Revolution vs. Evolution

by IP_SEC 10 Replies latest social current

  • IP_SEC
    IP_SEC

    Social not biological.

    I've been thinking about the differences between revolution and evolution but I cant understand why they are different.

    Example: Religion

    Revolution: Communist revolution ended religion in eastern Europe.

    Evolution: Our society is slowly changing to a less religious people.

    Revolution: Usually violent and not permanent

    Evolution: Non violent (though there can be conflict involved) long lasting, usually a permanent change.

    Why the difference between the two? Are the pressures that cause revolution different from the pressures that cause evolution?

  • nvrgnbk
    nvrgnbk

    Good topic IP_SEC.

    I think you're on to something here.

    I think social upheaval is evolution at work.

  • mavie
    mavie

    Generally speaking, I would say the difference is the timescales involved.

  • 5go
    5go

    Revolution: Usually violent and not permanent

    Evolution: Non violent (though there can be conflict involved) long lasting, usually a permanent change.

    Revolution: Usually violent and not permanent think 1776 and WW1

    Evolution: Non violent (though there can be conflict involved) long lasting, usually a permanent change think red queen's race.

    The paradox of sex: The "cost" of males

    For more details on this topic, see Evolution of sex.

    Science writer Matt Ridley wrote a book The Red Queen in which he discussed the debate in theoretical biology over the adaptive benefit of sexual reproduction to those species in which it appears. The connection of the Red Queen to this debate arises from the fact that the traditionally accepted theory (The Vicar of Bray) only showed adaptive benefit at the level of the species or group, not at the level of the gene. By contrast, a Red-Queen-type theory that organisms are running cyclic arms races with their parasites can explain the utility of sexual reproduction at the level of the gene by positing that the role of sex is to preserve genes which are currently disadvantageous, but which will become advantageous against the background of a likely future population of parasites.

    Sex is an evolutionary puzzle. In most sexual species, males make up half the population, yet they bear no offspring directly and generally contribute little to the survival of offspring. In fact, in some species, such as lions, males pose a positive threat to live young fathered by other males (although this could be viewed as a manifestation of Richard Dawkins' so-called selfish gene, whose goal is to reproduce itself, which may as a consequence suppress the reproduction of other genes). Obviously there are species which are exceptions to this rule, such as humans, seahorses, and penguins, amongst others. In addition, males and females must spend resources to attract and compete for mates. Sexual selection also can favor traits that reduce the fitness of an organism, such as brightly colored plumage in birds of paradise which increases the likelihood for an individual to be noticed by both predators and potential mates. Thus, sexual reproduction can be highly inefficient.

    One possible explanation for the fact that nearly all vertebrates are sexual is that sex increases the rate at which adaptation can occur. This is for two reasons. First, if an advantageous mutation occurs in an asexual line, it is impossible for that mutation to spread without wiping out all other lines, which may have different advantageous mutations of their own. Second, it mixes up alleles. Some instances of genetic variation might be advantageous only when paired with other mutation, and sex increases the likelihood that such pairings will occur.

    For sex to be advantageous for these reasons requires constant selection for changing conditions. One factor that might cause this is the constant arms race between parasites and their hosts. Parasites generally evolve quickly, due to their short lifespans. As they evolve, they attack their hosts in a variety of ways. Two consecutive generations might be faced with very different selective pressures. If this change is rapid enough, it might explain the persistence of sex.

  • IP_SEC
    IP_SEC

    never

    I think social upheaval is evolution at work.

    Yes it is, but why are some social upheavals violent revolution and some, just as radical more of an evolutionary consensus?

    Mav

    Generally speaking, I would say the difference is the timescales involved.

    Indeed but why? Why do some radical changes take place over night and some take years?

    5go

    Revolution: Usually violent and not permanent think 1776 and WW1

    Well yes the effect of that revolution in starting a new nation was permanent but we have (d)evolved far from the social radicalism that prompted that revolution. WWI? I dont follow. I dont follow the red queens race either.

  • nvrgnbk
    nvrgnbk

    Indeed but why? Why do some radical changes take place over night and some take years?

    I think this illustrates quite well something I recently posted:Re: Humanity- Are Things About to Get Alot Better?

  • seattleniceguy
    seattleniceguy

    Hello IP_SEC,

    Your post highlights the fact that Darwinian thinking illuminates lots of other fields besides biology. Many large-scale trends can be understood in Darwinian terms, even though they are different in important details.

    For example, consider the evolution of language. There are interesting parallels, such as a branching structure that can be traced back to common ancestor languages, and the fact that geographical isolation is one main cause of language branching, just as it is for speciation. The main difference is the possibility for language to change dramatically within a generation, for example by an invading army supplanting a nation's ancestral language with its own, which will tend to cause each language to pick up words and grammar from the other. This would be more akin to lateral gene transfer, which viruses and bacteria can engage in, where genes can be swapped with peers, rather than passed down only to offspring.

    To your question, it's possible to think of cultural revolution as a Darwinian struggle of ideas, where the "fitness" of an idea is defined as its ability to propagate itself into other minds. The environment in which the ideas battle for supremecy is the pool of all the other ideas that are swimming about in people's minds, and it affects which ideas will tend to be prolific. For example, the idea of the virgin birth is much more "fit" in the Bible Belt, where the environment includes a set of supporting ideas about the Bible and Christianity. The idea would have almost no ability to survive anywhere else.

    SNG

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien

    IP bro,

    good to see you.

    i don't see a "vs." at all. they are one and the same to i. coming to understand biological evolution has been an existensial revolution in my mind.

    evolution, peace, sentience, love,

    tetra

  • juni
    juni

    Hey seattleniceguy!! Nice seeing you here again, but I didn't understand a damn thing you said. LOL Sorry - you expounded way over my head.

    Hey Josh! How you doing guy? Take care. Peace.

    Juni

    REVOLUTION - big or sudden change

    EVOLUTION - a gradual change

    There. Simply put.

    Greendawn said:

    Evolution is a sort of rational scientific and impersonal concept so the highly charged emotions involved in religion or politics do not come into it. At the end of the day nobody really cares whether someone accepts it or not.

    That makes sense. Good answer and easy to understand.............

  • greendawn
    greendawn

    Evolution is a sort of rational scientific and impersonal concept so the highly charged emotions involved in religion or politics do not come into it. At the end of the day nobody really cares whether someone accepts it or not.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit