evolution is not one sided i.e.always support greater survival and reproduction success. probably, past understanding of natural selection was just one sided approach. May it was due to the need of that time and condition affect. But today we are in different time & condition which may need to restrict population, depend more on mental than physical activities, depression in sexual and reproduction activities, depend more on destructive activities etc. Future Evolution may be based on what and how we think and practice today.

 

[KUMAR5]

Ah, OK, now I understand what you mean by "mental energy". Fine, but modern life does NOT require more mental energy. In fact, it probably requires less. Living in a "primitive" prehistoric world requires a lot of "mental energy". Nobody is there to help you, you need to remember everything because there are no textbooks to follow, no google or GPS. And if you forget, you die.

Some research actually indicates that modern human's brains are being reduced in size.

Hans

Thinks can look different in apparent and real mean. Probably, past usage of mental energy was for real needs so relaxing but today for apparent need or greed, so stressful. If so, burden of mental energy will be more today than past. I have yet to ascertain, whether increased in brain size is related to greater consciousness, intelligence and memory or not? I feel it is just related to greater memory.

 

[KUMAR5]

It does. Eventually, such populations will die out. Actually, at a time, in Europe, there was a Christian sect that held that sex, even for reproduction, was sinful, and should be avoided at all costs. Guess what happened to them.

Hans

Evolution may be dependent on need of the time and prevailing conditions which may change our thinking acoordingly leading to get future evolution accordingly. Evolution should not be just one sided approach as anticipated, supporting only to survival & fitness but can also support destruction and unhealth or discouraging reproduction. So birth control measures, sexaul depression, late marriage, no eagerness to bear early children, unhealth and destructive tools, higher non physical based studies & works etc are preferred. Today our children are getting molded in this manner.

 

[KUMAR5]

This is part of a larger evolutionary strategy.

The ecology has periods of stability and periods of rapid change. Evolution has strategies that conform to those periods.

Specialists do well in stable climates/ecologies, where their traits can be fine-tuned to a specific ecology - like Koalas, who only eat Eucalyptus (and have no major predators).

Generalists do well in changing climates/ecologies, where they keep their options open. Rats and humans are good generalists.

So, specializing is not a dead-end - it works very well during long periods of stable climate. But it certainly is at a disadvantage when the climate or the eco-system changes (such as the introduction of an invasive predator).

Good then evolution can suggest it is two sided approach i.e creation or destruction not just one sided as anticipated(just survival & fitness of reproductive success) by our scholars. I think, it also match with fine tuning of universe or nature balances intself which can only be possible by both creation & destruction not by just one. As I feel it by this example:

0/>>7<<13

 

[spidergoat]

But people also get genetic cause to infertility and diseases. Does is not oppose to survival & fitness due to evolution?

Some genetic diseases are the result of adaptations that are successful in other circumstances (malaria resistance vs. sickle cell disease). Some genes that are positively selected have associations with other genes that are negative.

 

[spidergoat]

Good then evolution can suggest it is two sided approach i.e creation or destruction not just one sided as anticipated(just survival & fitness of reproductive success) by our scholars.

No. evolution by definition is the change in frequency of genes in the gene pool. A gene cannot become more frequent unless it's reproduced. And reproduction is fitness.

 

[DaveC426913]

Good then evolution can suggest it is two sided approach i.e creation or destruction not just one sided as anticipated(just survival & fitness of reproductive success) by our scholars.

This makes no sense.

I think, it also match with fine tuning of universe or nature balances intself which can only be possible by both creation & destruction not by just one. As I feel it by this example:
0/>>7<<13

This is woo.

 

[KUMAR5]

No. evolution by definition is the change in frequency of genes in the gene pool. A gene cannot become more frequent unless it's reproduced. And reproduction is fitness.

Evolution can be a slow process. Creative or destructive adaptations can be apparent after a long time. We can just see, whether evolution is progressing toward creative side or toward destructive side. It can result either increase in health and population or decrease in health and extinction. I think, what we are opting today i.e. making base of more meantal activities, unhealth & destruction, it is bit new in our evolved known history. So we may not be looking on this side of evolution.

 

[exchemist]

Evolution can be a slow process. Creative or destructive adaptations can be apparent after a long time. We can just see, whether evolution is progressing toward creative side or toward destructive side. It can result either increase in health and population or decrease in health and extinction. I think, what we are opting today i.e. making base of more meantal activities, unhealth & destruction, it is bit new in our evolved known history. So we may not be looking on this side of evolution.

You need to forget your subjective notion of "progress" and your subjective and arbitrary judgements about "creative" and "destructive" sides. Evolution is a natural process and as such is undirected and does not "progress". All it does is tend to adapt populations to their environment, where a particular adaptation improves reproductive success. This is called "selection pressure" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_pressure

Take human short-sightedness as an example. When man was still a hunter-gatherer, short sight could make it less likely that a person would survive to reproductive age, due to not spotting dangerous animals in time, or starving due to inability to hunt effectively. So there may have been a tendency for short sight to fade from the gene pool and hence from the population. Since the invention of spectacles, that selection pressure has gone. So now the only selection pressure against short sight is if short-sighted people are seen as less attractive and consequently fail to mate as often. There is little evidence that this is a factor.

This is neither "creative" nor "destructive". It is simply that this trait of short-sightedness has ceased to make any difference to reproductive success and so natural selection has (arguably) ceased to operate on it, in either direction. But understand this: selection works by mean of inheritance and the number of offspring a person with the condition has. That is why we keep talking to you about reproductive success. The only things that lead to evolution are those that lead to greater or lesser reproduction.

 

[KUMAR5]

You need to forget your subjective notion of "progress" and your subjective and arbitrary judgements about "creative" and "destructive" sides. Evolution is a natural process and as such is undirected and does not "progress". All it does is tend to adapt populations to their environment, where a particular adaptation improves reproductive success. This is called "selection pressure" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_pressure

Take human short-sightedness as an example. When man was still a hunter-gatherer, short sight could make it less likely that a person would survive to reproductive age, due to not spotting dangerous animals in time, or starving due to inability to hunt effectively. So there may have been a tendency for short sight to fade from the gene pool and hence from the population. Since the invention of spectacles, that selection pressure has gone. So now the only selection pressure against short sight is if short-sighted people are seen as less attractive and consequently fail to mate as often. There is little evidence that this is a factor.

This is neither "creative" nor "destructive". It is simply that this trait of short-sightedness has ceased to make any difference to reproductive success and so natural selection has (arguably) ceased to operate on it, in either direction. But understand this: selection works by mean of inheritance and the number of offspring a person with the condition has. That is why we keep talking to you about reproductive success. The only things that lead to evolution are those that lead to greater or lesser reproduction.

"All it does is tend to adapt populations to their environment, where a particular adaptation improves reproductive success.
Humans exerting evolutionary pressure
Human activity can lead to unintended changes in the environment. The human activity will have a possible negative effect on a certain population, causing many individuals from said population to die due to not being adapted to this new pressure. The individuals that are better adapted to this new pressure will survive and reproduce at a higher rate than those who are at a disadvantage. "

I take above words from your post & link.

One part suggests "tend to adapt populations to their environment" other part "where a particular adaptation improves reproductive success" still other part: "The human activity will have a possible negative effect on a certain population," . I feel there is a confusion due to "survival of fittest" and "natural selection" consideration. Former should be suggesting only one sidedness i.e fittest will survive but later should have covered all sides i.e whatever caused be environment exposures that can be adopted--may it be positive or negative. We should therefore now look on current environment and should expect it will be adopted. Current environment can be; getting easy & easily digestible foods without much physical activities, depending more on mental activities, depression of sexual & reproduction related activities, encouragement to unhealthful and destructive activities etc. I am not sure our future evolution will support or oppose these for survival & fitness. Moreover, true survival & fitness can depend on balance neither on less nor on more, so evolution or natural processes should support balance not otherwise.

 

[DaveC426913]

One part suggests "tend to adapt populations to their environment" other part "where a particular adaptation improves reproductive success" still other part: "The human activity will have a possible negative effect on a certain population," . I feel there is a confusion due to "survival of fittest" and "natural selection" consideration. Former should be suggesting only one sidedness i.e fittest will survive but later should have covered all sides i.e whatever caused be environment exposures that can be adopted--may it be positive or negative. We should therefore now look on current environment and should expect it will be adopted. Current environment can be; getting easy & easily digestible foods without much physical activities, depending more on mental activities, depression of sexual & reproduction related activities, encouragement to unhealthful and destructive activities etc. I am not sure our future evolution will support or oppose these for survival & fitness. Moreover, true survival & fitness can depend on balance neither on less nor on more, so evolution or natural processes should support balance not otherwise.

None of this is really saying anything.

eg:
"We should therefore now look on current environment and should expect it will be adopted."
"I am not sure our future evolution will support or oppose these for survival & fitness. Moreover, true survival & fitness can depend on balance neither on less nor on more, so evolution or natural processes should support balance not otherwise."
The words here such as adopted, support, oppose, true, balance have nothing to do with the science of evolution; they're what are called weasel-words, with ambiguous meaning.

If you wish to discuss evolutionary, you should familiarize yourself with the names, terminology, definitions and mechanisms.

 

[exchemist]

"All it does is tend to adapt populations to their environment, where a particular adaptation improves reproductive success.
Humans exerting evolutionary pressure
Human activity can lead to unintended changes in the environment. The human activity will have a possible negative effect on a certain population, causing many individuals from said population to die due to not being adapted to this new pressure. The individuals that are better adapted to this new pressure will survive and reproduce at a higher rate than those who are at a disadvantage. "

I take above words from your post & link.

One part suggests "tend to adapt populations to their environment" other part "where a particular adaptation improves reproductive success" still other part: "The human activity will have a possible negative effect on a certain population," . I feel there is a confusion due to "survival of fittest" and "natural selection" consideration. Former should be suggesting only one sidedness i.e fittest will survive but later should have covered all sides i.e whatever caused be environment exposures that can be adopted--may it be positive or negative. We should therefore now look on current environment and should expect it will be adopted. Current environment can be; getting easy & easily digestible foods without much physical activities, depending more on mental activities, depression of sexual & reproduction related activities, encouragement to unhealthful and destructive activities etc. I am not sure our future evolution will support or oppose these for survival & fitness. Moreover, true survival & fitness can depend on balance neither on less nor on more, so evolution or natural processes should support balance not otherwise.

I cannot work out what you are trying to say here at all. There is no rule that evolution "should support" anything. It is simply a response to selection pressure, as I explained in the previous post.

If you want to make a case that human evolution is moving in a particular direction, you need to show 3 things:

1) what environmental factor might lead to evolutionary change,
2) what trait in the human population is an advantage or disadvantage in coping with it, and
3) why possession of this trait should increase or decrease reproductive success, relative to that part of the population that does not have it.

You have so far not done this.

 

[KUMAR5]

I cannot work out what you are trying to say here at all. There is no rule that evolution "should support" anything. It is simply a response to selection pressure, as I explained in the previous post.

If you want to make a case that human evolution is moving in a particular direction, you need to show 3 things:

1) what environmental factor might lead to evolutionary change,
2) what trait in the human population is an advantage or disadvantage in coping with it, and
3) why possession of this trait should increase or decrease reproductive success, relative to that part of the population that does not have it.

You have so far not done this.

Logically I feel,
1.Whatever environmental factors we are exposed to today may come into our future evolution. I already indicated those.

2. Natural environmental exposures should be advantageous whereas unnatural ones should be disadvantageous. Today, we may calculate we are doing best due to unnatural odd modern inventions & introductions but whatever can be their impact in future, we need to check. Even cooked food has some disadventage inspite of fact we are evolved for it since about 2 million years back.

3. We have to check inherent changes in sperms & ova and in their environmental changes, if happened due to changed environment. Apart from inherent changes in some sperms or in ova, pH, force or ejaculation, vaginal pH, temp, mucus, viscosity & contractions etc. can affect natural selection i.e selecting some different or abnormal sperms. Survival of fittest, just covered competition i.e fast runner or early teacher to ova should onlt be able to concieve(means fittest will be sucessful) but natural selection should cover all other inherent or environmental factors responsible for conception as per need of time. How it can't be of unfit or weak sperm? Just check this possibilty by relating inharent changes & vaginal affairs. It should be needed because we are now in absolutely new environment which should had never existed earlier in our known history.

 

[exchemist]

Logically I feel,
1.Whatever environmental factors we are exposed to today may come into our future evolution. I already indicated those.

2. Natural environmental exposures should be advantageous whereas unnatural ones should be disadvantageous. Today, we may calculate we are doing best due to unnatural odd modern inventions & introductions but whatever can be their impact in future, we need to check. Even cooked food has some disadventage inspite of fact we are evolved for it since about 2 million years back.

3. We have to check inherent changes in sperms & ova and in their environmental changes, if happened due to changed environment. Apart from inherent changes in some sperms or in ova, pH, force or ejaculation, vaginal pH, temp, mucus, viscosity & contractions etc. can affect natural selection i.e selecting some different or abnormal sperms. Survival of fittest, just covered competition i.e fast runner or early teacher to ova should onlt be able to concieve(means fittest will be sucessful) but natural selection should cover all other inherent or environmental factors responsible for conception as per need of time. How it can't be of unfit or weak sperm? Just check this possibilty by relating inharent changes & vaginal affairs. It should be needed because we are now in absolutely new environment which should had never existed earlier in our known history.

I do not know what is wrong with you. You seem utterly incapable of understanding the principle of natural selection. I have explained this as clearly as I can, and you just come back with irrelevant rubbish to do with the mechanics of human intercourse. I give up.

 

[KUMAR5]

I do not know what is wrong with you. You seem utterly incapable of understanding the principle of natural selection. I have explained this as clearly as I can, and you just come back with irrelevant rubbish to do with the mechanics of human intercourse. I give up.

Ok, let us base only on survival of fittest. Btw, how natural selection is different from survival of fittest?

 

[Yazata]

This is because evolution is not intelligent. A species may evolve itself into a blind alley. If a species has no natural enemies, it may evolve into something that has no defences (because defences cost energy). If some enemy then arrives on the scene, it may be goodnight.

There's also the matter of ecological niches. Species may evolve so as to be extraordinarily adapted to particular environmental conditions and modes of life. If those conditions change, the species is threatened.

 

[spidergoat]

Evolution can be a slow process. Creative or destructive adaptations can be apparent after a long time. We can just see, whether evolution is progressing toward creative side or toward destructive side. It can result either increase in health and population or decrease in health and extinction. I think, what we are opting today i.e. making base of more meantal activities, unhealth & destruction, it is bit new in our evolved known history. So we may not be looking on this side of evolution.

Evolution never results in unsuccessful adaptations. By definition, such adaptations would prevent reproduction of the genes that caused them. What can happen is that a successful adaptation becomes negative when conditions change too fast.

Although in modern societies (a small percentage of the total population) we do more mental than physical activity, we have realized that it's unhealthful and so modern office workers often go to gyms. But as I mentioned, being physically unfit doesn't make a human evolutionarily unfit, since fat people reproduce quite well, and don't die until after typical childbearing age.