Evolution and Self-Sacrifice (page 2)

under_believer

Abbadon,

While the phenotype analogy is seductive, it is also misleading or perhaps incomplete. Technology as a phenotype has the power to completely remove evolution from the equation, if we desire it to. Putting on my science fiction hat for a moment, imagine that the human race eventually reproduces entirely via cloning--a true pure clone is genetically identical to its parent. Genetic drift, mutation, and selectional heritability are completely removed from the picture. Or if humanity moves towards a technologal singularity including post-human existance, as some theorize, it's possible that both cloning and man/machine hybrids will be common.

I realize all that is very farfetched. The point I'm trying to make is that evolution can be completely superceded via technology and that comparing it to dam-building may be underestimating its power.

IW

Thanks for the replies!

IW

peacefulpete

It may have been said by another poster but the key to understanding the concept is to shed the notion of individual evolution. Populations evolve, not individuals. Groups that are best adapted to survive become regionally dominant. Often adaptive behaviors and/or physiology is the result of kin selecton or less narrowly concentrated group selection. What is good for the isolated group (which are likely genetically similar) may be bad for the individual. Groups that are benefitted by individuals with behavior that results in greater group survival success will soon out compete those without such individuals. Since isolated groups are generally genetically related the genes that produced the beneficial behavior are likely perpetuated through the survivors. The longer locl environmental pressures favor a particular behavior the more concentrated the helpful genes and concomitant behaviors become. This is the basic reason animals with high social order demonstrate cooperative even self sacrificing instincts. Not surprizingly then the ethics humans value are those that work for the good of the group rather than the individual.

seattleniceguy

Peacefulpete, I just wanted to say, I always enjoy reading your posts. You have such a clear, and indeed peaceful, way of writing. SNG

peacefulpete

What a "nice" thing to say.

Abaddon

under_believer

While the phenotype analogy is seductive, it is also misleading or perhaps incomplete.
Technology as a phenotype has the power to completely remove evolution from the equation, if we desire it to.

Which would be step IN evolution, even if it was the last step, and one bought about BY evolution.

If a status quo is arrived at by a prosess and signals the end of the process, one can't claim it is out of the equation. It's like claiming melting metal and casting is removed from the equation of making a cast statue once the statue is made.

It's NOT; the history and nature of the of the object (or organism) is still part of the equation, and even IF one reaches a solid durable form (or a evolutionary plateau), under the right circumstances the object or organism can go back to a changable state.

You get organsims who have been on an evolutionary plateau for ten thousand years and add selction pressure and there WILL be change, just as that statue will become liquid again if you melt it down.

Putting on my science fiction hat for a moment, imagine that the human race eventually reproduces entirely via cloning--a true pure clone is genetically identical to its parent. Genetic drift, mutation, and selectional heritability are completely removed from the picture.

Well, to make this work you'd have to sterilise people at birth or en-gene-neer a neuter state. And the variable factors and selction pressures we currently feel would simply be REPLACED by the ability to vary factors at a whim and seelct according to whatever characteristic you desired, so evolution in a clone-reproducing society would STILL take place, albeit in a controlled and artifical manner.

As much animal husbandry and horticulture has taken place in a controlled and artificial manner for Centuries, this isn't THAT big a change. It's just us developing technology that will mean our extended phenotype can reach in and change our genotype, just as we have changed other organisms genotypes for Centuries.

So, evolution would still take place.

Or if humanity moves towards a technologal singularity including post-human existance, as some theorize, it's possible that both cloning and man/machine hybrids will be common.

Humans incoporating mechanical or electronic elements into their organisms is already taking place; pacemakers and prosthetics, for example. Us evolving to the point where this is an experience for all (say added storage searchable capacity and a wireless link) is no more remarkable (given the differences between us and caddis flies in complexity) is no more remarkable than a caddis fly larve using parts of their environment to survive (they stick stuff - pebbles, vegetation, etc., to their boidies to protect and disguise them).

Just as the caddis fly has developed THROUGH evolution an extended phenotype that is totally artificial, so too have humans, and they'll continue to. In fact, caddis flies sticking on pebbles (silicon oxide mostly) to their carapace to improve their survivability is remarkably similar to humans sticking silicon chips in their bodies in response to a artificial selection pressure.

Basically, evolution is so 'clever' you can't stop it, as stopping it and controlling it is PART of evolution and does not nor cannot actually definatively stop the process, even if it brings the rules and outcomes under human control.

peacefulpete

Genetic drift occurs regardless. Evolution is sometimes called decent with modification for good reason. Genes are never static. Even in a very large breeding population this drift would result in gradual change.

under_believer

I just wanted to thank everyone who participated in this thread (even though it's not mine.) As a still-attending JW, it's so nice to talk to people who don't mind debating and are openminded. Can you imagine this conversation or anything like it happening at a Kingdom Hall?

IW

Very interesting info here, I've really enjoyed the discussion. There is one question I'd like to ask, isn't science working against evolution when we vaccinate ourselves from diseases instead of letting the natual process of selection take place? Wouldn't evolution, if left alone, produce a race of mankind that was better able to resist these diseases by allowing those who are naturally resistant (natural survivors of childhood diseases) to continue to produce children thereby passing down their resistance? (Not to mention the many cancers that run in families and the other genetic conditions that exist.)

Isn't medicine working against the very process most scientists believe created the biological world we live in? I'm not for getting rid of medicine! just trying to understand this seeming inconsistency in the scientific world. Wouldn't allowing nature take its course be the best thing if man truly believes that natural processes have created such a remarkable living little planet as the one we all call home?

IW

Elsewhere

Here is an article about a thought provoking experiment...

http://www.physorg.com/news67694761.html

Survival of the selfless - scientists find cheats don't always prosper

Selfishness is not necessarily the best survival trait for microorganisms, according to researchers studying the comparative effectiveness of ‘cheating’ and ‘cooperating’ strains of yeast. Writing in the journal Nature today, the team reports that studies of lab-grown yeast populations suggest the benefits of cheating are eventually counterbalanced by the costs. This contradicts classic evolutionary theory, which states that in a competition for common resources the long-term winner will always be the individual acting selfishly rather than the one working as part of a group.

To test this theory, scientists set up a series of competitions between two strains of yeast. The strains are identical apart from the genes that determine whether they convert energy from resources such as sugar rapidly or if they convert it efficiently.

In one corner were the ‘cooperators’, which produce energy efficiently by taking in sugar slowly and fully converting into energy all that they ingest. This method maximises resources available to the group by avoiding any waste.

Against them were the ‘cheaters’, which produce energy rapidly by quickly taking in all the sugar they can and only partially converting it into energy. While this ensures swift energy production for the individual, it is a wasteful method that reduces resources available for the group as a whole.

The researchers were surprised to find that in a well-mixed population the cooperators were not excluded by the cheats. Further experiments and mathematical modelling established that this is because cheats accumulate toxins as a direct result of taking in resources more quickly than they can digest them, which limits the level of energy they derive from the sugar. This enables the cooperators to hold their own, meaning that the two different strains could coexist over the long-term without either being excluded. Lead researcher Dr Craig MacLean of Imperial College London says:

“This evidence that a cooperative group can resist invasion by exploitative cheats is unexpected and gives us greater insight into how cooperation evolves. This is important because we live in a world in which cooperations exists at every level, from genes working together to build functioning individuals to individuals forming societies.”

The researchers suggest that the ideal organism type would be one that can switch between selfish and efficient metabolism. Dr MacLean adds:

“While microbes are obviously not capable of rational thought, they can change their behaviour rapidly in response to simple environmental cues. The possibility that one type could become both a cheater and a cooperator depending on what’s needed at the time is intriguing. We hope examining social conflict at the level of individual cells will shed more light on this.”

Source: Imperial College London

Evolution and Self-Sacrifice

Share this