Different Forms of Evolution

TruthSeeker

TruthSeeker

Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey
Valued Senior Member
There are two ways to deal with the heat and cold of summer and winter. One is to fight against it with fans and air-conditioners. Another is to symbiotically adapt with it through proper insulation. What is the deeper meaning? Does this suggest different forms of evolution, where some are an ineffective response to the environment, a response which requires too much energy, in contrast with an effective response to the environment, one which requires less energy to implement?
 
No, that is the consequence of the effectiveness. I'm asking what is the effective mechanism that enables the survival.
 
If you simply say that the consequence of evolution is the mechanism of evolution itself, you are getting into a circular argument, much like saying that God exists because he does, therefore he does.
 
Not really. Survival is ultimately what is the driver to evolution. Another point is what was the most effective form of survival may become less effective as the environment changes.
 
origin said:
Not really. Survival is ultimately what is the driver to evolution. Another point is what was the most effective form of survival may become less effective as the environment changes.
Click to expand...
And that's what really drives evolution. As the planet ages and the physical environment changes, traits that once aided survival become less effective. So a mutation which, one million years ago, might have vanished because the creatures who had it were at a disadvantage, might today become dominant because the creatures who have it are stronger in this new environment.

Mutations are constantly occurring. It's the environment that determines whether they are successful, and the environment is always, slowly, changing.
 
Evolution has nothing to do with houses.
Some animals migrate; some change colour; many grow thicker fur or feathers in winter; some hibernate; some change their diet according to what's available - all adapt.

People migrated and adapted in much the same way that other animals do, while they were free to do so. Once permanent settlements and territories were established, they could no longer escape the cold winter or dry summer, so they had to adapt the environment to their needs. Adapting the individual home is done in many ways, largely depending on available materials and energy. Where wood was abundant, they built and heated with wood; where wood was scarce, they built of adobe or stone; when concrete became readily accessible, they poured masses of that into homes. When coal was cheap, that's what they burned. Oil, electricity, gas - whatever is available the average builder and homeowner. Most people don't philosophize about the long term or the progressive method: they go with current trend. Humans are very much influenced by peer and commercial pressure.
 
Jeeves said:
Evolution has nothing to do with houses.
Click to expand...
Well . . . . .

If not precisely houses, it nonetheless has a lot to do with other technologies we have invented. For example, the technology of animal husbandry resulted in Europeans having a generous supply of cow milk. Other societies domesticated herbivores whose milk wasn't so abundant, like the Incas with their llamas, which produce so little milk it's a miracle their own babies survive.

All mammals are born with the chemistry to digest milk, for the obvious reason that during the early part of their life that's the only food available. But most of them lose that ability after infancy, when they start eating adult food.

But the European farmers could produce a bounty of milk, which is in fact an extremely resource-efficient way of creating food. An acre of pasture land used to graze dairy cattle produces ten times as much nutritional value as one used to graze beef cattle.

So there was environmental pressure resulting in people who could digest milk a little later in life being stronger and healthier, not to mention more popular since they weren't digging into the meager meat stores. As these people throve, their genes became widespread. Today almost all people of northern and western European ancestry can digest milk, while lactose intolerance is common in the rest of the world (e.g., the Jews) and almost universal in some countries (e.g., much of Africa).

The evolution of humanity into a milk-drinking species is the direct result of the technology of animal husbandry.
 
Fraggle Rocker said:
And that's what really drives evolution. As the planet ages and the physical environment changes, traits that once aided survival become less effective. So a mutation which, one million years ago, might have vanished because the creatures who had it were at a disadvantage, might today become dominant because the creatures who have it are stronger in this new environment.

Mutations are constantly occurring. It's the environment that determines whether they are successful, and the environment is always, slowly, changing.
Click to expand...
But how do we know that the mutations are random? What if the mutations are direct adaptations from the environment, a feedback, though they may take some time to emerge? That might better explain the pace of evolution.
Considering how much order there is in the universe, perhaps we simply don't know the exact mechanism that governs evolution. I mean... is there such a thing as "random" in the universe?
 
If not precisely houses, it nonetheless has a lot to do with other technologies we have invented.
Click to expand...
The question was precisely about houses. I very much doubt that human genes are selected for preference of air conditioning over insulation.

Humans did live in snow, mud and grass houses for thousands of years, yet their descendants seem biologically capable of adapting to trailer park, brick house or concrete high-rise. There hasn't been time enough in modern construction methods to see heritable physical traits arising from one kind of dwelling or another. (Nor am I aware of any arising from pueblo or igloo or stilt hut, but I haven't kept up with the literature.)
Psychological and cultural adaptation to a strange living space is more difficult, but even that's done in one generation, and doesn't appear to require genetic mutation.

My point was that we don't evolve to the structure; we develop the structure to fit us.
 
TruthSeeker said:
But how do we know that the mutations are random? What if the mutations are direct adaptations from the environment, a feedback, though they may take some time to emerge? That might better explain the pace of evolution.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence for this. This is the discredited Lamarkian hypothesis of evolution. Darwin flirted with this "hereditary of acquired characteristics" to varying degrees, something that is apparent in the different editions of Origins. It is rejected on two grounds. There is no plausible mechanism by which is could occur. There is no evidence that it does occur. The attraction that it would explain the pace of evolution is outweighed by these two points.
 
TruthSeeker said:
There are two ways to deal with the heat and cold of summer and winter. One is to fight against it with fans and air-conditioners. Another is to symbiotically adapt with it through proper insulation. What is the deeper meaning? Does this suggest different forms of evolution, where some are an ineffective response to the environment, a response which requires too much energy, in contrast with an effective response to the environment, one which requires less energy to implement?
Click to expand...

Dealing with houses, insulation and air conditioning has to do more with profit margins for developers than anything else. If we all had the ability to build our own houses with an endless amount of cash, we would all be living in the most effective and cost efficient houses with the latest and greatest technologies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top