Modern "artificial support" has only been around for 10-15 thousand years, not really enough time to make a significant impact. The ability to digest lactose might be one example, but I can't think of too many others.
Denial of evolution IV
- Thread starter Hercules Rockefeller
- Start date
- Status
That is correct. They live in different environments and have different physiologies, different brain structures and different genomes. They are _similar_ so some of our behavior is the same, but not all of it.
Yes, there are things that are different. Since we are very close to them in terms of environment, genome, physiology, brain structure etc we do share a great many instincts with them, however.
Our natural instincts have not changed due to modern medicing. We haven't had modern medicine long enough for it to change our behavior via evolution. Heck, we've barely had agriculture long enough for it to make significant evolutionary changes.
I am not saying our natural instincts have changed due to medical support. I am saying because of medical support we are able to call unnatural instinct, natural, since we can compensate for amonalies that will happen and thereby pretend the final result is also natural.
The way I see it, business can make more money off unnatural than natural behavior. Science has more challenges with unnatural than natural behavior, which also means job security. I can see why one would like to make up a line of bull to say unnatural is natural. I can also see why this practice needs to be defended.
To get around the subjective game, which you can still play, I used a simple way to compare behavior. The behavior that needs the most artificial support is less natural. Why is this not a good criteria, doesn't the no artificial support assumption similates natural evolution better than artificial support?
One result of natural evolution are natural instincts. This occur without needing artificial support like medicine. Natural human instincts would have also evolved without the need of artificial support. Therefore modern natural instincts will not need artificial support.
This is similar to an energy balance. Natural is a balanced equation. Unnatural requires we ADD OR TAKE AWAY FROM ONE OR BOTH SIDES OF THE EQUATION USING ARTIFICIAL AIDS.
If we go to Africa, we can see a similation of what happens when there are limited artificial aids for permiscuous behavior. In western countries we can hide this unhappy ending by means of artificial additives. If western people had to go through the african experience, without being able to use artificial, natural behavior would shift behavior in a way that allows natural selection. But as long as we can mop up, we can pretend this unnatural is natural since nature does not appear to be eliminating the behavior. Simple energy balance.
The way I see it, business can make more money off unnatural than natural behavior. Science has more challenges with unnatural than natural behavior, which also means job security. I can see why one would like to make up a line of bull to say unnatural is natural. I can also see why this practice needs to be defended.
To get around the subjective game, which you can still play, I used a simple way to compare behavior. The behavior that needs the most artificial support is less natural. Why is this not a good criteria, doesn't the no artificial support assumption similates natural evolution better than artificial support?
One result of natural evolution are natural instincts. This occur without needing artificial support like medicine. Natural human instincts would have also evolved without the need of artificial support. Therefore modern natural instincts will not need artificial support.
This is similar to an energy balance. Natural is a balanced equation. Unnatural requires we ADD OR TAKE AWAY FROM ONE OR BOTH SIDES OF THE EQUATION USING ARTIFICIAL AIDS.
If we go to Africa, we can see a similation of what happens when there are limited artificial aids for permiscuous behavior. In western countries we can hide this unhappy ending by means of artificial additives. If western people had to go through the african experience, without being able to use artificial, natural behavior would shift behavior in a way that allows natural selection. But as long as we can mop up, we can pretend this unnatural is natural since nature does not appear to be eliminating the behavior. Simple energy balance.
Last edited:
You can do that if you like. However, it is incorrect to call "unnatural instincts" (whatever they are) natural.
In general, not true. Appealing to someone's desire for money and possessions (greed) or wish to be desirable to the opposite sex (lust) is almost always better than appealing to someone's desire for silicon dopants.
To some degree - yes. Skydiving is less natural than, say, running.
"Need?" Agreed. However, natural instincts often benefit from artificial support. The simplest example is hunger.
Natural behavior will provide the same drives it always does. Natural instincts do not care about whether you have an Ipad or not. However, our intelligence may get involved and cause us to make decisions that oppose our natural instincts to get a desired outcome.
There are also addictive behaviors, such as connections to drugs, which had no time to evolve. This type of compulsion is learned behavior and not based on instinct. Compulsion does not have to be natural to be compulsive. Unnatural behavior tends to be more compulsive than natural, since it has to overcompensate for doubt. Natural instinct has no doubt to compensate for and is therefore not addictive. Natural behavior is a function of internal clocks, needs or necessity. It does not break its mold unless there is human intervention, such as liberal philosophy.
For example, unnatural eating behavior is more compulsive than natural hunger, with the unnatural creating an almost starvation response even when there is no risk of starvation. The natural hunger reaction would not over react if there is no real risk of starvation. If there is no real need, there is no instinctive compulsion.
One mistake is to assume the most compulsive is natural, since natural is often the other way around. The extra compulsion is often due to a mental abberation, such as repressions, within the personality firmware behind the instinct.
Let me approach unnatural human instinct another way. By unnatural I mean unnatural for humans but it could still be natural for other animals. Bats like to hang upsidedown. This may not be natural for humans.
Say we assume ape behavior, in terms of sexuality, is natural human. Besides the actions, we also need to compare timeline. Do apes breed every day like humans? How could this timeline change so much? Humans and apes should spend the same time interval if there is a continuiity of natural instinct. This break reflects the mind alterring natural for unnatural.
For example, unnatural eating behavior is more compulsive than natural hunger, with the unnatural creating an almost starvation response even when there is no risk of starvation. The natural hunger reaction would not over react if there is no real risk of starvation. If there is no real need, there is no instinctive compulsion.
One mistake is to assume the most compulsive is natural, since natural is often the other way around. The extra compulsion is often due to a mental abberation, such as repressions, within the personality firmware behind the instinct.
Let me approach unnatural human instinct another way. By unnatural I mean unnatural for humans but it could still be natural for other animals. Bats like to hang upsidedown. This may not be natural for humans.
Say we assume ape behavior, in terms of sexuality, is natural human. Besides the actions, we also need to compare timeline. Do apes breed every day like humans? How could this timeline change so much? Humans and apes should spend the same time interval if there is a continuiity of natural instinct. This break reflects the mind alterring natural for unnatural.
Actually some animals do use drugs, particularly primates.
It is neither; the compulsion is a chemical one, caused by us tailoring substances to have a specific effect on our body. (However, the behaviors that surround that physical effect - like drug seeking behavior in hospitals, or crime to support a drug habit - are indeed learned behaviors.)
Or conservative philosophy. Pretty much any philosophy, actually.
Starvation is a risk in nature. Thus the compulsion to eat a lot in times of plenty is a natural one. In our unnatural environment (i.e. food always available, very high in sugars and fats) it leads to problems. Which is a good example of a drive that works well in nature not working so well in a civilization.
Instinct does not consider intelligent needs. It considers only primal drives. And hunger is a primal drive.
Apes are not humans. Thus the assumption that natural human behavior is the same as natural ape behavior is flawed. Since they are extremely similar in environment and genome it is safe to assume that there are many similarities, but to equate them would be a mistake.
No, they shouldn't, because they're not the same. We diverged from gorillas 7 million years ago. That's a fair amount of time to evolve some (not all, but some) different instinctual behaviors.
@wellwisher --
*Sigh*
You really don't know what you're talking about, oh well, education time.
The fact that we observe a behavior in nature means that nature is capable of producing it, therefore it can be a natural behavior. That plus the fact that we observe polygamous relationships of one sort or another in virtually all primates(we are primates, don't forget that) means that it is most likely that it's natural behavior for us too. Well, that and the fact that our men tend to be larger than our women which indicates that we were more polygamous(of the harem sort) not too long ago. Thus we know that polygamy, which you ignorantly label "promiscuity" is a natural human instinct, as is our serial monogamy.
And this is how we know that you're ignorant of biology because that's not how it's done. A behavior is natural if we observe it in nature. And evolution doesn't really care about the results of behavior after procreation has occurred. After a creature has reproduced it doesn't really matter what happens to it, it's genes have already spread. You're method creates an artificial distinction which doesn't exist in nature and which evolution doesn't give a rat's ass about.
How does human polygamy require "external support"? If you're going to assert this then you have to demonstrate it to be true, and you're going to have a tough time of that seeing as it's false.
Wrong. Humans are a species of ape.
So far you're the only one saying that it does, and you have so far failed to demonstrate this or even expand on it. Why does it need "external support"? If procreation takes place before the support is "needed" then how does it matter to the evolution of instincts?
These are two questions that you need to answer before you *cough cough* hypothesis can be considered anywhere near complete.
I've already given you the answer to your last question in there. If the behavior leads to offspring before the negative impact of the behavior then it will be selected for so long as it, on average, leads to more offspring than a competing tactic.
Because whether or not a behavior requires "artificial support"(which, by the way, you haven't adequately defined) can be entirely irrelevant to whether or not the behavior, or even physical trait, is selected for or against. For example, elephants like to get drunk, and they do this by eating fermenting fruit and allowing yeast cultures in their stomachs to turn the juice into alcohol. Now this is obviously more time and resource consuming than the alternative(which is to not get drunk), but it's a behavior that we find in virtually all elephant species. Now, this is entirely natural behavior for them, and yet it would appear to require more "external support" than the alternative. Hence we know that your method is bunk.
Your method is too simplistic and doesn't take the reality of nature into account. Sometimes the best natural behavior for reproduction is going to be the one that kills you in the long run. Bottom line is this, if a model doesn't get results which accurately reflect reality, then it's the model, and not reality, that's wrong.
But it doesn't lead to accurate results, hence we know that it's crap and biologists don't use it. A better model to use would be the qui bono, or the "who benefits", model. That works really well in evolutionary biology.
Sure it is, but you're using the wrong equation to evaluate it. Again, we know this because your equation doesn't lead to factual results. For example your equation told you that monogamy is a natural instinct for humans when it isn't, we're serial monogamists and that was a relatively recent development(to the point where human harems still pop up all the time regardless of outside stimuli). If your math gets you the wrong answer then it's the wrong equation to use.
So demonstrate that polygamy as a reproductive strategy in humans would require artificial aid.
Nice try but this is an utter failure for what you want to demonstrate. Like I said earlier, evolution doesn't require that people be healthy in order for a reproductive strategy to selected for, all that is required is that it produces more offspring on average than the competing methods, and since Africa's population is still climbing rather than falling it would seem like the reproductive strategy is fairly successful.
Then how do you explain the cannabis receptors in our brains? This is merely your assumption and you've got nothing to back it up, so you might want to add an "in my opinion" to the end of your statement there.
Wow, I didn't know that sex was an unnatural behavior. Damn.
LOL! You're so full of shit. Either demonstrate this to be true or add an "in my opinion" so that we can all ridicule you for holding to an idiotic opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence. I take it that you, as well, failed to watch the videos I linked to, some of them talk about reproductive behavior which might help clear up why your equation is a crock of shit.
Yes, apes love having sex, in fact some species, such as the bonobos, have sex all the time.
It really hasn't, also you're forgetting to factor in the difference in our lifespans. Reproductive rate and the number of offspring per pregnancy are directly tied to the longevity of the species in question.
In your not-so-humble and oh-so-uneducated opinion.
*Sigh*
You really don't know what you're talking about, oh well, education time.
The fact that we observe a behavior in nature means that nature is capable of producing it, therefore it can be a natural behavior. That plus the fact that we observe polygamous relationships of one sort or another in virtually all primates(we are primates, don't forget that) means that it is most likely that it's natural behavior for us too. Well, that and the fact that our men tend to be larger than our women which indicates that we were more polygamous(of the harem sort) not too long ago. Thus we know that polygamy, which you ignorantly label "promiscuity" is a natural human instinct, as is our serial monogamy.
And this is how we know that you're ignorant of biology because that's not how it's done. A behavior is natural if we observe it in nature. And evolution doesn't really care about the results of behavior after procreation has occurred. After a creature has reproduced it doesn't really matter what happens to it, it's genes have already spread. You're method creates an artificial distinction which doesn't exist in nature and which evolution doesn't give a rat's ass about.
How does human polygamy require "external support"? If you're going to assert this then you have to demonstrate it to be true, and you're going to have a tough time of that seeing as it's false.
Wrong. Humans are a species of ape.
So far you're the only one saying that it does, and you have so far failed to demonstrate this or even expand on it. Why does it need "external support"? If procreation takes place before the support is "needed" then how does it matter to the evolution of instincts?
These are two questions that you need to answer before you *cough cough* hypothesis can be considered anywhere near complete.
I've already given you the answer to your last question in there. If the behavior leads to offspring before the negative impact of the behavior then it will be selected for so long as it, on average, leads to more offspring than a competing tactic.
Because whether or not a behavior requires "artificial support"(which, by the way, you haven't adequately defined) can be entirely irrelevant to whether or not the behavior, or even physical trait, is selected for or against. For example, elephants like to get drunk, and they do this by eating fermenting fruit and allowing yeast cultures in their stomachs to turn the juice into alcohol. Now this is obviously more time and resource consuming than the alternative(which is to not get drunk), but it's a behavior that we find in virtually all elephant species. Now, this is entirely natural behavior for them, and yet it would appear to require more "external support" than the alternative. Hence we know that your method is bunk.
Your method is too simplistic and doesn't take the reality of nature into account. Sometimes the best natural behavior for reproduction is going to be the one that kills you in the long run. Bottom line is this, if a model doesn't get results which accurately reflect reality, then it's the model, and not reality, that's wrong.
But it doesn't lead to accurate results, hence we know that it's crap and biologists don't use it. A better model to use would be the qui bono, or the "who benefits", model. That works really well in evolutionary biology.
Sure it is, but you're using the wrong equation to evaluate it. Again, we know this because your equation doesn't lead to factual results. For example your equation told you that monogamy is a natural instinct for humans when it isn't, we're serial monogamists and that was a relatively recent development(to the point where human harems still pop up all the time regardless of outside stimuli). If your math gets you the wrong answer then it's the wrong equation to use.
So demonstrate that polygamy as a reproductive strategy in humans would require artificial aid.
Nice try but this is an utter failure for what you want to demonstrate. Like I said earlier, evolution doesn't require that people be healthy in order for a reproductive strategy to selected for, all that is required is that it produces more offspring on average than the competing methods, and since Africa's population is still climbing rather than falling it would seem like the reproductive strategy is fairly successful.
Then how do you explain the cannabis receptors in our brains? This is merely your assumption and you've got nothing to back it up, so you might want to add an "in my opinion" to the end of your statement there.
Wow, I didn't know that sex was an unnatural behavior. Damn.
LOL! You're so full of shit. Either demonstrate this to be true or add an "in my opinion" so that we can all ridicule you for holding to an idiotic opinion in the face of overwhelming evidence. I take it that you, as well, failed to watch the videos I linked to, some of them talk about reproductive behavior which might help clear up why your equation is a crock of shit.
Yes, apes love having sex, in fact some species, such as the bonobos, have sex all the time.
It really hasn't, also you're forgetting to factor in the difference in our lifespans. Reproductive rate and the number of offspring per pregnancy are directly tied to the longevity of the species in question.
In your not-so-humble and oh-so-uneducated opinion.
To summarize my position, natural behaviors in other animals are not necessarily natural to humans.
Although we can subjectively debate what is natural human, the method I used was based on comparing the ratio of artificial or human additives needed to support each behavior. Natural will require the least artificial additive such as medical support. I based this assumption on watching animals; they do not use medical support to prop them up, since their behavior is a result of natural efficiency.
For example, we could show that gorging is natural behavior, since we can show animals like bears do this. Many other animals gorge when they can. Although this is natural (for some animals) it is not natural for humans. This last inference would be based on the additional medical additives needed to compensate for the long term effect of this "natural instinct". Natural human instinct should be easily sustainable without any human supplements or prosthesis, since only such behavior would be chosen by natural selection.
Behavior that is not natural for humans is also possible for humans. Humans can copy almost any behavior and make up some of their own. We also have will power and can make a wide range of natural and unnatural choices. Although this copying might be natural human behavior, not all choices are natural to humans. Those which are not natural are not sustainable in the longer term without supplemental support.
Although we can subjectively debate what is natural human, the method I used was based on comparing the ratio of artificial or human additives needed to support each behavior. Natural will require the least artificial additive such as medical support. I based this assumption on watching animals; they do not use medical support to prop them up, since their behavior is a result of natural efficiency.
For example, we could show that gorging is natural behavior, since we can show animals like bears do this. Many other animals gorge when they can. Although this is natural (for some animals) it is not natural for humans. This last inference would be based on the additional medical additives needed to compensate for the long term effect of this "natural instinct". Natural human instinct should be easily sustainable without any human supplements or prosthesis, since only such behavior would be chosen by natural selection.
Behavior that is not natural for humans is also possible for humans. Humans can copy almost any behavior and make up some of their own. We also have will power and can make a wide range of natural and unnatural choices. Although this copying might be natural human behavior, not all choices are natural to humans. Those which are not natural are not sustainable in the longer term without supplemental support.
I agree it will not work with unnatural human behavior pitched as natural. This position does not deny evolution but rather is consistent with how natural selection works. Natural behavior, as the result of evolution, is naturally sustainable without needing human supplements. You should be able to remove all synthetics and natural will not miss it. This true of all animals including humans.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
For a hypothesis to be "most likely" is not the same as being "studied, tested, peer-reviewed and found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt."
Our original ancestral species were herbivorous grazers like the gorillas. But by an accident of evolution their brains became a little bit larger than the other primates and with this extra intelligence they figured out how to turn rocks into tools. Flint blades allowed them to scrape the shreds of meat off of the bones left by the predators, whose teeth did not allow them to finish off every last morsel of meat from their kill.
This modest increase in protein allowed their brains to grow larger--an accident of evolution reinforced by the higher-protein diet of a scavenger. They invented better tools and developed complex forms of organization--somewhere along the way language was invented, a major milestone in a species's ability to organize. Next thing ya know, they weren't just scavenging meat, they were hunting game.
The ultra-high protein diet of a predator allowed their brains to continue to expand. By the time our species evolved, the forebrain was so large that it actually provided the unique ability to override instinctive behavior with reasoned and learned behavior. Ultimately, man became the apex predator of the entire planet, dining on the flesh of both bears and sharks.
But there's a terrible down-side to having such an enormous brain. Most other mammals are born with highly-developed brains. Most grazers literally hit the ground running, with full muscle coordination. But even dogs and cats become able to run and feed themselves in a few weeks.
The human head, on the other hand, is enormous compared to other mammals. If a human baby were born with a brain as well-developed as a fox or a giraffe, its head could not make the passage through the birth canal. Therefore, humans are born with brains that just barely work at all. Our eyes can't focus, our fingers can't grasp, we can barely suckle and swallow milk.
In spite of all these compromises, the human birth canal is enormously wide by the standards of the animal kingdom. Our pelvis is enormously broad. Couple this with our unique bipedal style of walking, and entire muscle groups had to be rerouted to keep us from toppling over as we master the exaggerated gait of transferring our full weight first to one leg, then a-l-l-l-l the way over to the other one. This is why we have the gluteus maximus, that double-hemisphere of powerful muscle that defines the human butt while keeping us upright.
So, our babies are born in a much more helpless state than other mammal babies. But it gets worse. Our babies have a lot more to learn than baby camels and ocelots. It takes many months before they can walk--a major problem for nomadic hunter-gatherers. The females of the tribe can't do their share of the food gathering because they're carrying babies.
It takes several years before we can let one out of our sight for more than a few minutes. Several years more before they can make a meaningful contribution to their own care. Even in the most primitive societies, they're not "men" and "women" until they're at least twelve. So for twelve years they have to be cared for.
This is a two-parent job. Just ask any single mother! Even in the Post-Industrial Era it's difficult for a woman to raise a child by herself. In the Paleolithic Era it was impossible.
So the question becomes: What trick did evolution play on Homo sapiens to encourage fathers to form a family unit and stick around to share the care of their children?
And a really good trick it was! Humans are one of the very few species in which a female is physically capable of copulation outside of her estrus cycle. Human females can have intercourse when they're pregnant, when they're nursing, when they're dead tired from a bad day with a colicky baby. This is how they keep their baby's father at home. He doesn't need to go out looking for an available female when he's horny. There's one right there by the hearth.
Dolphins can do this. So can bonobo chimpanzees. They use this as a way to strengthen the social bonds within the pack. Bonobos are the free-lovin' hippies of the jungle, spending half their time in multiple-partner orgies. We use it for a different purpose: to keep our children alive for twelve years until they can start taking care of themselves.
So our species is, in fact, monogamous by nature.
Specifically, the Great Apes. We're more distantly related to the gibbons, the Lesser Apes. Our closest relatives are the two species of chimpanzee. Our bloodline split off about 7MYA.
You ought to be the poster child for Creation Science.
Like them, you are full of analogies and wild ideas that have little or no bearing on the subject matter or Science.
Entropy, human behavior, religion, medical intervention... these have nothing whatsoever to do with Evolution. You purport to be talking about Science, but all the time you are talking around Science.
In order to connect human behavior to Evolution, you would want to know something about the behavior of early humans, as compared to their ancestors. Everything that happened next to human behavior is virtually irrelevant to Evolution.
If you want to talk about the most recent changes to humans, why not address the differentiation in traits by geography? Some of this reveals adaptation by Natural Selection.
Can you offer even one non-frivolous remark about Evolution , or Science in general?
Because, if not, next to the Creation Science poster, I'm going to nominate you for the "why Johnny can't read Science" poster.
Last edited:
Let me explain my reasoning with an example. There is an assumption that humans are naturally promiscuous. If this was natural, then it should be sustainable, without requiring any medical or other artificial additives to prop it up. That means we should be able to take away all medications that treat STD's, since nature does not provide such artificial supplements. It should be able to stand alone. Based on observation promiscuous leads to STD's and needs a lot of mops, none of which are found in nature. The natural conclusion is illogical. It is a simple criteria. If apes do this we don't have to hand out penicillin.
Evolution is not a rational science, so this may be hard to see to those who are more empirical minded. I will do a hypothetical example where I will prop something up artificially and call it natural.
It is natural to eat rocks since chickens eat rocks (I am making this up). Like permiscuous behavior for all, if we all did this it will lead to medical problems, which would help eliminate this behavior; natural deselection. But since I want this to be called natural, through slight of hand, if I add regular medical procedures to all those doing the rock eating behavior, I can take victory away from nature and create an artificial sustainable, which I pitch as natural.
Based on the simple criteria of natural means no need for artificial additives to be sustainable, the rock eating would not pass that test. It would be an illusion. I suppose if your audience is not rational and you cater to their irrational impulses, they might be fooled. But I was looking for a consistent rule.
Evolution is not a rational science, so this may be hard to see to those who are more empirical minded. I will do a hypothetical example where I will prop something up artificially and call it natural.
It is natural to eat rocks since chickens eat rocks (I am making this up). Like permiscuous behavior for all, if we all did this it will lead to medical problems, which would help eliminate this behavior; natural deselection. But since I want this to be called natural, through slight of hand, if I add regular medical procedures to all those doing the rock eating behavior, I can take victory away from nature and create an artificial sustainable, which I pitch as natural.
Based on the simple criteria of natural means no need for artificial additives to be sustainable, the rock eating would not pass that test. It would be an illusion. I suppose if your audience is not rational and you cater to their irrational impulses, they might be fooled. But I was looking for a consistent rule.
The way I look at it is that if Humans weren't naturally promiscuous these STD organism would not have evolved. So we are naturally promiscuous and the STDs would be the brake to the Population explosion.
It is the treatment of the disease, and the moral obligation to be faithful that were the unnatural barriers to the spreading of the diseases.
So it might be better to increase a nation's dominance not to be plagued with STDs. STDs may have been able to be totally prevented by strict moral codes??
But in the end is it going to be the cause of a much greater problem?
A more rational and broad based approach for evolution is based on energy and entropy such as the concept of Gibbs free energy. Biologists are not very comfortable with the term entropy since, although a potential in physics, thermodynamics, engineering, information theory, it is not common to biology.
What was true then is still in effect today. To help everyone get past the mystery of entropy, so we can apply it to evolution, below are some definitions that will be handy in the discussion of evolution and entropy.
In engineering, you try to make a process efficient, by reducing the ways energy can disperse out during whatever process transformation you use. This lowers the entropy and irretrievable energy making the process more efficient. We may need to lower friction since this will cause energy to spread out and not stay within the narrow directions of the machine. Entropy is often associate with disorder. In the first definition it represents changes in the status quo, or disorder within the status quo. A mutation changes the status quo and is based on entropy.
To apply entropy to life, it is easier if we separate life, such as a cell, into two components. The first is the chemical structures that compose life.
The second is the impact of these structures on the environment.
Working together there is a balance of energy and entropy but each half of this equation is going in the opposite direction; The first part of molecular order in the cell is lowering entropy since entropy is a measure of disorder. The second part makes this possible by balancing this order with its own disorder.
If we look at evolution, part 1 of our equation connected to molecular order and efficiency has improved over time. Or entropy has falling in part 1 over time. The first replicators were not all that efficient compared to today. The efficiency now prevents much energy from dispersing where it is not wanted to create entropy in the machine.
This is compensated for by the disorder life creates in the environment. This is where the entropy lost is made up for by entropy gained. Preservation of this order is maintained by creating entropy in the environment so life can draw the free energy needed to sustain order in the face of entropy.
What was true then is still in effect today. To help everyone get past the mystery of entropy, so we can apply it to evolution, below are some definitions that will be handy in the discussion of evolution and entropy.
In engineering, you try to make a process efficient, by reducing the ways energy can disperse out during whatever process transformation you use. This lowers the entropy and irretrievable energy making the process more efficient. We may need to lower friction since this will cause energy to spread out and not stay within the narrow directions of the machine. Entropy is often associate with disorder. In the first definition it represents changes in the status quo, or disorder within the status quo. A mutation changes the status quo and is based on entropy.
To apply entropy to life, it is easier if we separate life, such as a cell, into two components. The first is the chemical structures that compose life.
The second is the impact of these structures on the environment.
Working together there is a balance of energy and entropy but each half of this equation is going in the opposite direction; The first part of molecular order in the cell is lowering entropy since entropy is a measure of disorder. The second part makes this possible by balancing this order with its own disorder.
If we look at evolution, part 1 of our equation connected to molecular order and efficiency has improved over time. Or entropy has falling in part 1 over time. The first replicators were not all that efficient compared to today. The efficiency now prevents much energy from dispersing where it is not wanted to create entropy in the machine.
This is compensated for by the disorder life creates in the environment. This is where the entropy lost is made up for by entropy gained. Preservation of this order is maintained by creating entropy in the environment so life can draw the free energy needed to sustain order in the face of entropy.
It is natural. Therefore your premise fails.
Yes, you could. You would die an earlier and more miserable death, but evolution does not care about your comfort after you have sired offspring. It cares only that you sire a lot of offspring.
Overeating is natural as well (lots of high calorie fatty food to store up fat for the cold season) even though McDonald's isn't natural.
It is indeed natural for some organisms to eat rocks, yes. It provides us no benefit so it's not natural for us.
Are you actually arguing that rock eating results in more offspring? If yes you aren't rational. If no you don't really understand how evolution works.
This post is utter foolish nonsense. You are obviously clueless about what Gibbs was talking about and why. You are also obviously clueless about the science behind evolutionary biology. After all of your text, the only thing a reader concludes is that you are determined to put the round peg in the square hole, despite the lack of common sense that would suggest against it.
- Status