Which say little about the genetics of a species with culture.Phenotypic changes?
Which say little about the genetics of a species with culture.Phenotypic changes?
If environment interaction become a reason to evolution then how all type of constant exposure of any environment can not be related to evolution?Which say little about the genetics of a species with culture.
Because, as you stubbornly fail to understand, an environmental factor only drives evolution if it affects the success of the organism at reproducing. If it has no effect on that, it will not cause any evolutionary response.If environment
If environment interaction become a reason to evolution then how all type of constant exposure of any environment can not be related to evolution?
All type of constant envolonmebYou are talking about social complexity, not genetic heredity.
And no, social dynamics are not genetic.
Okay but still those evolved response can still be of disruptive selection nature i.e. supporting extreme of both creative or destructive side to which such offspring can be evolved accordingly. Probably we are already evolved to it therefore preferring extreme of creation & destruction. Can we say, we are such tive evolved that our reproductive success is still maintained but by Disruptive selection?Because, as you stubbornly fail to understand, an environmental factor only drives evolution if it affects the success of the organism at reproducing. If it has no effect on that, it will not cause any evolutionary response.
For goodness sake, read something about natural selection before you ask any more of these silly questions.
But social complexity and social dynamics will also be an environment so why we or our next generations can't be evolved by these accordingly?You are talking about social complexity, not genetic heredity.
And no, social dynamics are not genetic.
Gibberish.All try
All type of constant envolonmeb
Okay but still those evolved response can still be of disruptive selection nature i.e. supporting extreme of both creative or destructive side to which such offspring can be evolved accordingly. Probably we are already evolved to it therefore preferring extreme of creation & destruction. Can we say, we are such tive evolved that our reproductive success is still maintained but by Disruptive selection?
I think you meant covfefe.All type of constant envolonmeb
Yes, our artificial environment is an influence on our evolution, but you have to point to something specific.But social complexity and social dynamics will also be an environment so why we or our next generations can't be evolved by these accordingly?
Is that not called "conforming" to social standards, which can sometimes lead to devolution....Yes, our artificial environment is an influence on our evolution, but you have to point to something specific.
There is no such thing as de-evolution except in pop culture. What would be the mechanism?Is that not called "conforming" to social standards, which can sometimes lead to devolution....
Lack of use. Cave dwelling fish once had eyes, but in that environment eyesight is useless and their eyesockets are overgrown with scales.There is no such thing as de-evolution except in pop culture. What would be the mechanism?
How This Cave-Dwelling Fish Lost Its Eyes to Evolution
Living with little food and oxygen in the dark, the Mexican blind cavefish had to get creative to survive.
I understand, in the end it's all part of slow evolution (adaption), fast mutation (sometimes to great advantage), and natural selection (the probabilistic sorting).Technically, that's just evolution.
Devolve,
: to degenerate through a gradual change or evolution
Clothing probably lead to losing our natural coat. It seems to be harmful and somewhat devolution. Let us consider, destructive modern introduction, unhealth tools, nuclear weapons etc. To survive by these can be a need for survival and fitness for future. Why we can not be evolved of these? In one sense it is survival and fitness in another sense it is deadly and dangerous for survival and fitness. What we shall consider it... Evolution or devolution?Yes, our artificial environment is an influence on our evolution, but you have to point to something specific.
A very profound question, IMO.Clothing probably lead to losing our natural coat. It seems to be harmful and somewhat devolution. Let us consider, destructive modern introduction, unhealth tools, nuclear weapons etc. To survive by these can be a need for survival and fitness for future. Why we can not be evolved of these? In one sense it is survival and fitness in another sense it is deadly and dangerous for survival and fitness. What we shall consider it... Evolution or devolution?
So, it can be taken as devolution.A very profound question, IMO.
Humans are some of the most vulnerable species. Our toughness and persistence began to wane with the industrial revolution, which demanded the profit it was due, by saving labor time.
This scenario may be the end of humans as the most dominant in numbers but in sheer power. Human are an "invasive species and a threat to life on the planet.
It would be nice if we somehow evolved resistance to nuclear war, but you have to be specific. Evolution can't anticipate future problems, it only works by spreading genes from reproducing life forms, and so far, modernity has increased lifespan, decreased infant mortality, and developed treatments or cures for diseases that would have killed people in the past. How could what you propose possibly work?Let us consider, destructive modern introduction, unhealth tools, nuclear weapons etc. To survive by these can be a need for survival and fitness for future.
For Pete's sake! No! (To W4U as well).So, it can be taken as devolution.
Modernity introduced and introducing an environment of extreme side of unhealth and destruction as well as of its treatments and of new creations. Our present and future should be based on this prefered environment. It may be somewhat Disruptive not Directional selection as aConsicious not natural evolution.It would be nice if we somehow evolved resistance to nuclear war, but you have to be specific. Evolution can't anticipate future problems, it only works by spreading genes from reproducing life forms, and so far, modernity has increased lifespan, decreased infant mortality, and developed treatments or cures for diseases that would have killed people in the past. How could what you propose possibly work?
How new change can benefit or harm us may need to be evolution or devolution. If new change is in our harm, why it can not be expressed as devolution,?For Pete's sake! No! (To W4U as well).
All change is evolution. There is no such thing as "devolution".
All species, since the dawn of time, have been balancing their energy budget. If a feature results in them breeding more (such as by getting more food), then that trait is carried forward.
Whales were once land creatures. They evolved to a marine habitat to take advantage of the food supply. A fluke-like structure was more advantageous for a marine mammals, so it evolved toward a fluke-like structure. They did not "devolve" their legs.
Fish evolved eyes a long time ago. Fish that live in total darkness don't gain an advantage with eyes, so they put that energy into other traits (possibly a lower metabolism) that helped them survive better and breed more.
The very concept of devolution is self-contradictory. It would mean that some trait X, causes a species to have more difficulty reproducing, yet paradoxically, the species reproduces better. Say, a cave-dwelling fish living in utter darkness squanders its energy budget on large high-acuity eyes - eyes that not only do not help it compete, but actually hurt its competitiveness. Yet, utterly contrarily, (and without gaining any other advantage) it manages to produce more offspring. That's a self-contradiction.