Evolution and Self-Sacrifice

by IW 25 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  under_believer

  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?

  As other posters have pointed out, evolution has no specific goal. Subsequent generations are not necessarily "superior" to their ancestors--they are simply more adapted. All things being equal, your "caveman" ancestors (supposing they really existed) could easily kick your ass in single combat.
  

  This is one of the primary misconceptions I needed to release myself from when I first started studying evolution--this idea that there has been a smooth process of improvement over the billions of years of life on earth. In reality it's been fits and starts and false positives and mistakes and dead ends.

  And the point the other posters here are trying to make is that medicine, science, and technology are PART OF evolution. They are part of the natural world. Was it a bad idea for ants to develop the ability build hives? Some cow can come over and kick their ant hill over, and they'll all die. They're dependent on that ant hill. In a similar way humans are slowly becoming dependent on their own ant hills, and have been dependent on the use of tools for millions of years.

  Do I agree with this? It's sounding more and more reasonable to me.
• 

  IW

  Hi under_believer,

  I understand, I suppose, ;) macro verses micro evolution and the zig-zag concept but nontheless doesn't the theory of evolution teach that for the most part more complex organisms came after simpler ones and that the best adapted species were more successful than those who were not as well adapted? I have much to learn, I know, that's why I'm asking questions because I still have a problem seeing the common sense in evolution.

  What or who will be the top species on earth 100 or 200 million years from now? Will mankind look any different? Will there be new species in the oceans? Perhaps new kinds of mammals and birds? Well....my questions I suppose are endless.

  IW
• 

  peacefulpete

  Think of complexity as a side effect. Some of the best survivors are the simplest of organizms, such as modern bacteria. They are no less evolved because they are not multicellular with complex behavior. Recent discoveries of very ancient strains of bacteria shows just how much bacteria have evolved without loosing the basic form that can be identified as bacteria. Mind you there have been bacterialike organizms that successfully made the leap to multicellular forms, some doing it through symbiotic relationships with other bacterialike organisms turned complete dependence. Complex cells like those in our bodies are the result of such a relationship. We continue to carry two sets of DNA as a result. Plants interestingly carry three as they broke off from primative animal forms when they assimilated another bacteria with the neat trick of using solar radiation to convert sugar to starch. So while these moved in different directions, exploiting new unoccupied niches as a result of time and contingency, guess what simple bacteria continued to be successful though being rapid replicators. There are many examples of organisms that have lost complexity, simple examples everyone has heard of are cave animals who have lost sense of sight. This results from both the entrophy of complex systems without negative consequences and the benefit to animals without delicate eyes in acidic water bouncing against hard sharp rocks in darkness. So while complexity is a result of evolution so is simplicity.
• 

  rmt1

  Whoever wants to: Look up Reciprocal Altruism, Tit for Tat, Social Contract Theory, and Pioneer Species/Climax Species in ecosystems. Ponder: 1) The U.S. is a pioneer species. 2) Corporations are the new evolutionarily superior being. (Per nautilus growth model of neurons:brain, citizens:nation, knowledgeworkers:multinationalcorporation)
• 

  seattleniceguy

  IW,

  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?

  Peacefulpete already made the point pretty well, but the important concept to get your head around is that evolution is not "trying" to make organisms that have specific traits. For example, having natural perfect vision is not as important now because we have corrective lens technology. It's possible that as a result, the average individual in a technologically advanced society will have worse vision than one in which individuals with poor vision are quickly eaten by the alligators that they can't see. It would be tempting to see this worsening of vision as "de-evolution," as if evolution were "trying" to reach some peak of vision performance.

  In reality, however, what has happened is that the environment changed. This is totally valid. Environments change all the time in the natural world as well. When things started warming up after the last ice age, animals started evolving less hairy coats. It would be possible to see this as a step to a more frail condition (e.g., one that would produce less fit organisms in the previous environment). And, indeed, if the new, less hairy animals were suddenly transported to ice cold conditions, they would not fare well. But in the new environment, being extremely hairy was no longer a feature that directly influenced survival.

  Technology is a natural product of evolution, because after natural evolutionary processes created brains that were sufficiently complex, those brains began to create tools. As it turns out, being able to manipulate the natural world is an extremely effective survival strategy. You can see what has happened over the past couple centuries as a change in our basic survival strategy from having biologically strong bodies to having advanced tools.

  Also, regarding your last sentence, even if "man truly believes that natural processes have created such a remarkable living little planet," it's still possible that there are better ways of going about it. Evolution is a slow and sometimes stupid process. Many of the solutions it creates are suboptimal. For example, the mammalian eye is backwards, with the ends of the photorecepters coming out of the front of the retina, reducing the amount light that can strike the retina. (The squid eye, which evolved independently, does not suffer from this problem.) We unnecessarily have air and food traverse the same section of pipe, which kills unknown thousands each year in choking accidents. Male mammals expose their most precious reproductive resources outside their bodies with only a thin skin bag for protection!

  These are fundamental design flaws that would not be made by a good engineer. Technology allows us to produce better solutions, more quickly. So, acknowledging the incredible variety and complexity that evolution has created over the past 4 billion years, we do not necessarily have to believe that it provides the best possible way of solving problems.

  SNG
• 

  Abaddon

  IW

  nontheless doesn't the theory of evolution teach that for the most part more complex organisms came after simpler ones

  Remember that evolution is a theory AND a fact.

  The fossil record shows that there WAS evolution. This is a fact, there is evidence for it. The evidence is that simple forms are replaced by complex forms. We can see genetic change of a nature we would expect neccesary to drive this process.

  Evolution is also a theory, a set of scientific explanations of how the process works, an interpretation of the evidnece of evoltuion as a fact.

  Thus evolution as a fact shows us simple forms are replaced by complex forms; it's in the stones. That doesn't neccesarily have anything to do with the theory, although of course the theory explains it.

  and that the best adapted species were more successful than those who were not as well adapted?

  'Most Fit' (for survival in a given environment) as compared to 'Less Fit' is a better way of putting it. An organism is adapted for an environment wherein its progenitors proved to be most fit. Doesn't neccesarily mean it is adapted for the environment it is born into, as environments may change faster than genomes.

  What or who will be the top species on earth 100 or 200 million years from now?

  Define 'top'. E coli will probably still be around. 'We' may not.

  Will mankind look any different?

  Maybe, it depends on whether those who look different have more babies than those who look the same.

  Will there be new species in the oceans? Perhaps new kinds of mammals and birds? Well....my questions I suppose are endless.

  You don't have to wait that long for that. Speciation is uncommon on human time-scales, but doesn't take that long under the right circumstances - of of course 'long' varies according to how many generations in a year there are.

  And ask away.