Evolution - clarifications

[uwbrother]

Hi,
It's not a question. There are a few misconceptions around the concept of natural selection that has always bothered me. I'd like to clarify them :-


There is no "end goal"."Evolution" is a horribly confusing term. It does not imply a march towards a "goal". It does not need "time" to reach a goal. At any given time for any given environment you'll find species adapted, or evolved, for that environment. As environments change, some mutations will die out while others will survive. That's it.
(Even then, organisms are not necessarily "perfectly adapted". You just have to be better adapted than the one you are competing with)
You do not 'un-evolve'. There is no such thing as "unevolving". A species can only change to adapt to its current environment. There are places on Earth where due to darkness or muddiness, fish no longer need eyes and they actually lost their eyes. They did not "unevolve". They merely adapted to their environment. They cannot survive in ours and we cannot in theirs. Environments do change and render old adaptations useless or sometimes harmful, but that's not "unevolving".
"Most evolved" or "highly evolved" does not mean "complex". A hoof (horse's foot) is perfectly evolved for the task it has to perform, even though it's much simpler than feet of many other animals (which are evolved for the task they performed).
Organisms do not always improveEvolution does not imply that the current state is the best design. Sometimes a less-than-ideal mutation accompanies another mutation that allows you to pass your DNA more successfully. Sometimes environments change. Sometimes you get by with a less than ideal mutation because there wasn't a better one to compete with.
Better mutations do not always survive. Many species have gone tens of millions of years with relative little change. It's not that they did not have mutations that were better. But current design is probably adapted enough that new mutation did not get a chance to noticeably change the gene pool. Just because an individual has a better mutation it does not necessarily follow that the mutation will change the gene pool.
Mutations are random. You get a random mutation that may allow you to be more successful in passing your genes. Weather patterns and other changes are also random that disrupt normal eco systems and make new selections and new winners / losers. If you go back 500 million years then we'd have totally different animals.
(I should clarify, that convergence will still happen. There will still be sea creatures that are agile swimmers. Their bodies will be similar to shark's. They may have different type of eyes or different senses altogether or different locations but ultimately, there are only that many ways of being agile swimmers)
Natural selection is not random. I know I just said mutations are random, but what survives and what doesn't is anything but random.
However, everything is not due to natural selection - Some changes happen simply due to genetic drift that over time, change species without any "natural selection".
Evolution is anything but efficient - Male nipples, enough said.
It's too early to know whether intelligence and body design that leads to technological advancement is a successful adaptation. Humans may well not only go extinct themselves, but cause a massive extinction due to their actions. If so, then at least on our planet this level of intelligence would turn out to be a poor adaptation that got wiped out by natural selection.
Evolution does not give you what you need. Sometimes well meaning individuals imply that natural selection will give an organism what it "needs". Evolution isn't smart. If a population has a genetic variant that is more successful in reproducing then that variance increases with each generation and changes the gene pool. But that adaptation may never come. It may happen but not survive long enough to change the gene pool. It may be accompanied by another mutation that makes the individual less competitive. And a whole lot of other reasons why organisms may not adapt. If they always did then there wouldn't be natural extinctions.


I hope it clarifies a few things. Some other concrete examples that demonstrate some of my points above: male nipples

[Gillianren]

Yes, we know. Is there a reason you're telling us this?

[Moose]

Moved to S&T.

[uwbrother]

Ya, cuz lately this has come up in a lot of threads.

[Jens]

It's a bit confusing: it seems like these are problems you have with how other people think of natural selection, or how it's described, rather than with the process itself. Right?

[mugaliens]

Oh, gosh, I love this...


Hi,
It's not a question. There are a few misconceptions around the concept of natural selection that has always bothered me. I'd like to clarify them :-

[LIST]
There is no "end goal"."Evolution" is a horribly confusing term. It does not imply a march towards a "goal". It does not need "time" to reach a goal. At any given time for any given environment you'll find species adapted, or evolved, for that environment. As environments change, some mutations will die out while others will survive. That's it.
(Even then, organisms are not necessarily "perfectly adapted". You just have to be better adapted than the one you are competing with)

Ka-Pow! You nailed it. "Survival of the fittest" is very appropriate, but this term fails to hint at genetic variation, which is the other side of the coin. For highly variated species, change is relatively normal, but for species which hardly variates at all, they're considered genetically "fragile."


You do not 'un-evolve'. There is no such thing as "unevolving". A species can only change to adapt to its current environment. There are places on Earth where due to darkness or muddiness, fish no longer need eyes and they actually lost their eyes. They did not "unevolve". They merely adapted to their environment. They cannot survive in ours and we cannot in theirs. Environments do change and render old adaptations useless or sometimes harmful, but that's not "unevolving".

Agreed. Growing and maintaining eyes requires energy, and in the absence of requiring such a gift, the eye-less stand a better chance of surviving, as they require less energy than do the eye'd.


"Most evolved" or "highly evolved" does not mean "complex". A hoof (horse's foot) is perfectly evolved for the task it has to perform, even though it's much simpler than feet of many other animals (which are evolved for the task they performed).
Organisms do not always improve

I would argue they always improve to fill their ecological niche, but only to the extent the fires of evolution allow them to. If variation is the norm (and I believe it is), then you'll always find that variations will populate the environment.


Evolution does not imply that the current state is the best design. Sometimes a less-than-ideal mutation accompanies another mutation that allows you to pass your DNA more successfully. Sometimes environments change. Sometimes you get by with a less than ideal mutation because there wasn't a better one to compete with.

Permissive environments allow for genetic expression.


Better mutations do not always survive.

"Better" by who's standards? Nature holds no grudge! It's just life.


Many species have gone tens of millions of years with relative little change.

Lacking changes in environmental pressures, random change only serves to produce offspring which are less suited to the environment than one's parents.


It's not that they did not have mutations that were better. But current design is probably adapted enough that new mutation did not get a chance to noticeably change the gene pool. Just because an individual has a better mutation it does not necessarily follow that the mutation will change the gene pool.

Bingo!


Mutations are random. You get a random mutation that may allow you to be more successful in passing your genes. Weather patterns and other changes are also random that disrupt normal eco systems and make new selections and new winners / losers. If you go back 500 million years then we'd have totally different animals.

Agreed. I think we'd have a difficult time existing 500 my ago.


(I should clarify, that convergence will still happen. There will still be sea creatures that are agile swimmers. Their bodies will be similar to shark's. They may have different type of eyes or different senses altogether or different locations but ultimately, there are only that many ways of being agile swimmers)
Natural selection is not random. I know I just said mutations are random, but what survives and what doesn't is anything but random.
However, everything is not due to natural selection - Some changes happen simply due to genetic drift...

...or natural variation, which has itself resulted in a more advantageous genetic result over time to that over time...


Evolution is anything but efficient - Male nipples, enough said.

Hardly! My goodness, one might as well say because females have hair that hair is a genetically female trait.

Hair is efficient. So are the various female triats, the vast majority of which are mirrored in males to either more or lessor extent, and vice versa. Just a few hormones at key points in the development cycle.


I hope it clarifies a few things. Some other concrete examples that demonstrate some of my points above: male nipples

Yeah, well, we've discussed that issue... I the meantime, I hope we've also addressed the issue of how evolution manifests itself.

[Strange]

Nice summary. (Although I am worried about your obsession with male nipples.)


Ka-Pow! You nailed it. "Survival of the fittest" is very appropriate, but this term fails to hint at genetic variation, which is the other side of the coin.

I think "survival of the fittest" is very misleading. It has too often been interpreted as "survival of the healthiest/strongest" (this has been abused in some management circles, for example).


Yes, we know. Is there a reason you're telling us this?

It may have been a recent post about modern society allowing people who are not "fit" to reproduce....

(And not everyone knows this; it is useful to have it clearly restated occasionally)

[uwbrother]

I've often tried to come up with a better term and my favourite is "natural selection". "Survival of the fittest" is open to abuse, and anyway there is some randomness that causes "fit" to not necessarily survive. "Evolution" hints towards "progress" or for some people, a march towards "complexity". Natural selection doesn't seem to have other conotations.

[Gillianren]

(And not everyone knows this; it is useful to have it clearly restated occasionally)

That's as may be; this really isn't the place for just giving lessons. They're generally to be an answer to things.


I've often tried to come up with a better term and my favourite is "natural selection". "Survival of the fittest" is open to abuse, and anyway there is some randomness that causes "fit" to not necessarily survive. "Evolution" hints towards "progress" or for some people, a march towards "complexity". Natural selection doesn't seem to have other conotations.

"Natural selection"? You mean the term Darwin himself used instead of the corrupted "survival of the fittest"? Really, the most confusing language about evolution, including that word, is that which was imposed on Darwin's work after he'd written it.

[forrest noble]

uwbrother,

Evolution - clarifications

I really don't know what clarification you have accomplished. Many people here on BAUT are highly educated and already know much of this material. It appears that your point is that of education, which is a good thing. But to just discuss well-known knowledge is not that interesting to most readers since they could just read it on the net if they are interested.



It's not a question. There are a few misconceptions around the concept of natural selection that has always bothered me. I'd like to clarify them :-

OK


* There is no "end goal"."Evolution" is a horribly confusing term. It does not imply a march towards a "goal". It does not need "time" to reach a goal. At any given time for any given environment you'll find species adapted, or evolved, for that environment. As environments change, some mutations will die out while others will survive. That's it. (Even then, organisms are not necessarily "perfectly adapted". You just have to be better adapted than the one you are competing with)

Hence, natural selection. My goal here will be to make some comments to you, that's about it.

As far as end goals, of course not, its natural selection. Nature selects the fittest for the present environment by allowing them to survive and procreate more often than those that are less fit or able to adapt to a changing environment. Your explanation is good.

* You do not 'un-evolve'. There is no such thing as "unevolving". A species can only change to adapt to its current environment. There are places on Earth where due to darkness or muddiness, fish no longer need eyes and they actually lost their eyes. They did not "unevolve". They merely adapted to their environment. They cannot survive in ours and we cannot in theirs. Environments do change and render old adaptations useless or sometimes harmful, but that's not "unevolving".


Again evolution does not have a "forward" direction to it but some species could be called "unevolving." A particular favorable trait in a species might evolve such as sight, but be discontinued in a cave-like environment (as you suggest) because eyes could convey false images in the dark to the brain and those individuals with other senses more acute with little or no eye sight would have a better chance of survival in this environment. It's just a question of how you choose to define the word unevolve.

Evolution is just a term. It implies moving forward as an improved model but the only "improvement" that natural selection considers are the ones that allow better survival and/ or more procreation, this sometimes may mean a simpler creature with less wits but more pro-creation talents. Many members of our species are working on this one as individuals.


* "Most evolved" or "highly evolved" does not mean "complex". A hoof (horse's foot) is perfectly evolved for the task it has to perform, even though it's much simpler than feet of many other animals (which are evolved for the task they performed).

OK

* Organisms do not always improve Evolution does not imply that the current state is the best design. Sometimes a less-than-ideal mutation accompanies another mutation that allows you to pass your DNA more successfully. Sometimes environments change. Sometimes you get by with a less than ideal mutation because there wasn't a better one to compete with.

This sounds right.

* Better mutations do not always survive. Many species have gone tens of millions of years with relative little change. It's not that they did not have mutations that were better. But current design is probably adapted enough that new mutation did not get a chance to noticeably change the gene pool. Just because an individual has a better mutation it does not necessarily follow that the mutation will change the gene pool.

There is no such thing as a better mutation, there are only those which allow better survival and/ or more prolific procreation. It's probably just your choice of words.


* Mutations are random. You get a random mutation that may allow you to be more successful in passing your genes. Weather patterns and other changes are also random that disrupt normal eco systems and make new selections and new winners / losers. If you go back 500 million years then we'd have totally different animals.

OK

(I should clarify, that convergence will still happen. There will still be sea creatures that are agile swimmers. Their bodies will be similar to shark's. They may have different type of eyes or different senses altogether or different locations but ultimately, there are only that many ways of being agile swimmers)

no problem here.



* Natural selection is not random. I know I just said mutations are random, but what survives and what doesn't is anything but random.

Here it might be your choice of words, but Natural selection in the short run may be random concerning small populations and their survival. In the long run it is simply the survival of the fittest as you suggest.


* However, everything is not due to natural selection - Some changes happen simply due to genetic drift that over time, change species without any "natural selection".

The new field of epi-genetics also will come to play here where the environment could change the genetic expression in a living species/ individual discarding death , or procreation as the median. This epigenitic change may be further passed on by genetics. This is still theoretical.



* Evolution is anything but efficient - Male nipples, enough said.

Your example is just a value judgment on your part. What would be the genetic advantage to mammals if the males lost their nipples.There is a type of efficiency here. Don't change what isn't broken.



* It's too early to know whether intelligence and body design that leads to technological advancement is a successful adaptation. Humans may well not only go extinct themselves, but cause a massive extinction due to their actions. If so, then at least on our planet this level of intelligence would turn out to be a poor adaptation that got wiped out by natural selection.

I think we can successfully say that human intelligence and their body design has been a boon to our survival and proliferation as a species. Great adaptations and evolution don't last forever for any species. There are only a few examples of relatively unchanged species over the hundreds of millions of years; that doesn't mean that some dinosaurs that didn't make the cut after 10 million years weren't well adapted, it just means that conditions changed and they were gobbled up or something. Often a species has changed their own environment by their numbers causing their numbers to diminish greatly. Humans may nuke themselves or pollute themselves but I see no ending to them as a species in the foreseeable future.


* Evolution does not give you what you need. Sometimes well meaning individuals imply that natural selection will give an organism what it "needs". Evolution isn't smart. If a population has a genetic variant that is more successful in reproducing then that variance increases with each generation and changes the gene pool. But that adaptation may never come. It may happen but not survive long enough to change the gene pool. It may be accompanied by another mutation that makes the individual less competitive. And a whole lot of other reasons why organisms may not adapt. If they always did then there wouldn't be natural extinctions.

sounds right.:)

[uwbrother]

I am a junior member and haven't been here for too long. Yet pretty much every day I read posts (sometimes from old-timers) that use one of the misconceptions.

[Gillianren]

I would suggest the place to point them out would be in the thread where the misunderstanding occurs.

[slang]

I am a junior member and haven't been here for too long. Young pretty much every day I read posts (sometimes but old-timers) that use one of the misconceptions.

Junior, Order Of Kilopi, it means nothing here. The only thing you can take away from a high status group is that the poster in question has managed to stay unbanned for a big number of posts. It doesn't necessarily mean (s)he's more right or more wrong than any other poster. The other day I noticed a poster who has been here for eight years, and is still considered a "newbie" by the system, just because he reads more than he posts. *shrug*

I liked your post. It's probably old news for most people here, but you never know who might benefit from it. Who knows, maybe one or two people just causally visiting here may have long lingering questions or doubts answered by your post, and who knows how they might benefit from it in life.

[Canis Lupus]

Hi,
It's not a question. There are a few misconceptions around the concept of natural selection that has always bothered me. I'd like to clarify them :-

[LIST]
There is no "end goal". ...

I hope it clarifies a few things...

I enjoyed reading your OP, uwbrother, even if I disagree with some of its content. My apologies for the large snip in the quote I have used, but I thought I would concentrate on one point for the time being.

You state "there is no end goal to evolution". At best, one can only say that as opinion, speculation or theory, which may be right or wrong. I have no problem with a "theory of evolution", provided the idea of theory is not lost sight of. To many it is a complete answer, as presently put forward. To others, such as myself, while being impressed with how far the theory explains the mechanics of some of what is occurring in nature, it still leaves open many questions and implications.

An end goal may be difficult to discern, particularly from an individual's point view, but that does not mean one does not exist. The implications of an end goal, however, carry with it baggage which the scientific community, generally speaking, probably finds challenging. I'd hasten to add, I have no grasp of this end goal, however, in observing "nature" and its many wonders, I have been impressed enough to conclude that the way it works dwarfs Man's intelligence, even on a collective scale.

Given my own inferiority in understanding its complexities, one which is shared by all others to some degree (the differences being quite minor between us all when compared to the totality of Nature's intelligence) I'm in no rush to conclude there is no aim to it all. My mind is well and truly open on that point. On the balance of probabilities, I'd go further purely on the basis that something demonstrating intelligence inevitably does so for a reason, even though I may not understand that reason.

On the other hand, if I was an individual who saw no real purpose to my own life and other people's, then I would have to conclude that all those facts, circumstances and occurrences behind my existence, and theirs, had no aim also. When I read the idea that evolution has no aim, I see it more as a subjective viewpoint or comment revealing one's own lack of aims and purposes in life, which suggests upon analyses, very little or no purpose or at least one which fails to satisfy oneself as meaningful. The fact that an idea may generally be held by many, does not change its nature, but rather just creates more pressure for people to think it believable.

If it is really part of the theory of evolution that evolution has no aim, then it is indeed a very proscriptive theory which might explain why some folk reject it vehemently as contradicting too much which they intuitively feel to be otherwise. It seems an unnecessary addition to a good theory, which when kept simple, acknowledging its own limitations, is hard to dismiss, and one when argued from a more limited perspective provides a solid foundation to refute those with contrary ideas.


As far as end goals, of course not, its natural selection. Nature selects the fittest for the present environment by allowing them to survive and procreate more often than those that are less fit or able to adapt to a changing environment. Your explanation is good.

It is interesting reading your response, forest noble, in the way you express yourself. We do inevitably think about "Nature" as an identity, somewhat like ourselves, doing something. It seems unavoidable. Conceptually with us, it is a thing, and this thing appears to possess intelligence and a will, doesn't it?

[uwbrother]

You state "there is no end goal to evolution".
....
If it is really part of the theory of evolution that evolution has no aim, then it is indeed a very proscriptive theory....

Nice post. Except I think you misunderstood a point. I did not say evolution had no "aim". I said it had no "end-goal". There is no body design evolution is trying to achieve. There is no eventual goal evolution is taking species towards.

That's not to say there is no "aim". The aim is to optimize the genetic makeup for a given environment.

[uwbrother]

I am a junior member and haven't been here for too long. Young pretty much every day I read posts (sometimes but old-timers) that use one of the misconceptions.

Did I really type that? Kudos to you readers for actually understanding what I was trying to say. I am ashamed :).


I would suggest the place to point them out would be in the thread where the misunderstanding occurs.

But is there a reason why we can't discuss evolution? A lot of topics posted here are old news to a lot of people.

[Canis Lupus]

But is there a reason why we can't discuss evolution? A lot of topics posted here are old new to a lot of people.

That's an interesting question to pose, although in the "Life In Space" sub-forum, the theory is discussed, but in a different manner. There appears to be a lack of general discussion within the scientific community about aspects of the theory of evolution, which is preventing its refinement - its own evolution. To some extent, I have concluded this is because of a type of political dynamic. There are challenges to the theory, the most outspoken of which comes from religious fundamentalist quarters. In order to keep that opposition at bay, there appears to have developed a natural solidarity among the scientific community not to question too much about the theory, lest that questioning gets picked up and used by those who reject the theory out rightly. Alternatively, fundamentalist challenges, have distracted the scientific community from refining the theory. There is always the risk, of course, that anyone posing challenging questions to the theory's general orthodoxies, will be labelled a "crackpot", and lumped in with the fundamentalists, something which I have been suspected of in another thread on a similar issue by an ungracious member. Not to worry, I've long given up the idea we live in a just and reasonable world, those concepts being an abstraction, leaving me with the dilemma of deciding whether the abstraction is real or its quite imperfect reflection, as experienced in human affairs.

[Swift]

That's as may be; this really isn't the place for just giving lessons. They're generally to be an answer to things.


I am a junior member and haven't been here for too long. Yet pretty much every day I read posts (sometimes from old-timers) that use one of the misconceptions.

I would suggest the place to point them out would be in the thread where the misunderstanding occurs.

Junior, Order Of Kilopi, it means nothing here. The only thing you can take away from a high status group is that the poster in question has managed to stay unbanned for a big number of posts.
OK, enough self-moderation and enough meta-discussion.

First, I have no problem with uwbrother's "lesson" in evolution. It is completely appropriate for the Science & Technology forum. If you are not interested in the lesson (I wouldn't have used that term), then don't participate in the thread. But the sharing of knowledge about science is a primary function of this forum.

Second, particularly the experienced members should know that if you do not think someone's thread or post is appropriate, comments in thread to that effect are not the appropriate mechanism; please use the Report Post function by clicking on the black triangle with the ! in it, in the lower left corner of the post.

Please, let's stick with talking about evolution. Thank you.

[Gillianren]

I have no problem with a "theory of evolution", provided the idea of theory is not lost sight of.

You mean that it's the strongest word in science and evolution is considered to be one of the strongest theories in science?

[tashirosgt]

"Survival of the fittest" is very appropriate

I think "survival of the fittest" is merely another way of saying "survival of the survivors". Whoever survives is, by definition, "fittest". There is no other criterion for being "fittest" than surviving.

[baric]

Evolution is anything but efficient - Male nipples, enough said.


I would like to comment on this. There is no reason to think that male nipples are inefficient.

You have to remember that evolution occurs on a genetic level and nipples (male & female) are a morphological expression of certain genes.

Since male & female humans share the vast majority of their genes, it could actually be LESS efficient for the common human gene pool to maintain separate sets of "nipple genes" since that would require additional male/female variation to be encoded on the genome.

Since there is no reproductive downside to men having nipples, there's no selective pressure to alter genes.

[mike alexander]

I think "survival of the fittest" is merely another way of saying "survival of the survivors". Whoever survives is, by definition, "fittest". There is no other criterion for being "fittest" than surviving.

Use 'Differential reproductive success' instead.

And remember that survival always contains a strong thread of luck.

[Nereid]

I think "survival of the fittest" is merely another way of saying "survival of the survivors". Whoever survives is, by definition, "fittest". There is no other criterion for being "fittest" than surviving.
Actually, mere survival is not enough ... you have to reproduce, and your offspring (or whatever word you choose to use) have to both survive and reproduce too. The concept gets a little blurry for social species like ants - only the queen survives, in an evolutionary sense.

[Robert Tulip]

There is no "end goal"... You do not 'un-evolve'... "Most evolved" or "highly evolved" does not mean "complex"... Natural selection is not random... It's too early to know whether intelligence and body design that leads to technological advancement is a successful adaptation. Humans may well not only go extinct themselves, but cause a massive extinction due to their actions. If so, then at least on our planet this level of intelligence would turn out to be a poor adaptation that got wiped out by natural selection.

Use 'Differential reproductive success' instead. And remember that survival always contains a strong thread of luck.Evolution involves a progress towards complexity through cumulative adaptation to the environmental niche of life. The differential reproductive success of evolution is directional, towards complex adaptation.

Gradual reversal of entropy caused by growth of complexity and adaptivity is eventually reversed by collapse to a new simpler state of life. Human life could continue to grow more complex for thousands and millions of years. Alternatively, life on earth could collapse into a new simplicity, like the previous planetary extinction events.

Alongside the 'strong thread of luck', in Mike Alexander's phrase, strategies for evolution involve a determination to succeed. For a philosophy of evolution, this determination to reproduce would seem to engage with the ethical material of purpose and meaning, both for humans and for animals. An area of uncertainty in the theory of evolution is the role of free choice and moral responsibility in determining effective survival strategies.

Traditionally, science rejects teleology in the theory of evolution. This is partly because seeing an ethical dimension of evolution opens unsolvable questions of whether we see intrinsic purpose in the universe. It is nevertheless an interesting question whether the theory of evolution, applied to both human and animal situations, raises the need for each organism to see an intrinsic purpose in nature in terms of its own flourishing.

[Nereid]

Evolution involves a progress towards complexity through cumulative adaptation to the environmental niche of life. The differential reproductive success of evolution is directional, towards complex adaptation.

This might be true of the Eukarya, but it is clearly not true of the Bacteria or Archaea.

And even in the Eukarya there are exceptions; most parasites, for example, are driven by differential reproductive success towards much simpler adaptations.

Of course, you may be using "complex adaptation" is a sense different from that I have interpreted ...



[...]

Alongside the 'strong thread of luck', in Mike Alexander's phrase, strategies for evolution involve a determination to succeed. For a philosophy of evolution, this determination to reproduce would seem to engage with the ethical material of purpose and meaning, both for humans and for animals. [...]
Um, I hate to break this to you, but Homo sapiens belongs to kingdom Animalia :razz:

[transreality]

Another misconception that is common is 'human' evolution or any other species evolution, is an on-going process of refinement. In actual fact the whole mechanism is just churning over in neutral... in general species do not evolve... but they do give rise to other species through the process of speciation. During this process, the tiny sub-population that becomes the progenitor of the new species evolves rapidly. The whole evolutionary mechanism in general is just spinning in neutral and only comes into any effect only while that speciation process is occurring, in a small window of time, and to a very small subset of individuals from the the parent species.

[Robert Tulip]

This might be true of the Eukarya, but it is clearly not true of the Bacteria or Archaea.

And even in the Eukarya there are exceptions; most parasites, for example, are driven by differential reproductive success towards much simpler adaptations.

Of course, you may be using "complex adaptation" is a sense different from that I have interpreted ...


Um, I hate to break this to you, but Homo sapiens belongs to kingdom Animalia :razz:Fair enough, I was thinking of ecosystems as a whole in saying evolution increases complexity. Sure, bacteria find a simple body plan and stick to it. But they live on a planet dominated by macroscopic life, where the trend of an undisturbed system, eg a rainforest or a coral reef, is towards continually increasing complexity, as organisms find new and better ways to compete and cooperate. Building on precedent, the whole system gets steadily more complex and adaptive until an external disruption occurs. This pattern can be seen in all geological periods since the Cambrian.

Point taken on animalia, it is simply that we conventionally restrict ethics to human life as distinct from animal life. I would argue there is a directionality, a will if you like, in all complex life. Will is a main factor in evolution. Nature selects for strong will, especially in sexual selection. Will is an intrinsically ethical quality that is produced by evolutionary selection in all complex life, crossing the artificial human-animal barrier.

[Nereid]

Fair enough, I was thinking of ecosystems as a whole in saying evolution increases complexity. Sure, bacteria find a simple body plan and stick to it. But they live on a planet dominated by macroscopic life, where the trend of an undisturbed system, eg a rainforest or a coral reef, is towards continually increasing complexity, as organisms find new and better ways to compete and cooperate. Building on precedent, the whole system gets steadily more complex and adaptive until an external disruption occurs. This pattern can be seen in all geological periods since the Cambrian.

Point taken on animalia, it is simply that we conventionally restrict ethics to human life as distinct from animal life. I would argue there is a directionality, a will if you like, in all complex life. Will is a main factor in evolution. Nature selects for strong will, especially in sexual selection. Will is an intrinsically ethical quality that is produced by evolutionary selection in all complex life, crossing the artificial human-animal barrier.
But they [bacteria] live on a planet dominated by macroscopic life

Not so. The Age of Bacteria began ~3+ billion years ago, and no change has happened since.

Not only do bacteria comprise the bulk of the Earth's biomass (especially if it turns out they are common in the Earth's lithosphere, down to a depth of ~20+ km), but they likely win in the diversity stakes too (no one really knows yet, partly because we have only the sketchiest view of how many bacterial species there are which do not culture).

Further, all (almost all?) eukaryotes rely completely on bacteria (and, perhaps, some archaea too) for their very existence: think of gut flora, nitrogen fixing, decomposition of dead eukaryotes, ...

I would argue there is a directionality, a will if you like, in all complex life

I guess we need to be clear that we're using "complex life" in the same way, but what's the directionality in Plantea species? Fungi species? Rhodophyta species? Heterokontophyta species?

Nature selects for strong will, especially in sexual selection

How does Nature select for strong will in organisms which reproduce asexuallly?

[Strange]

I would argue there is a directionality, a will if you like, in all complex life. Will is a main factor in evolution. Nature selects for strong will, especially in sexual selection.

I suppose you could say that bacteria that made no attempt to move away from a toxic environment or towards food, would not survive. But that is what natural selection is all about. To use the term "will" to describe this is misleading and leads to...


Will is an intrinsically ethical quality

... this sort of confusion of the forces of natural selection with ethics, which are a purely human invention.

To think of the "struggle for survival" in terms of human ambition or desire is as misleading as the misuse of "survival of the fittest" to define a management strategy.

[Robert Tulip]

But they [bacteria] live on a planet dominated by macroscopic life

Not so. The Age of Bacteria began ~3+ billion years ago, and no change has happened since.

Not only do bacteria comprise the bulk of the Earth's biomass (especially if it turns out they are common in the Earth's lithosphere, down to a depth of ~20+ km), but they likely win in the diversity stakes too (no one really knows yet, partly because we have only the sketchiest view of how many bacterial species there are which do not culture).

Further, all (almost all?) eukaryotes rely completely on bacteria (and, perhaps, some archaea too) for their very existence: think of gut flora, nitrogen fixing, decomposition of dead eukaryotes, ...

I would argue there is a directionality, a will if you like, in all complex life

I guess we need to be clear that we're using "complex life" in the same way, but what's the directionality in Plantea species? Fungi species? Rhodophyta species? Heterokontophyta species?

Nature selects for strong will, especially in sexual selection

How does Nature select for strong will in organisms which reproduce asexuallly?Life on earth was microbial for over three billion years until the Cambrian explosion, so you have a fair point that microbes are the dominant form of life. However, more recent geological periods are marked by the change of organisms with sexual reproduction, so it is reasonable to focus questions about evolution on the most complex and rapidly changing part of the biosphere.

Yes, macrobial life depends on microbes which stay the same for a long time. It is the organisms that change that are of most interest in terms of evolution.

Macrobes are more complex than microbes. A big part of this complexity is the emergence of sexual selection. We see this in flowers being more complex than ferns, and in humans being more complex than viruses. The more complex, the more need for will, eg in walruses competing for the harem.

It may be un-PC to regard humans as the apex of planetary evolution, but the evolution of language and abstract thought is qualitatively more complex than anything else yet found.

[Strange]

so it is reasonable to focus questions about evolution on the most complex and rapidly changing part of the biosphere.

Perhaps only if you want to cherry-pick results to support a thesis.

Or is it more reasonable to focus on those which are more numerous, show the greatest variety, or have been around longest?


It is the organisms that change that are of most interest in terms of evolution.

I don't know why. Organisms that remain the same are under evolutionary pressure to do that. That is just as interesting.


It may be un-PC to regard humans as the apex of planetary evolution

Not un-PC but jsut wrong.


but the evolution of language and abstract thought is qualitatively more complex than anything else yet found.

I'm not sure what measure of complexity you are using. But even if true, that doesn't put it at any sort of "apex". Just at the top of the complexity list. That is only "better" in some sense if you value complexity (or language or abstract throught) above other characteristics.

[Robert Tulip]

To think of the "struggle for survival" in terms of human ambition or desire is as misleading as the misuse of "survival of the fittest" to define a management strategy.But why is it misleading? The fittest management strategies are by definition the most successful, on the basis of Dawkins' argument for memes, that culture evolves memetically in the same but faster way that genes evolve genetically.

[Strange]

But why is it misleading? The fittest management strategies are by definition the most successful, on the basis of Dawkins' argument for memes, that culture evolves memetically in the same but faster way that genes evolve genetically.

Ah, but you are using "fittest" in the "correct" sense :)

I meant in the Enron sense, where there a very aggressive ("survive or die") managment style is justified by the misuse of evolutionary ideas. In fact, it turns out that these management strategies are less effective/successful than a more cooperative ("caring") style.

[Nereid]

Life on earth was microbial for over three billion years until the Cambrian explosion, so you have a fair point that microbes are the dominant form of life.
Eukaryotes seem to have first appeared ~2 billion years ago, well before the Cambrian explosion.

Also, most of the higher classes - Kingdoms, Phyla - of eukaryotes seem to have first emerged around 1 billion (+/- a few hundred million) years ago, also well before the Cambrian explosion.

And let's not forget that it was a bacterial invention (will?), involving cooperation, that got the eukaryotes going! Mitochondria (an act of endosymbiosic will that happened just once), and various chloroplasts (at least two independent acts of will).


However, more recent geological periods are marked by the change of organisms with sexual reproduction, so it is reasonable to focus questions about evolution on the most complex and rapidly changing part of the biosphere.

Indeed.

And those changes are, ultimately, due to what? A complex interplay of geology and biology, interspersed by short periods of sheer terror (i.e. mass extinctions). In short, the biosphere, ecosphere, and lithosphere (not to mention the atmosphere) form sets of complex, linked systems ... just as they (apparently) have since the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment (which was the dawn of the Archaen).

The only "reasonableness" test, re where to focus questions about evolution, is "what am I interested in researching?".


Yes, macrobial life depends on microbes which stay the same for a long time. It is the organisms that change that are of most interest in terms of evolution.

Um, bacteria, and archaea, evolve just as much as eukaryotes do; in fact, they evolve far faster, given that 'generations' happen far more quickly - look at how rapidly various 'nasty' bacteria have evolved anti-bacterial resistance, for example.


Macrobes are more complex than microbes. A big part of this complexity is the emergence of sexual selection. We see this in flowers being more complex than ferns, and in humans being more complex than viruses. The more complex, the more need for will, eg in walruses competing for the harem.

It may be un-PC to regard humans as the apex of planetary evolution, but the evolution of language and abstract thought is qualitatively more complex than anything else yet found.
Apples and oranges.

I think you need to work on a useful, robust definition of "complex" in order to pursue this line of inquiry in any rational way ...

[Robert Tulip]

you need to work on a useful, robust definition of "complex" in order to pursue this line of inquiry in any rational way ...

Ward and Brownlee Rare Earth - Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis) use complex to refer to multicellular life. I thought Wonderful Life by SJ Gould saw the Cambrian explosion as the dawn of complex life. Complexity is itself a complex concept, but it seems fair to say that more complex life forms display more will and purpose than simpler life forms. Perhaps, though, this simple/complex distinction does not hold up against evidence?

[Canis Lupus]

Not un-PC but jsut wrong.



I'm not sure what measure of complexity you are using. But even if true, that doesn't put it at any sort of "apex". Just at the top of the complexity list. That is only "better" in some sense if you value complexity (or language or abstract throught) above other characteristics.

Isn't the ability to abstract indicative of an apex? The fact that we are considering the concept suggests we have a capacity consistent with the idea, irrespective of whether we are presently fulfilling that potential.

Regardless, humans are the apex of evolution presently as a matter of fact, or taking into consideration all the evidence thus far at our disposal. Something might come along to shake that idea, but so far we haven't discovered it except in science fiction.

The ability to abstract seems to be undervalued in your conclusions, reducing it to a mere "complexity", whereas it is the tool to realise and understand reality, some would say reality itself - an apex.

[Nereid]

Isn't the ability to abstract indicative of an apex? The fact that we are considering the concept suggests we have a capacity consistent with the idea, irrespective of whether we are presently fulfilling that potential.

Why choose that definition of "an apex", solely so that we can conclude that Homo sapiens is the apex?

Surely the apex of evolution should be defined in terms the concepts (evolution) itself uses, such as fitness, adaptability, and so on?

By any such definitions, Homo sapiens is nowhere near any apex, and bacteria would be given the gong!



Regardless, humans are the apex of evolution presently as a matter of fact, or taking into consideration all the evidence thus far at our disposal. Something might come along to shake that idea, but so far we haven't discovered it except in science fiction.

Something already did, and did so many decades, if not centuries, ago.

Bacteria are the apex of evolution presently as a matter of fact.



The ability to abstract seems to be undervalued in your conclusions, reducing it to a mere "complexity", whereas it is the tool to realise and understand reality, some would say reality itself - an apex.
As long as we talk about evolution, 'the ability to abstract' is no more relevant than various ant species' ability to communicate using pheromones, or most plants' use of the haplodiplonic life cycle.

[Nereid]

Ward and Brownlee Rare Earth - Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis) use complex to refer to multicellular life.

Which certainly began well before the Cambrian.


I thought Wonderful Life by SJ Gould saw the Cambrian explosion as the dawn of complex life.

He may have done.

Unfortunately, at the time he wrote that book molecular biology had yet to upset the apple cart concerning when most phyla within Opisthokonta likely first appeared (ditto, possibly, Archaeplastida and Chromalveolata) - these are all (mostly) multi-cellular, and to have already had many, or most, phyla established by ~1 Ga says that Gould was wrong.


Complexity is itself a complex concept, but it seems fair to say that more complex life forms display more will and purpose than simpler life forms. Perhaps, though, this simple/complex distinction does not hold up against evidence?
Actually, I think its fair to say that viruses display the most will and purpose, and their status as life is unclear!

Complex/simple life defined in terms of multi-cellular or not, respectively, is a relatively clear distinction (for most forms of life it's relatively unambiguous whether it's simple or complex).

What makes the distinction particularly useless - IMHO - is that evolution cares not one jot about it.

If you want to use terms like "will" and "purpose", wrt evolution, you should define them, clearly. AFAICS, so far you have simply declared complex life to have more will and purpose, which makes the two terms meaningless (wrt the present discussion on evolution).

[Van Rijn]

Isn't the ability to abstract indicative of an apex?


I think it's indicative of a value judgment. Humans have abilities that some other species lack. Other species have abilities that we lack. What, objectively, defines an apex?



Regardless, humans are the apex of evolution presently as a matter of fact, or taking into consideration all the evidence thus far at our disposal.


I don't see that as a fact. I'm not knocking human abilities, but I think when you start using phrases like "apex of evolution," you're getting into beliefs, and not objective arguments.

[Strange]

I think others have answered most of this already.


Isn't the ability to abstract indicative of an apex?

Only if you define the apex as the ability for abstract though. If you use a different measure such as size, greatest variety of body shapes, greatest variety of environments, total biomass, total number of individuals, predator vs prey, best eyesight... you will get a different apex.


The fact that we are considering the concept suggests we have a capacity consistent with the idea, irrespective of whether we are presently fulfilling that potential.

Just because we can do it, doesn't make it the best or most important attribute.


Regardless, humans are the apex of evolution presently as a matter of fact, or taking into consideration all the evidence thus far at our disposal. Something might come along to shake that idea, but so far we haven't discovered it except in science fiction.

That is only a fact for certain definitions of the apex.

Why are we at the apex? Because we have abstract thought.
Why is abstract thought at the apex? Because it is what humans do.


The ability to abstract seems to be undervalued in your conclusions

Not at all. I wouldn't do without it. I just objected to the arbitrary assertion that it is more important than anything else. But if one were trapped on a desert island with no food or water, the ability to fly might suddenly become more valuable.


, reducing it to a mere "complexity", whereas it is the tool to realise and understand reality, some would say reality itself - an apex.

An apex, maybe. The apex, no. It may be important to us. But it doesn't matter a bit to the uncounted other species on the planet.

BTW, I didn't equate abstract thought with complexity. But I also don't see that it is necessarily the most complex characteristic of any species. I don't know how you would define complexity in a useful way. And I don't know where abstract thought would fit in that. As Robert has now gone back to "multicellular" as a definition of complex, that makes abstract thought completely irrelevant to the discussion.

[Robert Tulip]

I think it's indicative of a value judgment. Humans have abilities that some other species lack. Other species have abilities that we lack. What, objectively, defines an apex?
I don't see that as a fact. I'm not knocking human abilities, but I think when you start using phrases like "apex of evolution," you're getting into beliefs, and not objective arguments.

Humans are the only species with the potential to leave the planet and intentionally take life elsewhere. This is a reasonable indicator of an apex of evolution.

Removing all value judgments and beliefs is sound in terms of scientific method. In this case, because evolution has been so embroiled in debate, there is a tendency to say that old-fashioned attitudes have no scientific content. The attempt to see direction in evolution, from simple to complex, is a case in point of a viewpoint uncomfortably akin to old-fashioned teleology. It should be possible to discuss such questions without giving ground to views that have been refuted by science.

[Strange]

Humans are the only species with the potential to leave the planet and intentionally take life elsewhere. This is a reasonable indicator of an apex of evolution.

That is just a completely arbitrary choice of one characteristic as "better" than others. What makes it the apex? Because it is unique? Plenty of other organisms have unique features. Is there something inherently "good" about spaceflight? (naturally, a lot of people on this forum would say yes to that)

Humans are the only species with the potential to destory the planet and leave it lifeless. Is that a reasonable indicator of an apex of evolution?

What about speed, size, lifespan, color, numbers, smell ...

Although, if you could poll all the organsims on earth they might agree with you. And ask why we are taking so long about getting out of here!

[Gillianren]

Removing all value judgments and beliefs is sound in terms of scientific method.

Yes. Yes, it is. And that's why we've left the "chain of being" behind, because it doesn't provide any useful information. It cannot be shown by evidence to be true, just by value judgement. We (well, not me) have decided that abstract thought or leaving the planet or anything else we can think of that we do makes it "obvious" that we're the apex of evolution, whereas actual study of evolution indicates that there's no such thing.

[Swift]

One measure of evolutionary success (or "apex") might be biomass. I found the table of overall biomass of various organisms in this wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_(ecology)) to be interesting (and the information about ants agrees with stuff I've read from Edward O. Wilson).

According to that table, ants have the greatest total biomass among the animals (plants and bacteria share the lead). Among the animals, the total of marine fish and krill seem to take second and third place.

In terms of complexity, the social insects, particularly ants and termites, have fairly complex social structures. And ants have been on Earth for over 100 million years.

Thus, maybe one could argue that ants are the apex of evolution.

(I don't feel strongly on this, I'm just making a point that others have made - it depends on how you define apex)

[Canis Lupus]

Biomass as an apex does have the advantage of making assessment simpler, much like a sporting event which relies upon times, such as a race, for a result as opposed to another type like gymnastics which requires an assessment. Biomass is something capable of physical measurement or assessment, whereas the process of abstraction, and more importantly, the abstractions themselves, cannot be seen, occurring on a metaphysical level. With respect to those arguing for biomass as indicia of an apex, ease of assessment might be more revealing of want of effort rather than any correct method. Yes, it does have the advantage of removing subjective values in one sense, however, in another it is laden with values in choosing to ignore something merely upon the basis that assessment and articulation of a human's ability to abstract poses challenging implications, and in the "hands" of the unscrupulous, can be manipulated to deceive the gullible. Odd, considering there would be no science without this ability to abstract, despite its reliance upon physical data, such as concepts like "biomass". Before any experiment or data which arises from an experiment, there must be an abstraction, an inspiration, an insight, which the experiment and resulting data becomes in effect a demonstration of to others - hopefully. This suggests our species as the apex because of our ability to comprehend abstractions, through the process of abstraction, in terms of what has resulted from evolution so far. The abstractions in conjunction with the process at our disposal which allow us to abstract, are the governing essence of things - an apex. The fact that other species are also capable of abstraction on some level doesn't detract from the point, nor should it confuse what is really a fairly obvious proposition.

[BioSci]

Biomass as an apex does have the advantage of making assessment simpler, much like a sporting event which relies upon times, such as a race, for a result as opposed to another type like gymnastics which requires an assessment. Biomass is something capable of physical measurement or assessment, whereas the process of abstraction, and more importantly, the abstractions themselves, cannot be seen, occurring on a metaphysical level. With respect to those arguing for biomass as indicia of an apex, ease of assessment might be more revealing of want of effort rather than any correct method. Yes, it does have the advantage of removing subjective values in one sense, however, in another it is laden with values in choosing to ignore something merely upon the basis that assessment and articulation of a human's ability to abstract poses challenging implications, and in the "hands" of the unscrupulous, can be manipulated to deceive the gullible. Odd, considering there would be no science without this ability to abstract, despite its reliance upon physical data, such as concepts like "biomass". Before any experiment or data which arises from an experiment, there must be an abstraction, an inspiration, an insight, which the experiment and resulting data becomes in effect a demonstration of to others - hopefully. This suggests our species as the apex because of our ability to comprehend abstractions, through the process of abstraction, in terms of what has resulted from evolution so far. The abstractions in conjunction with the process at our disposal which allow us to abstract, are the governing essence of things - an apex. The fact that other species are also capable of abstraction on some level doesn't detract from the point, nor should it confuse what is really a fairly obvious proposition.

The real problem with this is simply that (as others have indicated) the entire concept of an "apex" species is simply not scientific and has no basis in current understanding of biological evolution.

All current species are the result of ~4 billion years of evolution and are all equally "evolved." There is simply no biological or scientific validity to the concept of "most evolved" or "apex" of evolution.

You can argue about the most intelligent or fastest swimmer - but "most evolved" has no meaning.

[Canis Lupus]

The real problem with this is simply that (as others have indicated) the entire concept of an "apex" species is simply not scientific and has no basis in current understanding of biological evolution.

All current species are the result of ~4 billion years of evolution and are all equally "evolved." There is simply no biological or scientific validity to the concept of "most evolved" or "apex" of evolution.

You can argue about the most intelligent or fastest swimmer - but "most evolved" has no meaning.

Rather than merely move the goal posts on the issue, you appear to have removed them altogether from the playing field - a most effective tactic.

[Van Rijn]

Rather than merely move the goal posts on the issue, you appear to have have removed them altogether from the playing field - a most effective tactic.

Not removed. The "apex of evolution" idea is a misconception that is not a part of evolutionary science, and you haven't made an objectively supportable argument for it.

[Strange]

Rather than merely move the goal posts on the issue, you appear to have have removed them altogether from the playing field - a most effective tactic.

There were no goalposts to start with.

[mugaliens]

The real problem with this is simply that (as others have indicated) the entire concept of an "apex" species is simply not scientific and has no basis in current understanding of biological evolution.

All current species are the result of ~4 billion years of evolution and are all equally "evolved." There is simply no biological or scientific validity to the concept of "most evolved" or "apex" of evolution.

You can argue about the most intelligent or fastest swimmer - but "most evolved" has no meaning.

Well, a part of me, the backpacker part of me, agrees with you. After all, absent of arms I'm little match for a bear, couger or a pack of wolves....

The other part of me, the part which enjoys a history measured in terabytes of information, says otherwise.

Whether we're fighting wolves or other wildlife, or simply sand-bagging against rising rivers, we have a "bit" of an upper hand against pretty darn near every other form of wildlife out there. In fact, folks, I think it's incredibly safe to say they haven't a clue as to our existence beyond mere transitory... whatever. As far as the whatever goes, we have trillion's of bytes of information online that, quite amazingly, exists on a local array of hard drives...

In the meantime, I keep typing... (and I haven't died yet, so...)

[Robert Tulip]

wildlife... haven't a clue as to our existence beyond mere transitory... Except that the anthropocene is bringing perhaps the fastest mass extinction of species ever. Complexity increases during periods of stability and collapses at collapse.

[BigDon]

I'm hearing rumors that the predecessors of the chimpanzee may have possessed fire control skills, (but probably not the making of it) and early stone working but lost them in adapting to their present niche. Anybody know anything about that?

[Canis Lupus]

Not removed. The "apex of evolution" idea is a misconception that is not a part of evolutionary science, and you haven't made an objectively supportable argument for it.

Objectively it is not hard to show that evolution has a aim, even if that is to settle for the idea of survival. There is a will inherent in evolution. The "apex", or a measure of a particular species's success, could be duration. However, if your point really is that no species can be viewed in isolation, and that there is an interdependence between them not only as they exist now, but also as a result of biological history (evolution), that's certainly valid also.

One of the problems I have with the idea of biomass being a measuring stick of success is that it seems to go along with the idea of bigger is better, or longer is better, which is fairly gross way of looking at matters. My preferred measuring stick in terms of the idea of an "apex" (a concept I did not introduce to this topic incidentally, although, apparently, according to some, such an idea was never being discussed) does have an objective measurement - understanding, realisation and manipulation of the very principles and abstractions which Nature itself is using in evolution to achieve its success - Man as microcosm. There is ample evidence to indicate Man's uniqueness among all other species, despite the dependence on simplier and primitive life-forms, such as micro-organisms. The idea of an apex, such as the peak of a pyramid or the last card on top of a house of cards delicately perched, is not complex, but obvious and objective. Any visual mapping of the inter-relationship of life tends towards a hierarchy. To view humans as that peak or top card, keeping in mind that evolution works with a will, is a valid conclusion to draw from all the evidence around us. Trite attempts at disavowing arrogance in rejecting this view point is to miss the point of our abilities.

I find it counter intuitive, if not devoid of true reason, to reduce evolution to a goal-less will (a contradiction in terms) and in doing so ourselves also, but I understand that this type of nilism has currency in segments of contemporary society, an influence which is growing. It's a pity for wider society, outside of those who think themselves quite clever because they have been trained in certain technical details, that those who have sought to speak on behalf of science have been so successful in conveying this bankrupt idea. It has led to some unfortunate consequences in world affairs. Taken to extremes it has indirectly led to a great deal of suffering. It's not hard to see with such a shabby image of humanity originating from some in the science community, that there is a backlash, often expressed irrationally, to the lack of meaning which those who express this idea attempt to pass off as the point of our existence. Objectively, we stand at a pinnacle of evolution. We are unique in our powers and abilities. To deny this is to rob humanity of its meaning and purpose, and the means of achieving happiness through that meaning and purpose, which every person, in varying degrees, has the innate ability to realise through his/her power to conceptualise and abstract. It also ignore the obvious, fails to see the woods for the trees. This harking to randomness, as reflected in ideas of the initial means of speciation in evolution and the origins of life, abiogenesis, reduce us to a nothing, no more exceptional than bacteria, except to those who feel some sort of strange satisfaction in the power they imagine it gives themselves in declaring to us all our pointlessness (by implication), except to breath, eat, defaecate, and mate in order to survive in an environment.

If a theory of life, which evolution is, is to be held out as valid, it needs to take into account what we are, not declare to us something which steals our worth. If it can't do this in explaining our existence, it is incomplete and needs refinement - clarifying. Those refinements are accessible to our understanding by looking at the evidence, not delusions or self-important dogma whether they be scientific or religious, but evidence of what we are.

[BigDon]

[IOne of the problems I have with the idea of biomass being a measuring stick of success is that it seems to go along with the idea of bigger is better, or longer is better, which is fairly gross way of looking at matters. [/I]

The fossil record contra-indicates your supposition, Brother Lupus.

[Canis Lupus]

The fossil record contra-indicates your supposition, Brother Lupus.

Thank you Brother Don, and peace be with you.

[BigDon]

Well, it was Cope who discovered that all ancient taxa encrease in size over time.

[Robert Tulip]

Yes. Yes, it is. And that's why we've left the "chain of being" behind, because it doesn't provide any useful information. It cannot be shown by evidence to be true, just by value judgement. We (well, not me) have decided that abstract thought or leaving the planet or anything else we can think of that we do makes it "obvious" that we're the apex of evolution, whereas actual study of evolution indicates that there's no such thing.Errors in traditional doctrines of a 'chain of being' do not prove that evolution lacks direction. If humans are to survive then a precondition is to identify the conditions of survival and endeavour to live in accordance with those conditions, seeing a direction and heading for it.

The modern situation may not exactly reflect traditional ideas of superiority and inferiority of creatures in the chain of being concept. However, the traditional idea that humanity has dominion on the earth does reflect the position of humanity as the peak predator at the apex of food chains around the planet, and the likelihood that human action can be decisive for world ecology and evolution.

[Van Rijn]

A lot of stuff here, but I'll respond to a few points:


To view humans as that peak or top card, keeping in mind that evolution works with a will, is a valid conclusion to draw from all the evidence around us.


(emphasis added)

Evolution doesn't have a will. That's either a major misconception or ATM idea that has little to do with today's evolutionary science.


I find it counter intuitive, if not devoid of true reason, to reduce evolution to a goal-less will (a contradiction in terms)


In evolution, there is no goal, and there is no will, so no contradiction. Evolution is a physical process.



If a theory of life, which evolution is, is to be held out as valid, it needs to take into account what we are, not declare to us something which steals our worth.


I don't know how evolutionary science can possibly steal our worth. Evolution got us here, but it doesn't dictate what we will do, and what we decide about our worth is up to us, based on the value judgments we make.

[Strange]

Objectively it is not hard to show that evolution has a aim, even if that is to settle for the idea of survival. There is a will inherent in evolution.

The thing that "drives" evolution is reproductive success. I think describing that as a "will" (which implies a consciousness) is stretch. Even as a metaphor it is likely to lead to misunderstanding (as with Dawkin's "selfish gene" metaphor).


One of the problems I have with the idea of biomass being a measuring stick of success is that it seems to go along with the idea of bigger is better, or longer is better, which is fairly gross way of looking at matters.

If, as you suggest, survival is the aim of evolution, then surely the apex should be determined in terms of survival: longest-lived, most numerous, biomass. Not some arbitrary mental ability.


There is ample evidence to indicate Man's uniqueness among all other species, despite the dependence on simplier and primitive life-forms, such as micro-organisms.

Every species is unique in some way. Or they wouldn't be species. You haven't shown that the way that humans are unique is better is some objective way than every thing else.

The rest of your post seems to be a matter of opinion, no matter how "objective" or "obvious" it is.

[mugaliens]

I find it counter intuitive, if not devoid of true reason, to reduce evolution to a goal-less will (a contradiction in terms) and in doing so ourselves also, but I understand that this type of nilism has currency in segments of contemporary society, an influence which is growing. It's a pity for wider society, outside of those who think themselves quite clever because they have been trained in certain technical details, that those who have sought to speak on behalf of science have been so successful in conveying this bankrupt idea.

I hear what you're saying, but I think it's prudent to separate mindless evolutionary processes from our thoughts and actions as thinking and feeling human beings. Altruism isn't a human-only thing. Countless examples exist in the animal kingdom of animals helping one another well outside of of genetic lines.

But consider this for a moment: perhaps cross-genetic altruism itself is simply an evolutionary trait, just as various social skills help us capitalize on lending individual strengths to the collective humanity. Animals from insects to fish to humans are social for a reason: It's more efficient. Let's face it - we can't all be Rennaissance people. I can do a lot of things, but there are some things others do far better than I, and I rely on them, if for no other reason than for peace of mind, emotional support, and companionship, but it's sure nice to eat Mom's cooking every once in a while. :) For one thing it's healthier!

But even low forms of life, such as cleaner shrimp and fish have formed a symbiosis.

Does this make it mindless?

Absolutely not!

I didn't serve my country because I'm mindless, any more than I've waded in on a couple (2) of conflicts which required my presence and involvement, or for that matter, anyone's presence. The trouble is, no one else waded in. I've never been known as a "scrapper," but on the very few (2) occasions I just did what needed to be done. A few more occasions occured in the military, but it wasn't anything like what's been happening on the ground. Mostly just dodging mountains, thunderstorms, and trying to keep smart, but tired or troubled friends from inadvertantly running into the ground.

Why is it that I'd much rather be a peacemaker, but if push comes to shove I rise up?

More to the point, why does anyone do it? Why have some termites evolved into soldiers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termites#Soldiers)? Wikipedia says "The specialization of the soldier caste is principally a defense against predation by ants. The wide range of jaw types and phragmotic heads provides methods which effectively block narrow termite tunnels against ant entry."

Well, I'm not a termite!

I have feelings, and on occasion I cry. I have a son that I love, a Mom, Dad, and Brother I've proud of, and a few friends I've come to know and love over the years.

Do termites cry? Sounds like the title of a good book, doesn't it? I think the final answer may be somewhat more complicated that is possible on this forum. Suffice it to say that just about all of us serve our species in one way or another, and we can all be proud of that. We all serve in different ways, but we can also all be proud of the way in which we serve. I have a good friend from high school who is a highly accomplished and very well known and awarded doctor. Other friends have served as teachers, engineers...

There's no new info, here. Just a redirect back to reality. Whoever said "Specialization is for insects" (Heinlein) wasn't kidding - we're far more specialized than most insects, yet we're surprisingly adept at specializing in multiple disciplines, as well.

And this, folks, is the epitome of evolution, just as assuredly no dolphin or any animal on our planet could possibly conceive of this, much less type it into words on a Logitech keyboard connected to an HP laptop.

Get real, folks - we are very far evolved from our our nearest cousins, to the tune of a couple million years.

[astromark]

Yes there is a lot of stuff here... and I do not have the ability to put it ALL in its proper respective place...

but have contribution that I feel is relative. The goal posts have been moved. We moved them.

Do not hold us responsible, we did not know we were doing it until it was way... to late.

Travel and trade led us to interbreed where we ought not have.. and as a aside point. I am very grateful.

RNA and DNA have shaped the beings we are and change was part of the Eco system we were part of.

Light skinned variants were to be found in the colder less sun drenched climates. While the darker skinned of our race was found to be

In Kenya... you can see my point. For good or bad we are quickly becoming a global race. less and less different. Argue with that.

I do not think we are in any danger... its great.

[mugaliens]

Hey, Astro, hey, what's going on with your truncated responses? Are you still using a 40-character TRS-80?


Yes there is a lot of stuff here... and I do not have the ability to put it ALL in its proper respective place...

but have contribution that I feel is relative. The goal posts have been moved. We moved them.

Do not hold us responsible, we did not know we were doing it until it was way... to late.

Travel and trade led us to interbreed where we ought not have.. and as a aside point. I am very grateful.

RNA and DNA have shaped the beings we are and change was part of the Eco system we were part of.

Light skinned variants were to be found in the colder less sun drenched climates. While the darker skinned of our race was found to be

In Kenya... you can see my point. For good or bad we are quickly becoming a global race. less and less different. Argue with that.

I do not think we are in any danger... its great.

[Canis Lupus]

(1) Evolution doesn't have a will. That's either a major misconception or ATM idea that has little to do with today's evolutionary science.

(2) ... Evolution is a physical process.

(3) I don't know how evolutionary science can possibly steal our worth. Evolution got us here, but it doesn't dictate what we will do, and what we decide about our worth is up to us, based on the value judgments we make.

Numbering is added by me:

(1) Sorry, I find it hard to understand how you can state is has no goal. At a bare minimum it has survival. If it has a goal, it has a will in getting to that goal. That would be self-evident, wouldn't it? If anyone is arguing an ATM, it seems to be you, although I don't wish to bog down a good discussion on that issue which I am sure the moderators here are getting quite expert at deciding upon. Your interpretation of Evolution appears a radical departure in some ways, a stripping down of it to nuts and bolts, ignoring the parts and whole those nuts and bolts make up, whereas I am looking to extend and build upon the idea without disputing what is observable.

(2) It is a matter of self-convenience to reduce anything scientific to something which is merely physical, and stop one's thinking there. The subject matter of science, and the evidence required for science is certainly physical, but there is more to it than just that. For example, the principles we discern in celestial mechanics which govern the solar system are they physical? We see the principles' effect, in the physical, however, the principles themselves are not physical. We can represent them in numbers and predict them if we understand the principles, but you can't ever actually see, hear, smell, touch or taste the principles themselves. If the same principles governing our solar system also occur in another solar system, how is that the principles can be in two places at once, if they are, in fact, a physical thing? It is what is not physical which we actually seek to discover and understand by the evidence - the behavior of the physical bodies. But you didn't just state it was merely physical, you wrote about a "process", and in doing so you are extending your consideration beyond the physical to governing principles, which are not physical. The process is like joining dots, the dots being physical facts, wheras the lines between the dots, are not physical, but rather short or immediate steps, which then forms part of a greater process.

A "physical process" is an oxymoron when thought about closely, except to express the idea that a "process", which is a non-physical thing, has been discerned in the observation of physical events which would otherwise remain random and unintelligible to us.

Getting back to the idea of evolution, the fact that it occurs is undeniable, although, of course, there is denial in some quarters. I don't wish to concentrate on that type of denial except in passing. Rather, we've discerned the process from the physical evidence, and that process has been elevated to a theory, but it doesn't stop there in the description of that process, as you appear to be pretending. It has been built upon, and further ideas have arisen to explain the process we have observed. There is nothing physical about these ideas, which themselves are the implications we infer from the physical events. It seems to me, in making these quite necessary inferences (interpreting the "process"), when it does not suit you, or leads you to conclusions you are not comfortable with, you attempt to scorch the field with the smothering idea it is the description of something merely physical. I see that as a tactic to shut down interpretations with the illusion that your own thinking very concrete and indisputable. No offence meant by that analysis because I see it in a lot of discussions.

(3) Our lives are not merely influenced by our physical requirements to satisfy the requirements of physical survival. We see the universe, our lives, through a filter of ideas. Perceptions of the physical is neutral, raw data, which our ideas give some interpretation. It is this interpretation we deal with constantly and incessantly. Even in the most basic stages of perception, in dealing with depth of vision, for example, it is the idea of depth, not the physical sense of it coming from sight, which results in our appreciation of depth - the sense of sight delivers to us a two dimensional field, which we then interpret. We learn this at such an early stage of our development, we find it hard to even appreciate that we are doing it, but just like a baby, you and I do not see depth in our vision, we interpret it from our experience. I provide that example to show how fundamental it is for us to use data of the physical universe and then to utilise ideas to make sense of that data. Those ideas build upon one another, layer upon layer, and eventually define us culturally as individuals. A theory which, as you are interpreting it by attempting to reduce it to a merely "physical process", attempting to not only deny all this, and what is worse, give a wider context of our existence at a fundamental level, does have the power to define our worth if accepted as a truth.

My apologies if much of what is stated above seems like asking you to suck eggs, but I can see in your haste to put forward your way of looking at things, you have taken a lot for granted, even though someone of your intelligence probably already realises the fundamentals of what I have stated.


The thing that "drives" evolution is reproductive success. I think describing that as a "will" (which implies a consciousness) is stretch. Even as a metaphor it is likely to lead to misunderstanding (as with Dawkin's "selfish gene" metaphor).

If, as you suggest, Strange, survival is the aim of evolution, then surely the apex should be determined in terms of survival: longest-lived, most numerous, biomass. Not some arbitrary mental ability.

Every species is unique in some way. Or they wouldn't be species. You haven't shown that the way that humans are unique is better is some objective way than every thing else.

The rest of your post seems to be a matter of opinion, no matter how "objective" or "obvious" it is.

I had hoped you would note the following part of my post you addressed, which I again put forward now, as I did previously then, as quite confidently providing an objective basis for our uniqueness and why it is not unreasonable to conclude Man stands at an apex of life, who has undoubtedly resulted from the process of evolution.


... does have an objective measurement - understanding, realisation and manipulation of the very principles and abstractions which Nature itself is using in evolution to achieve its success ...

On several levels the above is objective, one being that it deals with objectivity at its essence. Not only is it objective in stating our capabilities, but just as importantly in referring to the subject matter of our capabilities, it is not opinion. It is dealing with, after all, the same subject matter which science itself is trying to get at and understand. Where it starts to look a bit opinionated perhaps, is its reference to Nature using the same objective principles to do its stuff. That might just be a necessity of language, but a necessity which is unavoidable, I would submit, and necessity is something difficult to argue as wrong. In choosing the principles of the universe and our capabilities to understand them as a criteria, it is self-evidently not a value judgment, but deals with our attempts to grasp reality which everything comes from.

[Robert Tulip]

Part of the debate here turns on the question of whether evolution displays progress. A core principle of the theory of evolution is cumulative adaptation. Organisms evolve towards the most efficient way that their genes can effectively adapt to their biological niche. The fossil record shows clear adaptation towards efficiency. For example whales gradually lost their legs and tails and replaced them with flippers and flukes, progressing towards an efficient streamlined shape suited for swimming.

Richard Dawkins argues in The Extended Phenotype that the core principles of genetic evolution are stability, fecundity and longevity. Genes that have these attributes succeed, while genes that lack these attributes fail. Further, evolution is cumulative, with each generation in a stable ecosystem showing steady (if often very slow) change towards a more effective and efficient adaptation to its situation. Periodic large change of an ecosystem is not itself a product of evolution within that system, but rather resets the context in which organisms evolve. Catastrophes set a new baseline for progress towards empty niches.

Dawkins also argues that we can see progress in evolution in the cultural idea of memes. Memes are defined as units of cultural evolution, and like genes, also display stability, fecundity and longevity as marks of success. Memes adapt by building on precedent, presenting a gradual cumulative trend in human knowledge and psychology. However, the rapid mutation and cross-fertilization of memes is a real difference from the stability of the genetic code.

A fine new book arguing for progress in cultural evolution through adaptive memes is The Evolution of God by Robert Wright, a finalist for the 2010 Pulitzer Prize. In an empirical analysis of cultural evolution, Wright also claims to detect progress in ethical matters. It is about applying the empirical methods of science to the complex questions of human history.

[Nereid]

Part of the debate here turns on the question of whether evolution displays progress. A core principle of the theory of evolution is cumulative adaptation. Organisms evolve towards the most efficient way that their genes can effectively adapt to their biological niche. The fossil record shows clear adaptation towards efficiency. For example whales gradually lost their legs and tails and replaced them with flippers and flukes, progressing towards an efficient streamlined shape suited for swimming.

Richard Dawkins argues in The Extended Phenotype that the core principles of genetic evolution are stability, fecundity and longevity. Genes that have these attributes succeed, while genes that lack these attributes fail. Further, evolution is cumulative, with each generation in a stable ecosystem showing steady (if often very slow) change towards a more effective and efficient adaptation to its situation. Periodic large change of an ecosystem is not itself a product of evolution within that system, but rather resets the context in which organisms evolve. Catastrophes set a new baseline for progress towards empty niches.

Dawkins also argues that we can see progress in evolution in the cultural idea of memes. Memes are defined as units of cultural evolution, and like genes, also display stability, fecundity and longevity as marks of success. Memes adapt by building on precedent, presenting a gradual cumulative trend in human knowledge and psychology. However, the rapid mutation and cross-fertilization of memes is a real difference from the stability of the genetic code.

A fine new book arguing for progress in cultural evolution through adaptive memes is The Evolution of God by Robert Wright, a finalist for the 2010 Pulitzer Prize. In an empirical analysis of cultural evolution, Wright also claims to detect progress in ethical matters. It is about applying the empirical methods of science to the complex questions of human history.
Further, evolution is cumulative, with each generation in a stable ecosystem showing steady (if often very slow) change towards a more effective and efficient adaptation to its situation. Periodic large change of an ecosystem is not itself a product of evolution within that system, but rather resets the context in which organisms evolve.

This snippet clearly shows a deep flaw in the "progress" idea.

Ecosystems are not stable, over geological timescales.

An organism's "situation" (i.e. the ecosystem in which it lives) is changed by its own existence - organisms are active players, not passive going-along-for-the-riders.

Periodic changes in ecosystems are, themselves, a product of evolution within those systems.

In short, the adaptive landscape itself is constantly changing, in part by the very adaptive success of organisms within it!

The grandest examples of this include the Cambrian explosion, and the oxygenation of the Earth's atmosphere.

[Canis Lupus]

Richard Dawkins argues in The Extended Phenotype that the core principles of genetic evolution are stability, fecundity and longevity. Genes that have these attributes succeed, while genes that lack these attributes fail. Further, evolution is cumulative, with each generation in a stable ecosystem showing steady (if often very slow) change towards a more effective and efficient adaptation to its situation. Periodic large change of an ecosystem is not itself a product of evolution within that system, but rather resets the context in which organisms evolve. Catastrophes set a new baseline for progress towards empty niches.


I'd have to reject this interpretation simply on the basis that life, along with other factors, appears to be constantly, but gradually, always causing change to the environment rather than maintaining a status quo. This in turn means there is inherent instability, not stability, in the system. Looked at over a short enough period of time though, it appears stable.

I'd put forward a "core principle" of evolution is instability, not stability, and the ability to react in sync with that instability. Otherwise, Earth would still be a very hostile environment.

Edit: Just noticed Nerid's post, which I largely agree with, except I don't know whether one can draw the conclusion that the instability and change caused by life is a flaw in the progress idea. I can see how it can be used to support the idea also.

[Robert Tulip]

I'd have to reject this interpretation simply on the basis that life, along with other factors, appears to be constantly, but gradually, always causing change to the environment rather than maintaining a status quo. This in turn means there is inherent instability, not stability, in the system. Looked at over a short enough period of time though, it appears stable.

I'd put forward a "core principle" of evolution is instability, not stability, and the ability to react in sync with that instability. Otherwise, Earth would still be a very hostile environment.

Edit: Just noticed Nereid's post, which I largely agree with, except I don't know whether one can draw the conclusion that the instability and changed caused by life is a flaw in the progress idea. I can see how it can be used to support the idea also.Evolution is gradual, towards increased complexity. Sudden natural events that cause a system to become less complex, eg meteor strikes or immense volcanoes, are not evolutionary events per se, not being caused by evolution. They re-base the evolutionary context for life. The anthropocene is a possible exception to the rule that simplifying changes are caused by external factors, with pollution caused by humans having potential to bring a new simplicity to life.

The history of the earth consists of long aeons of stability, separated by sudden events of instability. Evolution, as such, occurs primarily within the stable periods, through the gradual process of cumulative adaptation. After catastrophes, remnants from previous epochs gradually evolve with increased complexity to fill niches previously occupied by extinct species. Birds filling the gap left by the extinction of the pterosaurs is an example. During periods of stability, life gradually becomes more complex, through evolutionary progress.

[Nereid]

Part of the debate here turns on the question of whether evolution displays progress. A core principle of the theory of evolution is cumulative adaptation. Organisms evolve towards the most efficient way that their genes can effectively adapt to their biological niche. The fossil record shows clear adaptation towards efficiency. For example whales gradually lost their legs and tails and replaced them with flippers and flukes, progressing towards an efficient streamlined shape suited for swimming.

Richard Dawkins argues in The Extended Phenotype that the core principles of genetic evolution are stability, fecundity and longevity. Genes that have these attributes succeed, while genes that lack these attributes fail. Further, evolution is cumulative, with each generation in a stable ecosystem showing steady (if often very slow) change towards a more effective and efficient adaptation to its situation. Periodic large change of an ecosystem is not itself a product of evolution within that system, but rather resets the context in which organisms evolve. Catastrophes set a new baseline for progress towards empty niches.

Dawkins also argues that we can see progress in evolution in the cultural idea of memes. Memes are defined as units of cultural evolution, and like genes, also display stability, fecundity and longevity as marks of success. Memes adapt by building on precedent, presenting a gradual cumulative trend in human knowledge and psychology. However, the rapid mutation and cross-fertilization of memes is a real difference from the stability of the genetic code.

A fine new book arguing for progress in cultural evolution through adaptive memes is The Evolution of God by Robert Wright, a finalist for the 2010 Pulitzer Prize. In an empirical analysis of cultural evolution, Wright also claims to detect progress in ethical matters. It is about applying the empirical methods of science to the complex questions of human history.
the core principles of genetic evolution are stability, fecundity and longevity

I missed this earlier.

Consider the bacterium which entered into an endosymbiotic relationship with another, ~2 Ga.

The genotype/genome of this entity has remained very stable, over ~2 Gyr.

It is exceptionally fecund - every eukaryote cell contains many individuals.

It is very long lived; it is at least 2 billion years old.

What is it? Why the mitochondria! :)

Somehow I doubt you had in mind the mitochondria as the pinnacle, the examplar, the ideal model, of evolutionary progress.

For longevity, nothing really beats the cyanobacteria - they first appeared in the geological record ~3 Ga, pretty much the earliest fossils. They entered into an endosymbiotic relationship too, to become multiple residents of every green algal cell, as well as multiple residents in leaves (etc) in land plants (i.e. chloroplasts). So, while not quite as fecund as the mitochondria, they are just as stable, and very like beat them in the longevity stakes.

Shall I go on?

[Robert Tulip]

the core principles of genetic evolution are stability, fecundity and longevity

I missed this earlier.

Consider the bacterium which entered into an endosymbiotic relationship with another, ~2 Ga.

The genotype/genome of this entity has remained very stable, over ~2 Gyr.

It is exceptionally fecund - every eukaryote cell contains many individuals.

It is very long lived; it is at least 2 billion years old.

What is it? Why the mitochondria! :)

Somehow I doubt you had in mind the mitochondria as the pinnacle, the examplar, the ideal model, of evolutionary progress.

For longevity, nothing really beats the cyanobacteria - they first appeared in the geological record ~3 Ga, pretty much the earliest fossils. They entered into an endosymbiotic relationship too, to become multiple residents of every green algal cell, as well as multiple residents in leaves (etc) in land plants (i.e. chloroplasts). So, while not quite as fecund as the mitochondria, they are just as stable, and very like beat them in the longevity stakes.

Shall I go on?Far be it from me to disrespect the humble bacterium. All more advanced species of life on earth depend on bacteria. Maybe you could consider that bacteria are the foundation of the pyramid.

[Nereid]

Evolution is gradual, towards increased complexity.

Only in some multi-cellular eukaryotes.

Would you care to explain the increased complexity of protists? bacteria? archaea?

S. Gould explored the fallacy in this line of thinking in one of his books (I forget which one); as nothing can be significantly simpler (the opposite of complex) than most bacteria, an apparent trend towards 'complexity' is inevitable; it's a consequence of diversity. To equate this with 'progress' is muddled thinking indeed.


Sudden natural events that cause a system to become less complex, eg meteor strikes or immense volcanoes, are not evolutionary events per se, not being caused by evolution.

Another (?) false dichotomy.

An algal bloom which causes a lake/inland sea to become anoxic is certainly a sudden natural event, and a system certainly becomes less complex; it is also 'caused by evolution'!

The 'invention' of eyes may (it's but one hypothesis) have resulted in a pretty dramatic simplification - the mass extinction of the Ediacara - most definitely an evolutionary event per se, and one caused by evolution.


They re-base the evolutionary context for life. The anthropocene is a possible exception to the rule that simplifying changes are caused by external factors, with pollution caused by humans having potential to bring a new simplicity to life.

The history of the earth consists of long aeons of stability, separated by sudden events of instability. Evolution, as such, occurs primarily within the stable periods, through the gradual process of cumulative adaptation. After catastrophes, remnants from previous epochs gradually evolve with increased complexity to fill niches previously occupied by extinct species. Birds filling the gap left by the extinction of the pterosaurs is an example. During periods of stability, life gradually becomes more complex, through evolutionary progress.
Evolution, as such, occurs primarily within the stable periods, through the gradual process of cumulative adaptation.

You're clearly referring to only a very small fraction of life on Earth, i.e. only multi-cellular eukaryotes (they are a minor component of the Earth's biomass, and, very likely, comprise only a minority of all species) ... and only a small part of the history of life on Earth at that!

[Robert Tulip]

Only in some multi-cellular eukaryotes. Would you care to explain the increased complexity of protists? bacteria? archaea? S. Gould explored the fallacy in this line of thinking in one of his books (I forget which one); as nothing can be significantly simpler (the opposite of complex) than most bacteria, an apparent trend towards 'complexity' is inevitable; it's a consequence of diversity. To equate this with 'progress' is muddled thinking indeed. ... An algal bloom which causes a lake/inland sea to become anoxic is certainly a sudden natural event, and a system certainly becomes less complex; it is also 'caused by evolution'! The 'invention' of eyes may (it's but one hypothesis) have resulted in a pretty dramatic simplification - the mass extinction of the Ediacara - most definitely an evolutionary event per se, and one caused by evolution. Evolution, as such, occurs primarily within the stable periods, through the gradual process of cumulative adaptation. You're clearly referring to only a very small fraction of life on Earth, i.e. only multi-cellular eukaryotes (they are a minor component of the Earth's biomass, and, very likely, comprise only a minority of all species) ... and only a small part of the history of life on Earth at that!By definition, evolution is about change through genetic adaptation. Evolution is the story of how higher life forms evolve from lower life forms. Organisms that do not change over generations are by definition not evolving. For example we can say some shellfish in the fossil record that barely changed for hundreds of millions of years did not evolve during this long period, having early found the most efficient adaptation available for their circumstances.

In common usage, evolution is about progress to something better. For example, the evolution of science has involved gradual progress towards better understanding of the universe. Research methods have evolved, building on precedent, keeping things that work and discarding things that don't. I don't agree that it is muddled to apply this common parlance to the process of genetic change as involving progress from simple to complex. Such evolutionary change to a higher level of complexity can be seen throughout biology, perhaps more pronounced as one approaches the apex of the pyramid of evolution at the top of the food chain.

Your example of eyes does not prove your point. Yes there was collateral damage inflicted by the more competitive species that could see well, but their evolutionary arms race was pushing them towards steadily more complex ability to see, and the successful among their potential victims evolved equally complex defences. The progress of the eye (http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm)from euglena stigma to the box brownie of the nautilus to the beady gaze of the eagle is clear.

[Nereid]

By definition, evolution is about change through genetic adaptation. Evolution is the story of how higher life forms evolve from lower life forms. Organisms that do not change over generations are by definition not evolving. For example we can say some shellfish in the fossil record that barely changed for hundreds of millions of years did not evolve during this long period, having early found the most efficient adaptation available for their circumstances.

In common usage, evolution is about progress to something better. For example, the evolution of science has involved gradual progress towards better understanding of the universe. Research methods have evolved, building on precedent, keeping things that work and discarding things that don't. I don't agree that it is muddled to apply this common parlance to the process of genetic change as involving progress from simple to complex. Such evolutionary change to a higher level of complexity can be seen throughout biology, perhaps more pronounced as one approaches the apex of the pyramid of evolution at the top of the food chain.

Your example of eyes does not prove your point. Yes there was collateral damage inflicted by the more competitive species that could see well, but their evolutionary arms race was pushing them towards steadily more complex ability to see, and the successful among their potential victims evolved equally complex defences. The progress of the eye (http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm)from euglena stigma to the box brownie of the nautilus to the beady gaze of the eagle is clear.
So many misconceptions, so little space to respond.

In biology, 'evolution' has a clear, unambiguous meaning.

That meaning contains no hint of 'purpose and/or will', nor of 'progress'.

There is no pyramid, or apex, in evolution (above the top of any food chain you choose are what? bacteria!)

The term applies to all life on Earth, not just multi-cellular eukaryotes.

When Staphylococcus aureus develops resistance to several popular anti-biotics, has it evolved? (this is a serious question; what's your answer?) Is it still Staphylococcus aureus? Is it still the same species as found in the fossil record, going back 500 Myr? 1.5 Gyr*? I think you are confusing speciation with evolution; sure it's part of evolution, but it is not the be all and end all of evolution.

But, in any case, I think you just contradicted yourself; in an earlier post you referred to "the core principles of genetic evolution are stability, fecundity and longevity"; by implication, a species which is stable, fecund, and long-lived is at the pinnacle of evolution. Yet, in this post you say that such a species is not evolving, and so cannot - by definition - be at the pinnacle!

The eye is an example of convergent evolution; in one account I read, it seems it was independently 'invented' some 40 times! Changes in eyes' forms and functions have been many, within any one of the 40 independent lines; each change has, by definition, adapted the multicellular organism which 'invented' it better to its environment. However, the eye of the eagle shows no more, or less, 'progress' than the eye of the Astyanax fasciatus mexicanus ('blind cave fish').

Finally, life has had an intimate role in all the five/six mass extinction except the KT one (and, possibly, the one that preceded the Cambrian). How? Via the part it plays in the global carbon cycle! Carbon extracted from the atmosphere ends up, in the hands of life, as limestones, dolomites, oil, coal, etc. When subducted, it is turned into CO2, which is then returned to the atmosphere via volcanoes. To the extent that volcanoes played a role in three/four major mass extinctions, life did too. Evolution does not take place in a vacuum (so to speak); life affects the environment in which it exists in many and profound ways ...

* AFAIK, there no fossil record of Staphylococcus aureus, period; however, substitute a species of cyanobacteria and there is

[Strange]

Organisms that do not change over generations are by definition not evolving.

Of course they are. Do you think that random mutations stop when these organisms are happy with their lot. It is the force of evolution (natural selection) that keeps them the same.


In common usage, evolution is about progress to something better.

In common usage, maybe.


The progress of the eye (http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm)from euglena stigma to the box brownie of the nautilus to the beady gaze of the eagle is clear.

I'm not sure, but I don't think the eagle is descended from the nautilus.

What about animals that lose their eyes (or other organs/limbs) because they are no longer needed. Not exactly an example of increasing complexity or "advancement".

[neilzero]

Since I never took a course in biology or a related subject, the unbrother summary was helpful. I'm not sure I believe all of it, or recognize the errors that other posters make. Mostly I am laid back and satisfied to learn a little each day. I tend to think the truth is in the details rather than the generalities, and definitions. Neil

[Nereid]

By definition, evolution is about change through genetic adaptation. Evolution is the story of how higher life forms evolve from lower life forms. Organisms that do not change over generations are by definition not evolving. For example we can say some shellfish in the fossil record that barely changed for hundreds of millions of years did not evolve during this long period, having early found the most efficient adaptation available for their circumstances.

In common usage, evolution is about progress to something better. For example, the evolution of science has involved gradual progress towards better understanding of the universe. Research methods have evolved, building on precedent, keeping things that work and discarding things that don't. I don't agree that it is muddled to apply this common parlance to the process of genetic change as involving progress from simple to complex. Such evolutionary change to a higher level of complexity can be seen throughout biology, perhaps more pronounced as one approaches the apex of the pyramid of evolution at the top of the food chain.

Your example of eyes does not prove your point. Yes there was collateral damage inflicted by the more competitive species that could see well, but their evolutionary arms race was pushing them towards steadily more complex ability to see, and the successful among their potential victims evolved equally complex defences. The progress of the eye (http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm)from euglena stigma to the box brownie of the nautilus to the beady gaze of the eagle is clear.
In common usage, evolution is about progress to something better.

In astronomy and space science - the focus of BAUT - that is not at all obvious.

For example:
* stellar evolution - are red giants and white dwarfs "better" than main sequence stars?
* chemical evolution - is an increasing relative abundance of "metals" somehow "better" than one in which they don't change (other than the fact that it is metals which gave us our existence)?
* galaxy evolution - does the stripping of gas (and dust) from late-type galaxies make them "better"? Does a galaxy merger make the new galaxy "better" than its two parents?

[caveman1917]

For example we can say some shellfish in the fossil record that barely changed for hundreds of millions of years did not evolve during this long period, having early found the most efficient adaptation available for their circumstances.

Or gotten stuck early in a serious local maximum for their circumstances.

This is important to understand - evolution is a purely local process.
There is no global component - no end-goal, no 'higher life-forms from lower life-forms', nothing at all.
It's just an individual trying to survive and procreate better than the ones around him, that's it.

[Robert Tulip]

So many misconceptions, so little space to respond. In biology, 'evolution' has a clear, unambiguous meaning. That meaning contains no hint of 'purpose and/or will', nor of 'progress'. There is no pyramid, or apex, in evolution (above the top of any food chain you choose are what? bacteria!) The term applies to all life on Earth, not just multi-cellular eukaryotes. When Staphylococcus aureus develops resistance to several popular anti-biotics, has it evolved? (this is a serious question; what's your answer?) Is it still Staphylococcus aureus? Is it still the same species as found in the fossil record, going back 500 Myr?
Thank you Nereid. We obviously disagree on the nature of evolution. I will try to prove that the statements I made are not misconceived but are logical and sensible.

When bugs develop resistance they evolve to a better situation for them. Better and worse are relative to the interests of the evolving species. Better for them is worse for us.

Speciation is a technical question, and evolution occurs within species boundaries. Cheetahs were also cheetahs when they ran a lot slower.

Will is an adaptive trait. Organisms that display strong will and purpose tend to be more successful. This does not mean ‘evolution’ in the abstract has will and purpose, but that these qualities are often highly adaptive. Evolution of life has seen a clear path from simple to complex, a local reversal of entropy, with gradual rises and sudden falls.

Your insistence that evolution shows no hint of progress seems to rob progress of any meaning. Could we define progress as reversal of entropy?

The most complex situation can be defined as the most highly evolved, but that doesn’t equate complexity with most potential to be robust against entropic dissolution. Evolutionary fitness is the ability of an entity to reverse the forces of entropy by using resources that are stable, fecund and durable.

The pyramid metaphor for life rests on the observation that food chains have peak predators that are not killed and eaten while alive. Big fish eat small fish eat zooplankton eat phytoplankton. Whales and big fish were at the peak of the ocean food chain until the advent of industrial fisheries, which have placed humans at the ocean peak.

Yes you are right that a food chain is also a food cycle, but the fact that matter at the top of the chain dies and enters again at the bottom does not invalidate the pyramid model. Lower levels have larger biomass but display less agency. Plants are less active than herbivores, who are less active and intentional than carnivores. The most active and intentional organisms are at the top of their food chain.

In common usage, evolution is about progress to something better.
In astronomy and space science - the focus of BAUT - that is not at all obvious.
For example:
* stellar evolution - are red giants and white dwarfs "better" than main sequence stars?
* chemical evolution - is an increasing relative abundance of "metals" somehow "better" than one in which they don't change (other than the fact that it is metals which gave us our existence)?
* galaxy evolution - does the stripping of gas (and dust) from late-type galaxies make them "better"? Does a galaxy merger make the new galaxy "better" than its two parents?

The comparison of astronomy and biology is instructive. The early universe was abundant in the simple elements of hydrogen and helium, and the universe evolved to produce more complex metals and all the unique objects we see. Saying one or the other is better or worse is a value judgment revealing only the sentiments of the judge, not an objective statement. And yet, there is a nagging sense that the magnificent evolutionary success of metal has some value, especially in its transformation into life on earth, the most complex known place in the universe.

The evolution metaphor between life and stars works because stellar structures show progress from simple to complex, building on precedent. The death of the simple first generation stars of the early universe provided the platform for the evolution of the more complex subsequent generations, with an evolution from lower to higher atomic weights. Only once carbon had been made in stars did life become possible.

Of course it is better for us that stars evolved as they did, as otherwise we would not be here. But, ‘better for us’ is not necessarily ‘better objectively’, as it involves the assumption that intelligent life is a good thing. For evolution, whether intelligence is adaptive will be resolved in terms of whether intelligence is stable, fecund and durable. As peak predator on the earth, humanity has a number of traits that invite doubt about our evolutionary prospects. Perhaps the mutation of abstract thought that enabled civilization will prove inherently unstable and will go extinct, washed away by entropy? The interests of humanity rest in struggle against this possibility.

By seeing evolution as value free, positivist science can miss the opportunity to explain evolutionary goals as the highest good. Objectively there is no way to say the universe cares if we prosper or decline, but taking the view that the universe is remorselessly indifferent to life is just part of the picture.

If we value the evolutionary information of what works in the universe, we can see that humanity has a highly adaptive and complex situation, with potential to evolve further into higher complexity, able to learn many lessons from past evolutionary successes. Mind is the critical mutation for humanity, the source of our dominance of the earth and the possible source of our undoing. Understanding the natural scientific laws of evolution is valuable and essential in considering the possible futures for humanity.

Better and worse ‘for us’ may not be better and worse ‘objectively’, except that we cannot really separate human interests, considered as a whole, from objectivity.


you just contradicted yourself; in an earlier post you referred to "the core principles of genetic evolution are stability, fecundity and longevity"; by implication, a species which is stable, fecund, and long-lived is at the pinnacle of evolution. Yet, in this post you say that such a species is not evolving, and so cannot - by definition - be at the pinnacle!
Note comments above on the pyramid of life. This question of pinnacles and apexes is perhaps better seen in light of the tree of life ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_life_(science)#The_tree_of_life_today). This model applies to eukaryotes, with more complex higher forms evolving from lower.

the eye of the eagle shows no more, or less, 'progress' than the eye of the Astyanax fasciatus mexicanus ('blind cave fish').That is not true. Eagles eyes are far more acute, and are under constant evolutionary pressure to progress to enable maximum niche exploitation. Eagles have competitive pressure for progress in acuity of vision. Blind fish still have the physiology of eyes, but don't use them much and have regressed in their visual sensitivity while eagles have progressed.


Finally, life has had an intimate role in all the five/six mass extinction except the KT one (and, possibly, the one that preceded the Cambrian). How? Via the part it plays in the global carbon cycle! Carbon extracted from the atmosphere ends up, in the hands of life, as limestones, dolomites, oil, coal, etc. When subducted, it is turned into CO2, which is then returned to the atmosphere via volcanoes. To the extent that volcanoes played a role in three/four major mass extinctions, life did too. Evolution does not take place in a vacuum (so to speak); life affects the environment in which it exists in many and profound ways ...
Extinction events show that while the long stable periods of evolution saw gradual cumulative adaptation, by-products of seemingly stable growth were also accumulating in a way that would prove deadly. Perhaps the relevance is that good management of earth’s carbon cycle is a key to evolution.

[caveman1917]

When bugs develop resistance they evolve to a better situation for them. Better and worse are relative to the interests of the evolving species. Better for them is worse for us.

Some bugs developed resistance to some sort of antibiotics. Let's say their energy efficiency went down a little (they need to apply some energy for resisting).
Now let's say we stop using the antibiotics. Now the resistant bugs are at a disadvantage relative to their non-resistant kin - they are less energy efficient for no purpose.
So evolution weeds out the resistant ones, and we made a circle back to where we came from.
There is no "direction" in evolution.


Evolution of life has seen a clear path from simple to complex

There is no path, and certainly not a clear one. You are imposing a global property that isn't there.


Your insistence that evolution shows no hint of progress seems to rob progress of any meaning.

Perhaps that is why 'progress' doesn't have any meaning in biology.


Could we define progress as reversal of entropy?

Both valid uses of entropy (thermodynamics and information theory) define it as opposite of that.


Evolutionary fitness is the ability of an entity to reverse the forces of entropy by using resources that are stable, fecund and durable.

By that definition cockroaches are among the fittest creatures and humans among the least fit.


The pyramid metaphor for life rests on the observation that food chains have peak predators that are not killed and eaten while alive. Big fish eat small fish eat zooplankton eat phytoplankton. Whales and big fish were at the peak of the ocean food chain until the advent of industrial fisheries, which have placed humans at the ocean peak.

Sure, any ecosystem will in general have apex predators. But that doesn't mean they are more highly evolved.


The most active and intentional organisms are at the top of their food chain.

You will need to define the terms "active" and "intentional". Plants are intentional - they don't grow those leaves for nothing.


The evolution metaphor between life and stars works because stellar structures show progress from simple to complex, building on precedent. The death of the simple first generation stars of the early universe provided the platform for the evolution of the more complex subsequent generations, with an evolution from lower to higher atomic weights. Only once carbon had been made in stars did life become possible.

By what measure of 'complexity'?


By seeing evolution as value free, positivist science can miss the opportunity to explain evolutionary goals as the highest good.

So your objections are ethical in nature, not scientific?


Objectively there is no way to say the universe cares if we prosper or decline, but taking the view that the universe is remorselessly indifferent to life is just part of the picture.

Or it is the whole picture.


Eagles have competitive pressure for progress in acuity of vision. Blind fish still have the physiology of eyes, but don't use them much and have regressed in their visual sensitivity while eagles have progressed.

And both have efficiently evolved relative to their environment. Who are you to say one is regressing and the other progressing?

[Strange]

Your insistence that evolution shows no hint of progress seems to rob progress of any meaning.

You mean if evolution doesn't involve progression then my car will stop running? Progress has meaning outside of evolution.


The pyramid metaphor for life rests on the observation that food chains have peak predators that are not killed and eaten while alive. Big fish eat small fish eat zooplankton eat phytoplankton. Whales and big fish were at the peak of the ocean food chain until the advent of industrial fisheries, which have placed humans at the ocean peak.

But, again, this can only be defined locally (and then only by making gross simplificatons). There is no universal pyramid of predation. If there were, humans certainly wouldn't be at the top.


Yes you are right that a food chain is also a food cycle, but the fact that matter at the top of the chain dies and enters again at the bottom does not invalidate the pyramid model.

Well, if that doesn't, I would like to know what would. The fact there can be two species that prey on one another, or that there can be circular chains of predation, means there is no strict hierarchy. There is no pyramid. Like the tree of life, it is a cyclic graph, not a tree.

"Look at my pyramid"
"That's not a pyramid, its a Klein bottle"
"Ah, but it is what I call a pyramid"


That is not true. Eagles eyes are far more acute, and are under constant evolutionary pressure to progress to enable maximum niche exploitation. Eagles have competitive pressure for progress in acuity of vision. Blind fish still have the physiology of eyes, but don't use them much and have regressed in their visual sensitivity while eagles have progressed.

Everything you say is based on subjective opinion. The eyes of the blind fish haven't "regressed" - they have changed to the level of functionality required. This is "progress" for that species. Each species has developed the visual apparatus it needs. You can't say that eagle vision is "better" or "more advanced" when it would be useless for, say, spiders.

[Robert Tulip]

Of course [organisms that do not change over generations are evolving]. Do you think that random mutations stop when these organisms are happy with their lot. It is the force of evolution (natural selection) that keeps them the same.
Like many of the comments made in this thread to suggest that evolution does not involve progress, this comment is at the least highly counterintuitive. Evolution is "the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution). By this definition, when there is no change there is no evolution. Yes natural selection and random mutation are always in operation, but in a stable environment whose inhabitants have found their local optima and exhibit minimal change over generations, it bends language to say these inhabitants are evolving. The nautilus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus) is largely unchanged from millions of years ago because it has optimised its response to its adaptive niche, and is therefore called a living fossil.

Looking at this question of whether evolution involves progress, an example is the study of evolution strategies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_window), where "significant progress toward the fitness/objective function's optimum, generally, can only happen in a narrow band of the mutation step. That narrow band is called evolution window." Here we see 'progress' applied routinely in an entirely scientific way to the optimisation produced by evolution.
I don't think the eagle is descended from the nautilus.The point is that they serve as examples of points along the continuum of complexity of vision.
What about animals that lose their eyes (or other organs/limbs) because they are no longer needed. Not exactly an example of increasing complexity or "advancement".In fact these animals are an example of increased complexity of an ecosystem, occupying a niche that would otherwise be empty. The more occupied niches, and the greater the optimisation, the more complex the overall system. A cave with fish is more complex than a cave without fish.

[Strange]

Like many of the comments made in this thread to suggest that evolution does not involve progress, this comment is at the least highly counterintuitive.

So is much of science. That's why we don't rely common sense or what is "obvious" to decide which scientific theories are best.


Looking at this question of whether evolution involves progress, an example is the study of evolution strategies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_window), where "significant progress toward the fitness/objective function's optimum, generally, can only happen in a narrow band of the mutation step. That narrow band is called evolution window." Here we see 'progress' applied routinely in an entirely scientific way to the optimisation produced by evolution.

Of course you can talk about progress (locally) towards some state. (I guess you can only do that retrospectively, as it isn't obvious what that final state will be in advance. Because there is no absolute concept of progress or advance.) But that is very different from saying that evolution as a whole is about "progress" to some arbitrary better or advanced form.


The point is that they serve as examples of points along the continuum of complexity of vision.

And my point was that they are not "points along a continuum"; they are completely independent adaptations to their respective environments. By your definition of evolution as progress, we would presumably expect the nautilus to eventually have the eyesight of an eagle.


A cave with fish is more complex than a cave without fish.

And I suppose a cave with a blind fish is more complex than a cave with a sighted fish.

[Robert Tulip]

So is much of science. That's why we don't rely common sense or what is "obvious" to decide which scientific theories are best.Evolution is progress. Evolution is the change of an organism to better adapt to its niche. Within a stable ecosystem, the situation for the vast bulk of planetary history, organisms mutate randomly, but nature selects adaptive mutations in the single direction of more complex occupation of available niches. This single direction of evolutionary selection is always to the best offspring, those able to produce most young with the greatest efficiency.

The scientific debate on progress in evolution is far from settled. Analysis of largest-scale trends in evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest-scale_trends_in_evolution) finds support for progress from Darwin, Dawkins and Gould. Darwin, in The Origin of Species, observed the need to "account for that vague yet ill-defined sentiment, felt by many palaeontologists, that organisation on the whole has progressed" and even said "as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection." Richard Dawkins comments "Darwinian evolution is fundamentally progressive if progress is simply defined as "an increase, not in complexity, intelligence or some other anthropocentric value, but in the accumulating number of features contributing towards whatever adaptation the lineage in question exemplifies." Gould "agrees that mammals are more complex than bacteria", but questions selective pressure for higher levels of complexity. McShea observes that the most popular hypothesis, among scientists, is that there is a largest-scale trend towards increasing complexity.

Of course you can talk about progress (locally) towards some state. (I guess you can only do that retrospectively, as it isn't obvious what that final state will be in advance. Because there is no absolute concept of progress or advance.) But that is very different from saying that evolution as a whole is about "progress" to some arbitrary better or advanced form.
Evolution 'as a whole' is how organisms evolve. Failures don't count, as they don't pass on their genes to the future. Reproduction constantly progresses towards available improvement by the evolutionary law of survival of the fittest. Nature selects superior offspring that are more capable of filling an available niche. Progress, the cumulative adaptivity of features, is built into evolution as a main observation of biological science.

And my point was that they are not "points along a continuum"; they are completely independent adaptations to their respective environments. By your definition of evolution as progress, we would presumably expect the nautilus to eventually have the eyesight of an eagle.
The nautilus, with its primitive pinhole eyes, is well adapted to its niche and has not needed to evolve for hundreds of millions of years. Where selective pressure is applied, as in eagles versus prey, we see continual evolutionary progress towards greater adaptivity. That is why eagle's vision is so much better than ours.
And I suppose a cave with a blind fish is more complex than a cave with a sighted fish.In some respects yes, a cave with a blind fish is more complex than a cave with a sighted fish. The sighted fish puts unnecessary energy into seeing, energy that could be more efficiently used in other ways. So the selective pressure in caves, the complex adaptivity towards the niche, is for fish to lose their sight. Blind fish will tend to have longer cave-dwelling ancestry than sighted fish. Longevity of genes, and occurrence of speciation, are markers of complexity.

[Nereid]

Evolution is progress. Evolution is the change of an organism to better adapt to its niche.

Evolution is about changes, yes; but equating change with progress is either confusing or a redefinition (of either change or progress) too far.


Within a stable ecosystem, the situation for the vast bulk of planetary history, organisms mutate randomly, but nature selects adaptive mutations in the single direction of more complex occupation of available niches.

Not so.

First, throughout planetary history, individual ecosystems have, in general, been far from stable.

Second, what does "more complex occupation of available niches" mean?


This single direction of evolutionary selection is always to the best offspring, those able to produce most young with the greatest efficiency.

That may be so locally, for a species in a particular ecosystem; globally, there is no such "single direction".


The scientific debate on progress in evolution is far from settled. Analysis of largest-scale trends in evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest-scale_trends_in_evolution) finds support for progress from Darwin, Dawkins and Gould. Darwin, in The Origin of Species, observed the need to "account for that vague yet ill-defined sentiment, felt by many palaeontologists, that organisation on the whole has progressed" and even said " as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection." Richard Dawkins comments "Darwinian evolution is fundamentally progressive if progress is simply defined as "an increase, not in complexity, intelligence or some other anthropocentric value, but in the accumulating number of features contributing towards whatever adaptation the lineage in question exemplifies." Gould "agrees that mammals are more complex than bacteria", but questions selective pressure for higher levels of complexity. McShea observes that the most popular hypothesis, among scientists, is that there is a largest-scale trend towards increasing complexity.

Evolution 'as a whole' is how organisms evolve. Failures don't count, as they don't pass on their genes to the future. Reproduction constantly progresses towards available improvement by the evolutionary law of survival of the fittest. Nature selects superior offspring that are more capable of filling an available niche. Progress, the cumulative adaptivity of features, is built into evolution as a main observation of biological science.

I think that's an odd definition of "progress".



The point here is that the nautilus, with its primitive pinhole eyes, is well adapted to its niche and has not needed to evolve for hundreds of millions of years. Where selective pressure is applied, as in eagles versus prey, we see continual evolutionary progress towards greater adaptivity. That is why eagle's vision is so much better than ours.In some respects yes, a cave with a blind fish is more complex than a cave with a sighted fish. The sighted fish puts unnecessary energy into seeing, energy that could be more efficiently used in other ways. So the selective pressure in caves, the complex adaptivity towards the niche, is for fish to lose their sight. Blind fish will tend to have longer cave-dwelling ancestry than sighted fish. Longevity of genes, and occurrence of speciation, are markers of complexity.
So, by this definition, bacteria should be the exemplars of progress (and complexity); yet, in various other of your posts in this thread, you seem to reject this logical conclusion; why?

[Strange]

Evolution is progress. Evolution is the change of an organism to better adapt to its niche. Within a stable ecosystem, the situation for the vast bulk of planetary history, organisms mutate randomly, but nature selects adaptive mutations in the single direction of more complex occupation of available niches. This single direction of evolutionary selection is always to the best offspring, those able to produce most young with the greatest efficiency.

That doesn't sound quite the same as the point you were arguing initially.


The nautilus, with its primitive pinhole eyes, is well adapted to its niche and has not needed to evolve for hundreds of millions of years. Where selective pressure is applied, as in eagles versus prey, we see continual evolutionary progress towards greater adaptivity. That is why eagle's vision is so much better than ours.

So we are agreed: there is no "apex" to evolution. Every single species is at an apex. It is best adapted to its environment. The eagle is not better or more advanced than us because of its eyes; we are not better or more advanced because of or ability for abstract reasoning. We have each found and modified our niche.

[Gillianren]

There are all sorts of "advantages" that stopped being such when various parts of the ecosystem for that species changed. There are all sorts of "advantages" which wouldn't have been in the past of that species. Any consideration of evolution which doesn't take that into consideration is disingenuous. Considering an apex assumes that the place of that apex is and always will be the same. We wouldn't be the apex of evolution, for all our brain size, before there was enough free oxygen in the atmosphere for us to breathe. We weren't adapted for it, and we'd pretty much just die without specialized equipment. By that standard, maybe it's our equipment which is the apex of evolution.

[uwbrother]

So we are agreed: there is no "apex" to evolution. Every single species is at an apex. It is best adapted to its environment. The eagle is not better or more advanced than us because of its eyes; we are not better or more advanced because of or ability for abstract reasoning. We have each found and modified our niche.

Bingo!


And this, folks, is the epitome of evolution, just as assuredly no dolphin or any animal on our planet could possibly conceive of this, much less type it into words on a Logitech keyboard connected to an HP laptop.

That's not what evolution is. You can't invent a definition to suit your opinion :).

Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. That's it. There's no magic "end goal" towards anything except contribution to the gene pool (survival is just a side benefit). Some traits make survival more likely, but a predator is no more evolved than its prey than my pen is compared to my pants (I can't use my pants to write or my pen to cover my body parts). Same with species, each has its niche. Each evolved to fit its niche.

There are only two general forces in play: introduction of variance in traits through reproduction (or in case of bacteria, mutation) and processes that make certain traits more or less common. There is no "will".

Saying specie A is "more evolved" than specie B is only valid if they share the exact same environment and only one can survive. Comparing two species that simaltaneously (and successfully) co-exist and calling one "more evolved" doesn't make sense. It's like arguing that apples conclusively taste better than oranges, when that's just a matter of opinion.

[caveman1917]

There's no magic "end goal" towards anything except contribution to the gene pool (survival is just a side benefit).

A bit tangential to the current discussion, but the way in which you put things here made me think of an interesting philosophical disagreement between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (long before the advent of modern evolution theory).
Schopenhauer defended the view that the basic 'driving force' behind an organism is its 'will to live'.
Nietzsche on the other hand defended that it is really a 'will to power' (the will to control its surroundings), and that the 'will to live' is just a side benefit.

[Strange]

A bit tangential to the current discussion, but the way in which you put things here made me think of an interesting philosophical disagreement between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche (long before the advent of modern evolution theory).
Schopenhauer defended the view that the basic 'driving force' behind an organism is its 'will to live'.
Nietzsche on the other hand defended that it is really a 'will to power' (the will to control its surroundings), and that the 'will to live' is just a side benefit.

Talk about anthropomorphising! Both those descriptions (particularly Nietzsche's) impute to much, well, "will" to organisms that plainly can't have it. Does a cabbage have a "will to power" or even a "will to live"? Resistance to dying, maybe. Does a river have a "will" to flow to the sea? No, it just follows the forces around it. Same for evolution.

[Robert Tulip]

Bingo!
That's not what evolution is. You can't invent a definition to suit your opinion :).
Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. That's it. There's no magic "end goal" towards anything except contribution to the gene pool (survival is just a side benefit). Some traits make survival more likely, but a predator is no more evolved than its prey than my pen is compared to my pants (I can't use my pants to write or my pen to cover my body parts). Same with species, each has its niche. Each evolved to fit its niche.
There are only two general forces in play: introduction of variance in traits through reproduction (or in case of bacteria, mutation) and processes that make certain traits more or less common. There is no "will".
The 'end goal' of evolution involves adaptivity towards a niche. The longer an organism lives in an environment the better adapted it becomes. The 'processes that make certain traits more or less common' include large scale structures for evolution that set boundary conditions for the direction of adaptation, a window of evolution. These conditions provide a purpose in evolution, an evolving direction of improvement in adaptivity. Later organisms are more evolved than earlier organisms.
Saying specie A is "more evolved" than specie B is only valid if they share the exact same environment and only one can survive.
The example of two species sharing the same environment is seen vividly in Australia, where European predators such as cats and foxes are driving indigenous marsupials to extinction. From your example we can say the fox is more evolved than the bilby, having emerged from the wide competition of the Eurasian landmass, so the bilby must adapt or die. The main adaptive chance the bilby has is cooperation with humans who can protect it from predation.
Comparing two species that simaltaneously (and successfully) co-exist and calling one "more evolved" doesn't make sense. It's like arguing that apples conclusively taste better than oranges, when that's just a matter of opinion.Each generation of an evolving line progresses towards possible improvement. The incremental steps allow us to say the later point is more evolved than the earlier point. The lion is not more evolved than the antelope when they are in equilibrium, but they are both more evolved than they used to be.

[Strange]

The 'end goal' of evolution involves adaptivity towards a niche.

You seem to be backing further away from your original argument that evolution was driven by "will" towards greater complexity with humans as the pinnacle of this.


The incremental steps allow us to say the later point is more evolved than the earlier point. The lion is not more evolved than the antelope when they are in equilibrium, but they are both more evolved than they used to be.

And this becomes even more relavent when we compare two species that have no contact. Which is more evolved, a lion or a kumquat? They have both reached the best possible solution to their respective niches.

[Nereid]

Bingo!
That's not what evolution is. You can't invent a definition to suit your opinion .
Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. That's it. There's no magic "end goal" towards anything except contribution to the gene pool (survival is just a side benefit). Some traits make survival more likely, but a predator is no more evolved than its prey than my pen is compared to my pants (I can't use my pants to write or my pen to cover my body parts). Same with species, each has its niche. Each evolved to fit its niche.
There are only two general forces in play: introduction of variance in traits through reproduction (or in case of bacteria, mutation) and processes that make certain traits more or less common. There is no "will".The 'end goal' of evolution involves adaptivity towards a niche. The longer an organism lives in an environment the better adapted it becomes. The 'processes that make certain traits more or less common' include large scale structures for evolution that set boundary conditions for the direction of adaptation, a window of evolution. These conditions provide a purpose in evolution, an evolving direction of improvement in adaptivity. Later organisms are more evolved than earlier organisms.
[...]
I'm not sure I follow this, but niches are not static.

Further, the species which live in a niche (i.e. the ecosystem) rarely, if ever, occupy exactly the same niche ... 'niche' is species-specific.

Finally, the organisms in any given ecosystem are always actively, and continuously, modifying it! IOW, to some extent a species is creating its own niche.

Given all this, an 'end goal' - as you have defined it - is pretty meaningless, isn't it?

[Strange]

Given all this, an 'end goal' - as you have defined it - is pretty meaningless, isn't it?

Ah, so it is evolution that moved the goal posts...

[Robert Tulip]

You seem to be backing further away from your original argument that evolution was driven by "will" towards greater complexity with humans as the pinnacle of this.
Adaptivity to a niche is compatible with will in evolution. As to the position of humans, the current epoch is called the anthropocene with good reason, and does in fact display the most complex systems ever seen on earth, for example universities and the internet. Humanity is at the pinnacle of evolution on the earth. No other species comes close to the complexity involved in human activity. But that does not mean a 'will of nature' exists that fully determines the outcome.
And this becomes even more relavent when we compare two species that have no contact. Which is more evolved, a lion or a kumquat? They have both reached the best possible solution to their respective niches.Lions are at the apex of their food pyramid (http://www.vtaide.com/png/foodchains.htm) - http://www.vtaide.com/png/foodweb/xfoodchains.gif. In a sense everything is equally evolved at any given moment, but species at the pinnacle of the food pyramid are more complex than lower species in terms of movement and communication.

[Strange]

Adaptivity to a niche is compatible with will in evolution.

For appropriate definitions of "will".

will: n. adapting to a niche through evolution

Sounds like a rather circular argument to me.


As to the position of humans, the current epoch is called the anthropocene with good reason

Because we named it?


, and does in fact display the most complex systems ever seen on earth, for example universities and the internet. Humanity is at the pinnacle of evolution on the earth.

Only if you define pinnacle as having achieved universities and the internet. Complex, yes. Relevant, no. Not even to our own survival or further evolution.


But that does not mean a 'will of nature' exists that fully determines the outcome.

At least we can agree on that.


Lions are at the apex of their[URL="http://www.vtaide.com/png/foodchains.htm"] food pyramid

So what. Kumquats are pretty much at the bottom of theirs. They are not going to "progress" to become lions. And that is not due to a lack of "will".

That same page includes the idea of food webs. Who is "most evolved" in this: http://www.vtaide.com/png/foodweb/foodweb.jpg

You can pick small subsets such as lions-giraffe-plants and create a nice hierarchy, but the real world really isn't that simple. Even plants aren't universally at the bottom of their local food chain.


In a sense everything is equally evolved at any given moment, but species at the pinnacle of the food pyramid are more complex than lower species in terms of movement and communication.

But there is no pyramid. And certainly not just one.

[Nereid]

[..]

Lions are at the apex of their food pyramid (http://www.vtaide.com/png/foodchains.htm) - http://www.vtaide.com/png/foodweb/xfoodchains.gif. In a sense everything is equally evolved at any given moment, but species at the pinnacle of the food pyramid are more complex than lower species in terms of movement and communication.
What is the food pyramid for intestinal parasites?

Surely they are at the apex (nothing 'eats' them, except bacteria, and you have excluded bacteria).

Yet what do such parasites eat? Why humans (among other animals)!

Are you saying that intestinal parasites are more complex than humans, in terms of movement and communication?

And what about vultures (the birds)? Or any scavenger species at the apex of its food pyramid?

In Tibet, and elsewhere, there is a cultural practice called 'sky burial'; basically it's cutting up cadavers so vultures can eat the flesh. In this practice, surely and obviously the vultures are higher up in the food pyramid than humans ...

[BigDon]

Does a cabbage have a "will to power" or even a "will to live"? Resistance to dying, maybe. Does a river have a "will" to flow to the sea? No, it just follows the forces around it. Same for evolution.

Yes, a cabbage has a will to live. No, a river is an inanimate pile of water seeking equalibrium.

Do you know why giraffes always graze acacia trees travelling against the wind?

It's because the trees they graze on release phenols that are detected and alert the rest of the trees in the grove, which then begin to produce extra tannins in their leaves which makes them distasteful. and the tannins are not produced over hours or days, but right now. That's why they only graze part of a copse of trees before moving on to the next one.

Plants are not passive by any means. All those died off from being eaten.

[Gillianren]

The amount of anthropomorphizing going on around here astonishes me.

[uwbrother]

... does in fact display the most complex systems ever seen on earth, for example universities and the internet. Humanity is at the pinnacle of evolution on the earth. No other species comes close to the complexity involved in human activity.
....
In a sense everything is equally evolved at any given moment, but species at the pinnacle of the food pyramid are more complex than lower species in terms of movement and communication.
So which one is it? Higher up in the food chain or complex systems? If there were giant birds around that ate humans but humans couldn't eat them because they were like poison to us, would those birds be "more evolved" or "complex"?

You seem to have invented a definition of "complexity" that isn't compatible with norms. Evolution isn't an opinion, it's a scientific concept and has a definition. Opinions actually dont matter.


The 'end goal' of evolution involves adaptivity towards a niche.

That's not a goal any more than the "end goal" of gravity is to control the movement of planets. Gravity has no will, neither does evolution.

[Robert Tulip]

evolution is a purely local process. There is no global component - no end-goal, no 'higher life-forms from lower life-forms', nothing at all.
It's just an individual trying to survive and procreate better than the ones around him, that's it.

With respect, this comment displays a fundamental misconception of the nature of evolution. The history of the earth is a constant story of the evolution of 'higher life-forms from lower life-forms'. Genes constantly recombine in more complex ways, except where catastrophes send the entire system back to a simpler state. Each geological period starts with simple (lower) life-forms, which then evolve into complex (higher) life-forms. At times progress is slow, and at other times it is fast, but it is constantly moving in the direction of greater complexity. Steady evolutionary progress is seen from lower to higher, as genes retain what works among the constant random mutations of reproduction, displaying the cumulative development resulting from the evolutionary law of adaptation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation), the "process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat."

[Strange]

With respect, this comment displays a fundamental misconception of the nature of evolution.

You might want to turn that stick around and grab the other end.


The history of the earth is a constant story of the evolution of 'higher life-forms from lower life-forms'.

Apart from the subjective nature of "higher" and "lower", it isn't a one way street.

There are many species that lose earlier more "advanced" (or "higher") adaptations. I don't know if there is a really clear example of more complex organism evolving to a simpler form. I wouldn't be surprised given the variety of life, past and present. But if there were one, I assume you would find some suitable definition of "complex" or "higher" to make it fit your preconceptions.


the "process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat."

Yes, a population and its habitat; that is what makes it purely local.

There is no aspiring after ever greater complexity; no desire to take over the niche of a more "advanced" species; no Great Plan.

[Strange]

In some respects yes, a cave with a blind fish is more complex than a cave with a sighted fish. The sighted fish puts unnecessary energy into seeing, energy that could be more efficiently used in other ways. So the selective pressure in caves, the complex adaptivity towards the niche, is for fish to lose their sight. Blind fish will tend to have longer cave-dwelling ancestry than sighted fish. Longevity of genes, and occurrence of speciation, are markers of complexity.

So, if those same fish later evolve sight again then you will have to say that cave with sighted fish is more complex than a cave with blind fish, which is more complex than a cave with sighted fish. Hmmm...

[Robert Tulip]

So, if those same fish later evolve sight again then you will have to say that cave with sighted fish is more complex than a cave with blind fish, which is more complex than a cave with sighted fish. Hmmm...Well, yes, hypothetically, but the later sighted fish will be the distant descendants of their sighted ancestors. Has there been a case of blind fish evolving into seeing fish?

My point that you respond to was that a location that contains life-forms that are well adapted to it is more complex, other things being equal, than a similar location containing ill-adapted life-forms. Life tends to evolve from ill-adapted to well-adapted.

[swampyankee]

Certainly, there are disadvantageous, even lethal, traits that stay in the human genome (and, doubtless those of other species). One example is Huntington's Disease, which doesn't express until after a person with the condition is well past puberty, and probably reproduced: evolution doesn't care, because HD doesn't impair reproduction. I think one could make similar arguments regarding many of the genes, such as BrCa1, which result in high probabilities of cancer.

There are also some traits, like sickle cell, which are beneficial when not fully expressed, as would be the case for someone who is heterozygous for the trait.

Messy trade-offs abound, as do many less than optimal solutions.

As for something being "best" for its environment? Only relative to its local competitors. If an organism was truly optimal for a given environment, invasive species would not be a problem; they'd be out-competed by the locals. There are also quite a few examples of organisms "simplifying" themselves. Dodder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuscuta) has pretty much given up the idea of photosynthesis, becoming a "green" plant that's an obligate parasite of other plants.

[Strange]

My point that you respond to was that a location that contains life-forms that are well adapted to it is more complex, other things being equal, than a similar location containing ill-adapted life-forms.

So after a dramatic change, an environment that intially contains several species that are poorly adapted is less complex than the same environment that later contains just one of those species that managed to adapt and survive?

I would love to know what your definition of "complex" is that covers all these special cases.


Life tends to evolve from ill-adapted to well-adapted.

Agreed. Not necessarily "lower" to "higher". Not necessairly "simpler" to "more complex". Just better adapted. Unless, of course, you define "higher" and "more complex" to mean better adapted...

Are those of us who are lactose tolerant a more highly advanced, complex form of life than all those inferior non milk-drinking types? Or is it that people who suffer from sickle cell disease are more advanced and complex because they have evolved some malaria resistance?

[HenrikOlsen]

Evolution is progress. Evolution is the change of an organism to better adapt to its niche.
Tell that to the, at least, 5 predator/prey pairs that we know of that entered the arms vs. armor race. It's one of the classic stories in evolution which ends with both species going extinct, not from changed environments or external competition, but rather because they drove each other to overspecialization.
It takes a special definition of progress to claim that a mutual arms race that leads two species to extinction is progress.


snip

Reproduction constantly progresses towards available improvement by the evolutionary law of survival of the fittest.
BZZZT!!! Sorry, no.
Purge that silly simplified populist phrase from your mind if you actually want to understand evolution.
There's no such concept in evolution.
What there is, is slightly different chances of survival due to the interaction between small variations between individuals which means the relative frequency of the variations will shift over time.
With no overall plan and no notion of "progress" or "better".

[Robert Tulip]

Tell that to the, at least, 5 predator/prey pairs that we know of that entered the arms vs. armor race. It's one of the classic stories in evolution which ends with both species going extinct, not from changed environments or external competition, but rather because they drove each other to overspecialization.
It takes a special definition of progress to claim that a mutual arms race that leads two species to extinction is progress.
I'm not saying there are no blind alleys or declines in evolution. Your example raises the problem of what is a niche. For species in an arms race, the apparent niche provided by their competition proves to be illusory when bigger realities intrude. This could be the case for humans, who now seem very adaptive but could potentially be quickly removed as a peak predator. There is a natural background rate of extinction caused by such failures, but these are exceptions to the general average trend of increasing system complexity between catastrophes.

BZZZT!!! Sorry, no.
Purge that silly simplified populist phrase from your mind if you actually want to understand evolution.
There's no such concept in evolution.
What there is, is slightly different chances of survival due to the interaction between small variations between individuals which means the relative frequency of the variations will shift over time.
With no overall plan and no notion of "progress" or "better".Thanks Henrik. You have prompted me to read the wiki on survival of the fittest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest). Charles Darwin used "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for "natural selection", and that is the sense I meant it. Darwin wrote "I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient."

I note in the wiki that the chief objection to the concept of survival of the fittest appears to be moral repugnance, especially that "any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is-ought problem), as prescriptive moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises." The argument here seems to be that the purity of scientific objectivity should not be contaminated by the subjective sentiment of values, especially the view that survival of the fittest in the Darwinian sense is a good thing.

However, humans do routinely commit the naturalistic fallacy by using evidence (facts) to form policy (values). A prime example is the valuing of behaviours that are perceived to be more adaptive. As soon as we say people should adapt to their circumstances we have derived an ought from an is, using an evolutionary description to set moral standards. The practical derivation of ought from is, basing values on facts, appears in any conclusion that people should change to adapt because their current behaviour has undesirable consequences.

[Nereid]

[...]

There are also quite a few examples of organisms "simplifying" themselves. Dodder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuscuta) has pretty much given up the idea of photosynthesis, becoming a "green" plant that's an obligate parasite of other plants.
Pretty much all parasites are "simpler" than their non-parasitic ancestors, yet, as you say, they are well adapted to their (local) environments. Yet, according to RT's ideas, they must be more complex!

Somewhat more complex (*cough*) are symbiotes - how do complexity and progress work for these, especially for those which, like blind cave fish, 'lose' certain features and/or characteristics.

[Strange]

I note in the wiki that the chief objection to the concept of survival of the fittest appears to be moral repugnance

Er, no. The chief (first) objection is:

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic basis.

You can't just use "moral repugnance" about anything you disagree with. (That would be morally repugnant!)


, especially that "any use of evolutionary descriptions to set moral standards would be a naturalistic fallacy (or more specifically the is-ought problem), as prescriptive moral statements cannot be derived from purely descriptive premises."

Thats is much later in the article, where it taslks about people (mistakenly) using evolution to justify morality. This has nothing to do with why the phrase is not used in biology. (And is not "moral repugnance").


The argument here seems to be that the purity of scientific objectivity should not be contaminated by the subjective sentiment of values, especially the view that survival of the fittest in the Darwinian sense is a good thing.

That isn't the argument being made.

[swampyankee]

"Will" is a human concept, frequently invoked to disparage people who seem to be unable to do something or another that is considered important by somebody with power.

Applying it to creatures without nervous systems strikes me as fatuous.

[Robert Tulip]

Er, no. The chief (first) objection is [the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection]. <> later in the article, where it taslks about people (mistakenly) using evolution to justify morality. This has nothing to do with why the phrase is not used in biology. (And is not "moral repugnance").But, given that Darwin said survival of the fittest is a more accurate and convenient phrase than natural selection, it is fair to ask in what the inaccuracy seen by modern biologists consists.

Arguably, the muddiness arising from popular inaccurate use of survival of the fittest is behind the scientific preference, even though in the Darwinian sense of "endowed with phenotypic characteristics which improve chances of survival and reproduction" survival of the fittest is a near-tautology that well describes the actual process of evolution.

[Robert Tulip]

Pretty much all parasites are "simpler" than their non-parasitic ancestors, yet, as you say, they are well adapted to their (local) environments. Yet, according to RT's ideas, they must be more complex!

Somewhat more complex (*cough*) are symbiotes - how do complexity and progress work for these, especially for those which, like blind cave fish, 'lose' certain features and/or characteristics.Complexity is primarily a quality of systems. A system with many simple species of parasites is more complex than a system with few parasites. The more complex system evolved from the more simple. Streamlining of the shape of birds and fish and parasites is in one sense a simplification, an improvement in efficiency, but it also allows a more complex overall system by increasing the exploitation of available niches.

[Strange]

But, given that Darwin said survival of the fittest is a more accurate and convenient phrase than natural selection, it is fair to ask in what the inaccuracy seen by modern biologists consists.

We have come a long since Darwin. And your question was answered in the first few paragraphs of the Wiki page you linked.


Arguably, the muddiness arising from popular inaccurate use of survival of the fittest is behind the scientific preference, even though in the Darwinian sense of "endowed with phenotypic characteristics which improve chances of survival and reproduction" survival of the fittest is a near-tautology that well describes the actual process of evolution.

And the "tautology" argument is also very clearly addressed in the page you linked to.

Did you read that page or just mine it for some quotes to fit your case?

[Darrell]

But, given that Darwin said survival of the fittest is a more accurate and convenient phrase than natural selection, it is fair to ask in what the inaccuracy seen by modern biologists consists.

Arguably, the muddiness arising from popular inaccurate use of survival of the fittest is behind the scientific preference, even though in the Darwinian sense of "endowed with phenotypic characteristics which improve chances of survival and reproduction" survival of the fittest is a near-tautology that well describes the actual process of evolution.

We have made much progress in the 150 or so years since Darwin. And, like any human being Darwin was often mistaken, not quite correct but close, and sometimes made bad choices.

The main problem with the phrase "survival of the fittest" is with the word "fittest". The word "fittest" is too ambiguous. "Fittest" could mean just about anything, and what the typical non biologist thinks the word means in the context of this phrase is not what the typical biologist understands to be correct for the context. Even after decades of trying to explain what concept of fitness was intended to be understood with this witty little phrase, there is still wide spread misunderstanding and misuse.

Another problem with this phrase is that survival is not really accurate. Survival long enough to reproduce successfully is what is really necessary.

All in all this whole issue over what this phrase means and whether or not it is a tautology is meaningless and pointless. It has no bearing on the veracity of the modern evolutionary synthesis, or whether or not it is a tautology. "Survival of the fittest" is merely a metaphor coined nearly 150 years ago used as a short witty phrase to refer to a then new concept that would take many more words to accurately describe. The metaphor is not the theory. Problems with the metaphor do not necessarily, in general and in any specific case I have seen, indicate or correspond to any problems with the theory.

Sure, the theory of evolution is incomplete, and some parts of it are certain to be shown to be wrong in the future. Such is reality. This is not a problem for the theory, and biologists don't fear it, they crave it. The endeavor of science is all about change. Changing theories to reflect reality as revealed by experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is constantly changing, but the basic frame work has such an enourmous amount of evidence to support it, and more importantly no clear evidence to refute it, that it is highly unlikely to be wrong in a substantial way.

[HenrikOlsen]

But, given that Darwin said survival of the fittest is a more accurate and convenient phrase than natural selection, it is fair to ask in what the inaccuracy seen by modern biologists consists.
Modern biology's ideas about evolution has developed quite a bit since Darwin, if you're arguing based on what he wrote alone, especially going by Spencer's misrepresentation, you're using one of the strawmen the ID'ers love to attack.

"Survival of the fittest" can't be used to explain such things as sexual selection for traits that are distinct handicaps for the males, can't explain child care, and in general gives a highly misleading idea about the whole process.
Especially since the process isn't about surviving, but rather about breeding.

The game being played isn't "survival of the fittest", it's "survival of the most great-great-grandchildren."

[Robert Tulip]

Modern biology's ideas about evolution has developed quite a bit since Darwin, if you're arguing based on what he wrote alone, especially going by Spencer's misrepresentation, you're using one of the strawmen the ID'ers love to attack.

"Survival of the fittest" can't be used to explain such things as sexual selection for traits that are distinct handicaps for the males, can't explain child care, and in general gives a highly misleading idea about the whole process.
Especially since the process isn't about surviving, but rather about breeding.

The game being played isn't "survival of the fittest", it's "survival of the most great-great-grandchildren."Richard Dawkins (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins09/dawkins09_index.html)says "there is grandeur in this view of life, and even a kind of grandeur in nature’s serene indifference to the suffering that inexorably follows in the wake of its guiding principle, survival of the fittest."

Survival of the fittest is hardly an obsolete doctrine when it is described here by the world's leading evolutionary thinker as the guiding principle of nature.

As per my earlier comments, the derision of the concept of survival of the fittest has more to do with cultural fashion than with intrinsic merit.

[caveman1917]

Survival of the fittest is hardly an obsolete doctrine when it is described here by the world's leading evolutionary thinker as the guiding principle of nature

Yes, but it is about the survival over time of some (element of some) genome in a population, not about the survival of its individual carriers.

[Darrell]

Richard Dawkins (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins09/dawkins09_index.html)says "there is grandeur in this view of life, and even a kind of grandeur in nature’s serene indifference to the suffering that inexorably follows in the wake of its guiding principle, survival of the fittest."

Survival of the fittest is hardly an obsolete doctrine when it is described here by the world's leading evolutionary thinker as the guiding principle of nature.

As per my earlier comments, the derision of the concept of survival of the fittest has more to do with cultural fashion than with intrinsic merit.

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is shorthand for a concept that would require many more words to fully describe. If the listener's understanding of the phrase is the same as Richard Dawkins', then no problem. The problem is that many people don't understand what the phrase means. It may seem self explanatory, but it is not because the phrase has a specialized meaning in biology. I am sure if you asked Richard Dawkins to unpack the statement that you quoted so that people relatively ignorant of biology could properly understand what he meant, he would necessarily have to use many more words to do so.

I am not sure what exactly you mean by "cultural fashion". From one direction derision for the phrase "survival of the fittest" is due to people who are ignorant of biology, evolution in particular, but have a vested interest in believing that evolution is incorrect. From another direction the derision (probably not the proper word to use in this case) is due to the fact that the phrase has been and still is so abused by people that are ignorant of the actual meaning that many biologists and knowledgable amateurs prefer to use more verbose but precise descriptions of the concepts that the phrase is meant to represent.

[Strange]

As per my earlier comments, the derision of the concept of survival of the fittest has more to do with cultural fashion than with intrinsic merit.

The term has not been derided. It has just been pointed out that it is not felt to be the best description and that it is open to misinterpretation by those who do not understand evolution (e.g. you).

[Cougar]

But, given that Darwin said survival of the fittest is a more accurate and convenient phrase than natural selection, it is fair to ask in what the inaccuracy seen by modern biologists consists.

Are male peacocks more "fit" to "survive"? I think you'd have to agree that such ridiculously large tails make them less "fit" for simple survival. Yet, there they are. "Survival of the fittest" is obviously no absolute rule. As Darrell said, the metaphor is not the theory.





"Our world overflows with peculiar, otherwise senseless shapes and behaviors that function only to promote victory in the great game of mating and reproduction. No other world but Darwin's would fill nature with such curiosities that weaken species and hinder good design but bring success where it really matters in Darwin's universe alone -- passing more genes to future generations." -- S.J. Gould

[BigDon]

I can't believe nobody has mentioned that for a peahen, how better can you tell how fit, (smart, predator savvy and well fed) than for the male to have that big showey tail? It means he eats the right foods to keep it bright, and can survive in the wild with a shiney tail while being nowhere near the top of the local food chain.

Lacking a Doctor's degree or condo in Manhatten, how else is she going to decide?

[Robert Tulip]

The term [Survival of the fittest] has not been derided. It has just been pointed out that it is not felt to be the best description and that it is open to misinterpretation by those who do not understand evolution (e.g. you).Excuse me Strange, it might help if you read the thread more carefully. My comments responded to HenrikOlsen's reference to Spencer, and Henrik's earlier statement "Purge that silly simplified populist phrase [survival of the fittest] from your mind if you actually want to understand evolution. There's no such concept in evolution." I think it is fair to say that Henrik was deriding survival of the fittest. Now when I point out that Richard Dawkins sees survival of the fittest as nature's guiding principle, you resort to a generalised argument that I am misinterpreting and misunderstanding evolution. I fully agree with you that scientific terms are open to misunderstanding. But this can occur within the scientific community as well as among the broader public. Evolution is complicated, and scientists are as open as anyone to putting their own assumptions before the evidence, for example with the comments in this thread that imply there is no progress in evolution.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip
As per my earlier comments, the derision of the concept of survival of the fittest has more to do with cultural fashion than with intrinsic merit.The term has not been derided. It has just been pointed out that it is not felt to be the best description and that it is open to misinterpretation by those who do not understand evolution (e.g. you).
Strange,

Your post was fine, up to the last two words. @ Everyone - let's not make this personal, debate the topic, not the person

[Strange]

OK. I apologize for that.

I'm dropping this. It seems a fairly pointless debate now. The original point is lost in the mists of time....

[Canis Lupus]

The amount of anthropomorphizing going on around here astonishes me.

Which species should we be acting like then?

[Gillianren]

Which species should we be acting like then?

We shouldn't be anthropomorphizing outside our species, is what I'm saying.

[caveman1917]

scientists are as open as anyone to putting their own assumptions before the evidence, for example with the comments in this thread that imply there is no progress in evolution.

Stating there must exist progress (definition?) in evolution, even though there is not a shred of evidence for that notion, would count as exactly what you attribute to the opposing view. It is as much an artefact of our point of view as is geocentrism. Even if you don't consider humans the end goal, you'll extrapolate 'through' humans.

Could you provide a reference stating there is evidence of 'progress' in evolution?

[BigDon]

We shouldn't be anthropomorphizing outside our species, is what I'm saying.

I sure wish it was somebody else who said this.

All human emotions arise from structures in the brain that can be found in other mammals, at least.

[BigDon]

I meant I felt like I was inadvertantly picking on you lately Miss Gillian.

[Robert Tulip]

Stating there must exist progress (definition?) in evolution, even though there is not a shred of evidence for that notion, would count as exactly what you attribute to the opposing view. It is as much an artefact of our point of view as is geocentrism. Even if you don't consider humans the end goal, you'll extrapolate 'through' humans.

Could you provide a reference stating there is evidence of 'progress' in evolution?One definition of progress in evolution (http://decapoda.arthroinfo.org/outreach/EvolutionProgress.pdf) is "Accumulating features that confer higher reproductive success upon a population (and hence upon a lineage)."

Defining progress as increase in complexity, a starting point is Evolution and Philosophy - Is There Progress and Direction in Evolution? by John S. Wilkins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html). Wilkins states that "by the 1970s, progress had been abandoned by working biologists. Recently, the issue has resurfaced, shorn of the mysticism of earlier debates. Biologist J.T. Bonner argued that there was a rise in complexity of organisms over the long term [1988], and others were arguing for a form of local progress under the terms 'arms race' [Dawkins and Krebs 1979] and 'escalation' [Vermeij 1987]."

Bonner's book The Evolution of Complexity by Means of Natural Selection received the following review (http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Complexity-Means-Natural-Selection/product-reviews/0691084947/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1) (underlining added)

"Bonner is a master developmental/evolutionary biologist who is best known for his work on the development and morphogenesis of a little known group of organisms called slime molds. A wonderful group of organisms, by the way. In this book, however, Bonner takes on the task of explaining how natural selection can produce increasingly complex systems of living things. A formidable challenge.
The book contains 8 chapters, as follows:

1. A brief summary of Darwinian evolution, along with an indication of the purpose of the book.

In this section Bonner addresses issues such as time, what natural selection is, and the roles that factors such as development, ecology, behavior, and genetics play in the processes of evolution. This chapter is a great primer on ideas regarding natural selection.

2. Evidence for the evolution of size increase (and decrease) from the fossil record.

In this chapter Bonner presents data from the fossil record (which is unavoidably biased) that indicates how the size of things have changed over time. He makes a case that, generally speaking, things have tended to get larger over time.

3. The size of organisms in ecological communities.

Here is a good thought to consider while reading this chapter...organisms of increased size are necessarily more structurally complex than smaller organisms, but, complexity that allowed increases in size to occur existed BEFORE those size increases took place (e.g., mammals). In this chapter Bonner considers topics such as relations between the size and abundance of organisms, size and life histories, size changes wtihin a species, and size in sexual selection. A great chapter full of thought provoking ideas!

4. A problem in developmental biology: Why and how larger plants and animals are built.

In this chapter Bonner addresses these topics: ways to become multicellular; selective forces for multicellularity; development of support structures (thus allowing increased size); proportions and size; developmental steps and size; and the legacy (opportunities and constraints) of past developments.

5. The relation between the complexity of communities and the size, diversity, and abundance of the organisms within them.

This is the chapter that will catch ecologists' eyes. In this chapter Bonner discusses what complexity is, relationships between diversity, abundance, and size, connections between diversity and habitat, and the evolution of diversity. Great stuff!

6. How size affects the internal complexities of organisms in their evolution and in their development.

This was my favorite chapter in the book. Since I have done a good chunk of research on clonal animals, I was interested in reading Bonner's thoughts on clonal versus aclonal animals (the first topic in this chapter). He also addresses topcis such as size and internal complexity, cell size and internal complexity, how large complex organisms are built, plasticity in development, the evolution of internal complexity, and related ideas. This chapter will catch the attention of developmental/evolutionary biologists.

7. Animal behavior: The pinnacle of biological complexity.

In this chapter Bonner looks at relationships between behavior and nervous systems, and natural selection and behavior.

8. The evolution of complexity: A conclusion with three insights.

Bonner concludes with three insights: 1) somatic versus genomic complexity; 2) size-complexity connections; and 3) and connections between integration and isolation.

Though this book is now 12 years old, it is well worth the effort. Bonner does a great job of making complex ideas understandable, and he is able to bring the professional and advanced amateur along for the ride. At 241 pp. this book is not a daunting challenge. It is a great addition to anyone's library!

5 stars, no doubt about it!

Alan Holyoak, Dept of Biology, Manchester College, IN"

As well, the framework of the 'window of evolution' provides evidence for progress as the directional path of evolutionary change to a more complex state.

[caveman1917]

One definition of progress in evolution (http://decapoda.arthroinfo.org/outreach/EvolutionProgress.pdf) is "Accumulating features that confer higher reproductive success upon a population (and hence upon a lineage)."

Allow me to finish the quote

Each lineage, each environment, brings its own definition of progress.
(the underlines were actually italics)

The second page "what progress in evolution is not" might be more interesting:


Does natural selection generate increased complexity, size, or
intelligence? No, except in taxa whose way of life benefits
from those particular features.
Is natural selection directed? No, the result of natural selection
is a response to the environment’s selective regime.

Could you provide a peer reviewed paper positing global progress in evolution - as by your claim?

[HenrikOlsen]

All human emotions arise from structures in the brain that can be found in other mammals, at least.
Bu... bu... you were talking about a cabbage.

[HenrikOlsen]

Evolution is complicated, and scientists are as open as anyone to putting their own assumptions before the evidence, for example with the comments in this thread that imply there is no progress in evolution.
The main objection to your statement about progress is that you're using the word "progress" without defining it, which is also part of my the problem with the "survival of the fittest" phrase, "fittest" isn't defined and survival isn't the relevant parameter anyway, breeding is.

[Robert Tulip]

Could you provide a peer reviewed paper positing global progress in evolution - as by your claim?

M. Ruse, Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996), is discussed by the author at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5612/1523, where he has the following to say.

"by the 1940s and 1950s the study of evolution was of two sorts. There was serious empirical work, very professional, containing few or no direct exhortations to moral or social action. Along with this, almost all of the leading evolutionists were turning out works of a more popular nature, about progress and the ways to achieve it.... Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. ... An ardent progressionist, Wilson sees moral norms emerging from our need to keep the evolutionary process moving forward. In his view, this translates as a need to promote biodiversity, for Wilson believes that humans have evolved in a symbiotic relationship with nature. A world of plastic would kill us humans, literally as well as metaphorically. For progress to continue, we must preserve the Brazilian rainforests and other areas of high organic density and diversity."

This quote helps to explain why progress is seen as intimately linked, but in an uneasy position in relation to evolution, in that progress is generally seen as a moral rather than an empirical idea.

The rejection of progress in evolution is partly to emphasise the error of the the traditional simplistic ladder model. If progress is defined as movement towards an adaptive phenotype, then all evolution towards an adaptive phenotype is progress. The evolution of life on earth from single cells to modern diversity, with the increasing range of types, displays such progress towards filling the available niches.

Some of the material I have already posted such as Bonner's book The Evolution of Complexity by Means of Natural Selection covers some of what is often understand by progress. Greater complexity emerges by progress from lesser complexity. Globally, the selective pressure to move genes towards stability, fecundity and durability reflects the continual progress produced by the guiding principle of survival of the fittest. I'm happy to continue to look at how such themes are discussed in scientific literature.

A possible way to examine the question of global progress is to look at the presence of Fibonacci numbers in nature. In many genotypes, from snails to daisies, nature exerts apparent selective pressure to exhibit Fibonacci numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number#Fibonacci_numbers_in_nature). There is nothing moral about this feature of design, but it does appear to provide an 'end goal' in some respects, through its appearance in unrelated instances.

[Strange]

Bu... bu... you were talking about a cabbage.

"He was no cabbage. He was my friend." (Dinosaurs)

[transreality]

It is necessary to seperate 'evolution of complexity' , that is the development via evolution of certain organisims of increasing complexity, with 'selection for complexity' or the idea that complexity is an intrinsic target of the process of evolution. Complexity arises as a simple statistical artifact of the effect mutation working on the information code itself. Mutation of the type that causes relatively simple simple genetic duplications are more likely to be viable because they are using pre-existing material that is already functional, and looking at the code complexity has increased. So a more complex organism can result simply because that is an easy path for variation.

Frequently major extinction events occur. These events kill many many species regardless of how well any of those species were adapted to their pre-event ecological niche because those niches are entirely disrupted. At this time efficiency is a premium so complexity itself provides no advantage. There is simply a probability that an already complex organism will survive, and give rise to more complex species after the event. So through time increasingly complex animals exist, but the gaps between the simple animals are also refilled.

Size work in similar way, with species with larger average size of individuals generally appearring, until major extinction events occur when size becomes disadvantageous ar at least neutral. But at least a selection for size can be seen as a strategy to avoid predation, but what possible selective advantage can apply to an individual, for complexity itself?

[Gillianren]

All human emotions arise from structures in the brain that can be found in other mammals, at least.

Yes, but we don't entirely understand how they work. Do they work in other mammals' brains? We don't know. Remember, they've only very recently been able to see evidence of my illness in the brain, not just in the behavioural patterns.

ETA--And, yes, you were talking about a cabbage, so unless you know something about them that I don't . . . .

[HenrikOlsen]

Cauliflower on the other hand . . .. :)

[caveman1917]

M. Ruse, Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996), is discussed by the author at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5612/1523, where he has the following to say.

This is not a peer reviewed paper as per my request, this is a review by the author of his own book.


This quote helps to explain why progress is seen as intimately linked, but in an uneasy position in relation to evolution, in that progress is generally seen as a moral rather than an empirical idea.

So you'd agree that your objections are ethical in nature, and have nothing to do with science at all?


The rejection of progress in evolution is partly to emphasise the error of the the traditional simplistic ladder model.

That's not how things work. Concepts are not rejected to emphasise things, they are rejected because there is no support for them.


If progress is defined as movement towards an adaptive phenotype, then all evolution towards an adaptive phenotype is progress.

What is an "adaptive phenotype"?


The evolution of life on earth from single cells to modern diversity, with the increasing range of types, displays such progress towards filling the available niches.

You'll have a statistical effect because you start of from a lower bound of "complexity", so over time the mean will become more "complex". But that goes only so far, was the dinosaur age one of less average "complexity" than our age?

It has been pointed out ad nauseam that niches are not stable.


Some of the material I have already posted such as Bonner's book The Evolution of Complexity by Means of Natural Selection covers some of what is often understand by progress.

Books don't count. Peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals do.
You have yet to come up with such reference. And the reason for that is simple: because this claim rests squarely in ATM camp.


Greater complexity emerges by progress from lesser complexity. Globally, the selective pressure to move genes towards stability, fecundity and durability reflects the continual progress produced by the guiding principle of survival of the fittest. I'm happy to continue to look at how such themes are discussed in scientific literature.

Each of the claims you make here have been answered scientifically in this thread, yet you continue to posit them unaltered. One can't help but wonder about your stated willingness to consider how these are discussed in scientific literature.


A possible way to examine the question of global progress is to look at the presence of Fibonacci numbers in nature. In many genotypes, from snails to daisies, nature exerts apparent selective pressure to exhibit Fibonacci numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number#Fibonacci_numbers_in_nature). There is nothing moral about this feature of design, but it does appear to provide an 'end goal' in some respects, through its appearance in unrelated instances.

Or perhaps that is because the Fibonacci sequence provides an efficient way of handling certain tasks?
Besides, the whole "Fibonacci in nature" thing is highly overrated.

[HenrikOlsen]

Or perhaps that is because the Fibonacci sequence provides an efficient way of handling certain tasks?
Besides, the whole "Fibonacci in nature" thing is highly overrated.
A more relevant mathematical concept would be logarithmic spirals, which is the result of growing at a constant angle to the radius.
Constant angle growth is by far the simplest as it's using entirely local information, and since the Fibonacci sequence behavior is a natural consequence of logarithmic spirals is really shouldn't be a surprise that they appear often.

[Robert Tulip]

This is not a peer reviewed paper as per my request, this is a review by the author of his own book. So you'd agree that your objections are ethical in nature, and have nothing to do with science at all? That's not how things work. Concepts are not rejected to emphasise things, they are rejected because there is no support for them. What is an "adaptive phenotype"? You'll have a statistical effect because you start of from a lower bound of "complexity", so over time the mean will become more "complex". But that goes only so far, was the dinosaur age one of less average "complexity" than our age? It has been pointed out ad nauseam that niches are not stable. Books don't count. Peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals do. You have yet to come up with such reference. And the reason for that is simple: because this claim rests squarely in ATM camp. Each of the claims you make here have been answered scientifically in this thread, yet you continue to posit them unaltered. One can't help but wonder about your stated willingness to consider how these are discussed in scientific literature. Or perhaps that is because the Fibonacci sequence provides an efficient way of handling certain tasks? Besides, the whole "Fibonacci in nature" thing is highly overrated.
I'm still mildly gobsmacked by the implication of these comments that our planet has seen no progress in the evolution of humans from microbes, and that to claim that humans are more advanced than microbes conflicts with mainstream science. I can see the idea of progress conflicts with language preferences of biologists, but I am yet to find evidence that evolution does not involve progress. The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis (http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/30) presents an informative case for paradigm shift in biology, but the assumption still seems to be that Darwin's concept of progress is flawed so progress cannot be rehabilitated as a useful concept.

There are quantitative measures of progress, notably the complexity of the individual organism and of the overall ecosystem. So yes, I do think the world is now more complex than it was in the age of the dinosaurs, who lacked space flight, writing and cities.

Scientists reject the idea of progress because it reeks of teleology, which has such a bad track record as unscientific. Any whiff of teleology consigns views to the outer darkness beyond the pale of reason. But historically, it is precisely this notion of evolutionary progress that replaced theories of teleological design. Richard Dawkins' explanation of the evolution of the eye by incremental cumulative adaptation is designed to show how nature could produce the complexity of vision from the dull sensitivity of microbes. The argument that there is no progress to be seen in the evolution of sight seems to conflict with the observation of steady increase in visual capacity.

Maybe the problem is that seeing progress requires interpretation and synthesis of facts, instead of mere accumulation of information? I remain of the view that opposition to the concept of evolutionary progress reflects cultural prejudice rather than intrinsic defects in the idea. Progress is deemed guilty by association because of its links to disproven claims. Modern biology may see no need to assume progress, given that prokaryotes are more diverse than eukaryotes, but it defies common sense (if not scientific reason) to argue that a single virus is just as complex as a single human.

Considering earth as an organic system, progress from simplicity to complexity is seen in the evolution of modern humanity from single celled organisms. The earth is now more complex than it was four billion years ago at the dawn of life. The counter-intuitive assertion that this claim is unscientific goes against received wisdom. I think it remains a legitimate question though, whether the concept of progress helps us to explain evolution.

Evolution contains long periods of stability punctuated by occasional crisis. Ecosystems have in fact tended to grow more complex when they are not disturbed for millions of years, as phenotypes adapt to opportunity to fill new niches by directional mutation. Do you really think a parsimonious explanation of the evolution of life can entirely exclude any concept of progress?

[Strange]

I'm still mildly gobsmacked by the implication of these comments that our planet has seen no progress in the evolution of humans from microbes

Define "progress". Does it just mean "closer to the human model"?


and that to claim that humans are more advanced than microbes conflicts with mainstream science.

Define "advanced". Does it just mean "closer to the human model"?


I can see the idea of progress conflicts with language preferences of biologists, but I am yet to find evidence that evolution does not involve progress.

That may be because you appear to define "progress" as "the result of evolution".

If you see an example of A evolving to B, you call that progress and an increase in complexity.
If you see an example of B evolving to A, you call that progress and an increase in complexity.


There are quantitative measures of progress, notably the complexity of the individual organism and of the overall ecosystem.

Define "complexity" for each of these.


So yes, I do think the world is now more complex than it was in the age of the dinosaurs, who lacked space flight, writing and cities.

Does this mean that complexity is a binary thing: (a) all those species without "space flight, writing and cities" are not complex and (b) all those species with "space flight, writing and cities" are complex?


The argument that there is no progress to be seen in the evolution of sight seems to conflict with the observation of steady increase in visual capacity.

And occasionally, the loss of it. The example of sight seems the weakest possible argument for your case. In fact, it argues against it. Species don't steadily develop greater and greater visual capacity as you claim. They develop the level they need. And they have done this multiple times independently.

This may even mean going "backwards" when they no longer need the visual systems their ancestors had. (If increasing visual capacity defines progress, then losing that capacity must be regress, right?)

Which are more advanced: flies who can sense very small movements? eagles who can see long distances? fish who can see under water? Or humans, well, because we are human?


Maybe the problem is that seeing progress requires interpretation and synthesis of facts, instead of mere accumulation of information?

Maybe the problem is that one cannot define "progress" in an objective and useful way.


The earth is now more complex than it was four billion years ago at the dawn of life.

Is it? How would you quantify that?

[caveman1917]

There are quantitative measures of progress, notably the complexity of the individual organism and of the overall ecosystem.

I hope you understand this discussion is kind of moot unless you provide a definition of complexity?
A definition that will allow us, given an organism, to provide some numerical value of complexity. Which you claim increases over time, even caused by the passage of time.


Maybe the problem is that seeing progress requires interpretation and synthesis of facts, instead of mere accumulation of information?

If you are not giving an unambiguous means of checking a hypothesis given this information, how could you expect anyone to accept that the data would support such hypothesis?
Your claim as given is not falsifiable, and hence not scientific. In other words, nothing we can say, or point out, is going to make you change your mind anyway.

[Robert Tulip]

Define "progress". Does it just mean "closer to the human model"? Define "advanced". Does it just mean "closer to the human model"? That may be because you appear to define "progress" as "the result of evolution". If you see an example of A evolving to B, you call that progress and an increase in complexity. If you see an example of B evolving to A, you call that progress and an increase in complexity. Define "complexity" for each of these. Does this mean that complexity is a binary thing: (a) all those species without "space flight, writing and cities" are not complex and (b) all those species with "space flight, writing and cities" are complex?
And occasionally, the loss of it. The example of sight seems the weakest possible argument for your case. In fact, it argues against it. Species don't steadily develop greater and greater visual capacity as you claim. They develop the level they need. And they have done this multiple times independently. This may even mean going "backwards" when they no longer need the visual systems their ancestors had. (If increasing visual capacity defines progress, then losing that capacity must be regress, right?) Which are more advanced: flies who can sense very small movements? eagles who can see long distances? fish who can see under water? Or humans, well, because we are human? Maybe the problem is that one cannot define "progress" in an objective and useful way. Is it? How would you quantify that?

I hope you understand this discussion is kind of moot unless you provide a definition of complexity? A definition that will allow us, given an organism, to provide some numerical value of complexity. Which you claim increases over time, even caused by the passage of time. If you are not giving an unambiguous means of checking a hypothesis given this information, how could you expect anyone to accept that the data would support such hypothesis? Your claim as given is not falsifiable, and hence not scientific. In other words, nothing we can say, or point out, is going to make you change your mind anyway.

Looking at definitions of complexity, a first set of meanings is from the wikipedia article on complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity): “In physical systems, complexity is a measure of the probability of the state vector of the system. … 'Complex adaptive system' denotes systems which have some or all of the following attributes: The number of parts (and types of parts) in the system and the number of relations between the parts is non-trivial …; The system has memory or includes feedback; The system can adapt itself according to its history or feedback; The relations between the system and its environment are non-trivial or non-linear; The system can be influenced by, or can adapt itself to, its environment; and The system is highly sensitive to initial conditions.”
As I noted earlier (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/106667-Evolution-clarifications?p=1775954#post1775954), this set of meanings of complexity aligns with the view of Ward and Brownlee in Rare Earth that multicellular life is more complex that unicellular life, and that the conditions for such complex life are likely to be far rarer in the universe than the conditions for microbial life. The steady process of evolution on earth towards higher levels of organisation, even with the occasional dip, aligns with the basic evolutionary observation that evolution is cumulative, that mutations that have proven themselves tend to persist, and that new adaptations generally only persist when they confer some new advantage, or at least no net disadvantage. While there are exceptions to this trend, it is reasonable to assert that the movement of life from sea to land, and the evolution of mammals that are robust in a wide variety of niches, displays a steady increase in system complexity.

However, the claim of steady increased complexity over the course of evolution is under challenge. The wikipedia page on evolution of complexity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_complexity) argues vigorously against any concept of progress in evolution. “Properties such as gene content, the number of cell types or morphology [are] used to assess an organism's complexity” giving a quantitative basis to compare the complexity of different organisms, with a rough guide that number of cell types is one measure of complexity. However, the wiki goes on to editorialise as follows: “This observation that complex organisms can be produced from simpler ones has led to the common misperception of evolution being progressive and having a direction that leads towards what are viewed as "higher organisms". Nowadays, this idea of "progression" in evolution is regarded as misleading, with natural selection having no intrinsic direction and organisms selected for either increased or decreased complexity in response to local environmental conditions.”

Despite the vigorous comments against progress, I continue to suspect there is a strong whiff of ideology in the assertion that evolutionary progress is an obsolete concept. Using probability as a measure of complexity, as per the definition above for physical systems, the basic difference between evolutionary change and random mutation is that evolution is supremely improbable if we consider all mutations as equally likely, because only those changes that sit within the narrow window of equal or more effective exploitation of a niche are successful in the long term. Yes, harmless mutations produce sideways drift, but harmful mutations, even where they prove adaptive in the short term, are always maladaptive in the long term, proven by the decline of the species. Such reverse evolution is rare because of the inbuilt developmental nature of evolution.

Evolution has a built-in trend to change in directions that enable more efficient and effective exploitation of biological niches. This directionality is seen in the long term increase of complexity of life from microbes to modern diversity.

The wiki on evolution of complexity also weighs in with the argument that prokaryotes dominate eukaryotes. The argument seems to be that prokaryotes don’t show progress so the whole idea of progress is wrong. I am still struggling to get my head around this claim. My assumption was that apex predators (eg eagles) are the most complex organisms in their ecosystems, simply because change in their numbers can indicate one or more of many different causes, because the apex brings together the diverse parts of the ecosystem, displaying highly complex feedback and sensitivity to conditions.

I continue to suspect that there is an underlying debate here about cultural values. Science places top value on objectivity and fact. Because the idea of progress is often highly subjective, there is a disinclination to accept that it has any objectivity. Biologists would like to have no need of progress, just as physicists have no need of substance. Progress and substance were both used in ways that subsequently proved incorrect. Just as the rejection of substance was part of a broader rejection of Aristotelian physics, rejection of progress is part of a broader rejection of imprecise cultural use of the idea of evolution, with Hegel and Spencer among the bogeymen. However, it is invalid to argue that just because progress has been misused, that it has no valid scientific use. The observation that sight, hearing, size, endurance, etc tend on average to become steadily more adaptive over time due to natural selection seems uncontroversial. Not describing such increased adaptivity as progress seems an excessive scientific sensitivity.

The wiki page evolution of the eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye) comments that Charles Darwin “suggested a gradation from "an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism" to "a moderately high stage of perfection", giving examples of extant intermediate grades of evolution. Darwin's suggestions were soon shown to be correct, and current research is investigating the genetic mechanisms responsible for eye development and evolution.” The terms 'grades of evolution' and ‘development’ used here can be read as synonyms for progress.

[captain swoop]

So which eyes are the most 'progressed' in your opinion?

[Robert Tulip]

So which eyes are the most 'progressed' in your opinion? Those which see most acutely. A pinhole eye is perfect for a nautilus, shown by its durability, but this mode of vision probably restricts the nautilus from expanding (making progress) into other niches. Human eyes are more complex than those of a planarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian), and we can trace the progress of human eyes through Darwin's 'intermediate grades of evolution'. Each genetic lineage can be compared, and the most progressed eyes will be found where selective pressure for good vision caused later members of that lineage (eg eagles) to have more acute vision than earlier members (for argument sake planaria). Human use of tools such as telescopes adds a whole extra dimension, enabling humans to see vastly more than any other organism.

[HenrikOlsen]

So in which way are the eyes of this guy (http://www.nps.gov/ozar/forteachers/images/cave-fish.jpg) more progressed than those of his ancestors?
Because I can guarantee you that they evolved from his ancestors.

[Van Rijn]

I continue to suspect that there is an underlying debate here about cultural values.


The underlying debate is about the attempt to include value judgments in a subject that should be discussed objectively.



Science places top value on objectivity and fact. Because the idea of progress is often highly subjective, there is a disinclination to accept that it has any objectivity.

Objectivity is the point. The issue here is drawing a line between what can be objectively argued, and whatever beliefs you might have that are not objectively supportable. If you use a word like "progress" in a scientific evolutionary context, you need to define it in a way that removes those cultural values you mention, leaving only an objectively usable defininition. Since most people do attach value judgments to the term (and it seems clear you are) that is a likely way to cause misunderstanding and confusion.

Now, if you want to believe in something, and not put it forward as an objective argument, that's fine, but that's not science.

[Robert Tulip]

So in which way are the eyes of this guy (http://www.nps.gov/ozar/forteachers/images/cave-fish.jpg) more progressed than those of his ancestors?
Because I can guarantee you that they evolved from his ancestors.
This example was raised by Nereid earlier in this thread. I responded (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/106667-Evolution-clarifications?p=1777726#post1777726) "Blind fish still have the physiology of eyes, but don't use them much and have regressed in their visual sensitivity while eagles have progressed" and (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/106667-Evolution-clarifications?p=1777872#post1777872) "these animals are an example of increased complexity of an ecosystem, occupying a niche that would otherwise be empty. The more occupied niches, and the greater the optimisation, the more complex the overall system. A cave with fish is more complex than a cave without fish." Strange (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/106667-Evolution-clarifications?p=1777846#post1777846)said "The eyes of the blind fish haven't "regressed" - they have changed to the level of functionality required. This is "progress" for that species. Each species has developed the visual apparatus it needs. You can't say that eagle vision is "better" or "more advanced" when it would be useless for, say, spiders."

A dark cave is an unusual environment. 'Progress' (or evolutionary development) of fish in dark caves benefits from loss of sight because energy is not wasted on useless eyes and is available for other purposes. So, the 'progress' to occupy the vacant niche involves the 'regress' of a previously evolved function that is no use. Whale legs and human appendices are similar.

You can say that eagle vision is better than spider vision in the sense that eagles can see further than spiders can, and also that eagles as apex predators have vastly more complex relations with the rest of their ecosystem, one for one, than spiders do with theirs.

[Cougar]

Evolution contains long periods of stability punctuated by occasional crisis.

That's a pretty accurate view.


Ecosystems have in fact tended to grow more complex when they are not disturbed for millions of years, as phenotypes adapt to opportunity to fill new niches by directional mutation. Do you really think a parsimonious explanation of the evolution of life can entirely exclude any concept of progress?

I think there's a false assumption here when you say phenotypes "adapt" to opportunity. It is the "opportunity," i.e., the local environment, the niche, that determines what mutation is best suited to survive in that niche and reproduce. And the environment is always changing. Fortunately for us, it's not always changing that drastically on this planet. But that environmental change is not particularly directional, other than to obey the fundamental laws of physics, which also tend to be pretty fortunate, obviously.

Some interesting points in wiki's article on fitness landscapes: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape)




An evolving population typically climbs uphill in the fitness landscape, by a series of small genetic changes, until a local optimum is reached. There it remains, unless a rare mutation opens a path to a new, higher fitness peak. Note, however, that at high mutation rates this picture is somewhat simplistic. A population may not be able to climb a very sharp peak if the mutation rate is too high, or it may drift away from a peak it had already found; consequently, reducing the fitness of the system.

The apparent lack of wheeled animals is an example of a fitness peak which is presently inaccessible due to a surrounding valley.

Wheeled animals. Ha!

[Nereid]

That's a pretty accurate view.



I think there's a false assumption here when you say phenotypes "adapt" to opportunity. It is the "opportunity," i.e., the local environment, the niche, that determines what mutation is best suited to survive in that niche and reproduce. And the environment is always changing. Fortunately for us, it's not always changing that drastically on this planet. But that environmental change is not particularly directional, other than to obey the fundamental laws of physics, which also tend to be pretty fortunate, obviously.

Some interesting points in wiki's article on fitness landscapes: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape)




An evolving population typically climbs uphill in the fitness landscape, by a series of small genetic changes, until a local optimum is reached. There it remains, unless a rare mutation opens a path to a new, higher fitness peak. Note, however, that at high mutation rates this picture is somewhat simplistic. A population may not be able to climb a very sharp peak if the mutation rate is too high, or it may drift away from a peak it had already found; consequently, reducing the fitness of the system.

The apparent lack of wheeled animals is an example of a fitness peak which is presently inaccessible due to a surrounding valley.

Wheeled animals. Ha!
We could, very quickly, draw up longs lists of "wheeled animals".

For example, plants which can fix nitrogen (thus doing away with the need to rely upon bacteria).

Animals which can use hydrogen sulphide as their primary energy source.

Shellfish which can produce titanium shells (instead of calcium carbonate ones).

Insects which have CCDs for the light detectors in their eyes.

[Nereid]

So which eyes are the most 'progressed' in your opinion?Those which see most acutely. A pinhole eye is perfect for a nautilus, shown by its durability, but this mode of vision probably restricts the nautilus from expanding (making progress) into other niches. Human eyes are more complex than those of a planarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian), and we can trace the progress of human eyes through Darwin's 'intermediate grades of evolution'. Each genetic lineage can be compared, and the most progressed eyes will be found where selective pressure for good vision caused later members of that lineage (eg eagles) to have more acute vision than earlier members (for argument sake planaria). Human use of tools such as telescopes adds a whole extra dimension, enabling humans to see vastly more than any other organism.
So why eagles? Why not owls (which have far more acute vision in dim light)? Or (some) pigeons (which may be pentachromats, and so have far more acute colour vision)? Or some butterflies (which are also pentachromats), or mantis shrimp (which may have 12-dimensional colour vision)? Or some geckos (which have colour vision in dim light)? Or all the animals, from quite small to quite large, which can see in the UV?

Have mantis shrimp progressed the most, in terms of acuity of vision, of all animals? And if not, why is resolution preferred, as a measure of acuity, over colour discrimination, or sensitivity?

[Nereid]

This example was raised by Nereid earlier in this thread. I responded (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/106667-Evolution-clarifications?p=1777726#post1777726) "Blind fish still have the physiology of eyes, but don't use them much and have regressed in their visual sensitivity while eagles have progressed" and (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/106667-Evolution-clarifications?p=1777872#post1777872) "these animals are an example of increased complexity of an ecosystem, occupying a niche that would otherwise be empty. The more occupied niches, and the greater the optimisation, the more complex the overall system. A cave with fish is more complex than a cave without fish." Strange (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/106667-Evolution-clarifications?p=1777846#post1777846)said "The eyes of the blind fish haven't "regressed" - they have changed to the level of functionality required. This is "progress" for that species. Each species has developed the visual apparatus it needs. You can't say that eagle vision is "better" or "more advanced" when it would be useless for, say, spiders."

A dark cave is an unusual environment. 'Progress' (or evolutionary development) of fish in dark caves benefits from loss of sight because energy is not wasted on useless eyes and is available for other purposes. So, the 'progress' to occupy the vacant niche involves the 'regress' of a previously evolved function that is no use. Whale legs and human appendices are similar.

You can say that eagle vision is better than spider vision in the sense that eagles can see further than spiders can, and also that eagles as apex predators have vastly more complex relations with the rest of their ecosystem, one for one, than spiders do with theirs.
A dark cave is an unusual environment.

Really? Most of the Earth is covered with oceans. Below a few dozen metres, it is dark. While there is certainly a substantial ocean area that is shallower than a few dozen metres, still 'dark water' is perhaps the largest environment, by volume, on the Earth (with the exception of the part of the lithosphere which is the home of many species of bacteria and archaea, down to ~20 km?).

[Strange]

A dark cave is an unusual environment.

Even if true, how is that relevant? Surely, progress is progress, regardless of environment?


'Progress' (or evolutionary development) of fish in dark caves benefits from loss of sight because energy is not wasted on useless eyes and is available for other purposes. So, the 'progress' to occupy the vacant niche involves the 'regress' of a previously evolved function that is no use. Whale legs and human appendices are similar.

So, earlier "progress" was defined - well, described, more accurately - in terms of "a measure of the probability of the state vector of the system". Now it seems to be something to do with energy efficiency. You need to quantify this so you can calculate a value for a few sample species: a bacterium, a fish, a blind fish, an eagle, etc and demonstrate a clear increase in this measure of complexity.


You can say that eagle vision is better than spider vision in the sense that eagles can see further than spiders can

Well, that is one possible definition of "better". Of course, it leaves humans as quite primitive. Is that what you meant to do?


and also that eagles as apex predators have vastly more complex relations with the rest of their ecosystem, one for one, than spiders do with theirs.

Either their eyes are "better" or they are not. What does their position as predators have to do with it?

Can you quantify to what extent, exactly, an eagles relationship with the ecosystem is more complex that a spiders? Intuitively, it seems that a top predator has a simpler relationship: it only has to worry about its prey species whereas a predator lower down the food chain has to worry about finding prey and looking our for predators. So can you describe, precisely, the measure of complexity you are using here so we can put some numbers on each of these?

[Strange]

Human use of tools such as telescopes adds a whole extra dimension, enabling humans to see vastly more than any other organism.

That is quite a thought provoking comment. IF the measure of "progress" is how far a species can see (which, of course, it isn't) then does this make humans more advaned than any other species.... As tool use (and intelligence in general) is an evolved trait, then it must be included in any measure of the abilities of an animal.

Which means that for many measures you might choose (visual acuity, how high an animal can fly, how far they can communicate, how fast they can move, how many other species they can destroy) humans come out on top. Hurray! Does that mean there is progress in evolution and we are the culmination of that? Sadly no. Because you can choose many more measures where, despite our tool making, we lose. Why are the first set of measure more "correct" than the latter set? Hmmm... must be because we come out on top.

So, invent a pyramid see who is at the top. If it's not us, throw it away and pick another one (and tweak the definitions a bit) until you get the result you want. That will make you happy. It just ain't science.

[Strange]

I'm not comfortable with this repeated implication that you are being more intellectually "pure" or "honest" and the the scientific world is somehow driven by some ulterior motive.
The only "ideology" here is that (in science) I prefer the quantifiable and measurable over ad-hoc, arbitrary, opinions. If it was shown that there was a some measurable concept of "progress" in evolution, I wouldn't say "oh no, science must be wrong, I don't like progress", I would say "wow, cool".

[QUOTE]I continue to suspect that there is an underlying debate here about cultural values. Science places top value on objectivity and fact. Because the idea of progress is often highly subjective, there is a disinclination to accept that it has any objectivity.

It is subjective therefore it has no objectivity. Until you can demonstrate otherwise.


Biologists would like to have no need of progress, just as physicists have no need of substance.

Do you have any evidence for that assertion? Biologists have no need of the concept of progress. What they would like, doesn't really come into it. Find some evidence of "progress" and lets see how biologists react!


rejection of progress is part of a broader rejection of imprecise cultural use of the idea of evolution, with Hegel and Spencer among the bogeymen.

This can't be the case for me because I don't know who these people are. :)

ETA: But anyway, what is wrong with rejecting the imprecise (incorrect) use of a scientific term? I object just as much when people start applying the word "quantum" to alternative medicine, consciousness or other new age nonsense. If you are not talking about "evolution" meaning the scientific theory but just a non-technical use of the word, then feel free to equate this to progress, size, freedom, culture or anything else. Just don't bring it up in a science forum.


However, it is invalid to argue that just because progress has been misused, that it has no valid scientific use.

True. But is not because it has been misused, it is because it is arbitrary and subjective.


The observation that sight, hearing, size, endurance, etc tend on average to become steadily more adaptive over time due to natural selection seems uncontroversial.

Not controversial, just wrong. There are examples of species that have evolved from better sighted, better hearing, larger, more active, etc. ancestors.


Not describing such increased adaptivity as progress seems an excessive scientific sensitivity.

Come up with an objective, quantitative and testable measure of "progress" and we can see if it fits with what we observe. Until then you have nothing but opinion, assertions and circular definitions. That is something scientists tend to be a bit "sensitive" about.

[Robert Tulip]

The underlying debate is about the attempt to include value judgments in a subject that should be discussed objectively. Objectivity is the point. The issue here is drawing a line between what can be objectively argued, and whatever beliefs you might have that are not objectively supportable. If you use a word like "progress" in a scientific evolutionary context, you need to define it in a way that removes those cultural values you mention, leaving only an objectively usable defininition. Since most people do attach value judgments to the term (and it seems clear you are) that is a likely way to cause misunderstanding and confusion. Now, if you want to believe in something, and not put it forward as an objective argument, that's fine, but that's not science.

The question at issue is whether the direction of evolutionary development can objectively be described as involving progress.

Comparison between the world now, with myriad highly adapted species, and the world of four billion years ago, where microbial life had just begun to move into available niches, suggests the argument for progress is plausible as a falsifiable scientific hypothesis, as long as progress is defined in a way that is compatible with observation, in terms of a steady average increase in complexity.

There has most definitely been a steady average increase in complexity over the course of life on earth, suggesting that progress in evolution is not just some arbitrary subjective speculation. We see this growth of complexity in the increasing number of branches over time of the tree of life.

A comment of mine here that prompted reaction was that humanity is at the apex of evolution. I thought this was a simple objective observation, given our current status as global apex predator and the many orders of magnitude greater complexity between modern human intelligence and earlier animal development. As this touched a nerve, again it makes me wonder about the cultural framework for debate on evolution. Opponents of evolution have no qualms in seeing humanity at the apex, so it does not surprise me that scientists would react to this idea with great suspicion due to its association with irrational claims.

Stripping out the subjective and erroneous content of these terms should be a useful thing to do. In the evolving competition of worldviews it is better for science to colonize its opponent’s terrain in order to reduce the space available for error to breed. Rather than just reject evolutionary progress and human exceptionalism outright as nothing but metaphysics, and thereby abandon these ideas to the enemies of reason and knowledge, there is scope to assess what objective content these ideas have.

As to my subjective opinion, I think that memetic evolutionary progress is an urgent matter if we are to curtail the mass extinction event that humans are inflicting on our planet. A logical conclusion of denial of progress in evolution could be to accept that it does not matter if humans go extinct. This may be acceptable for some disembodied pure objectivity, but it can hardly be acceptable for any subjective human being with an interest in the survival of the species.

[Strange]

A comment of mine here that prompted reaction was that humanity is at the apex of evolution. I thought this was a simple objective observation, given our current status as global apex predator and the many orders of magnitude greater complexity between modern human intelligence and earlier animal development.

Part of the problem is that you appear to be blind to how subjective this statement is. Humanity is only at the apex for a limited number of defintions of "apex". You think yours is the "right" one which you believe makes it an objective statement. But if someone else chooses a different apex, they will be firmly convinced that they are being objective in disagreeing with you.


As this touched a nerve

Sigh. Why is it that everyone with an ATM, fringe science, belief think that any disagreement must be emotinal.


Opponents of evolution have no qualms in seeing humanity at the apex, so it does not surprise me that scientists would react to this idea with great suspicion due to its association with irrational claims.

But this is not the reason why it is viewed with suspicion by scientists. It might be a reason why journalists, commentators or philosphers view it with suspicion but I don't really know.


Stripping out the subjective and erroneous content of these terms should be a useful thing to do.

Agreed.


In the evolving competition of worldviews it is better for science to colonize its opponent’s terrain in order to reduce the space available for error to breed.

Science doesn't choose a position because it opposes someone elses, or to compete for worldviews, but based on evidence and testable theories. And, yes, I know I am idealising. There will always be deviations from the path for idealogical reasons (eg. Lysenkoism) but these are short lived because, ultimately, the scientifc method wins.


Rather than just reject evolutionary progress and human exceptionalism outright as nothing but metaphysics, and thereby abandon these ideas to the enemies of reason and knowledge, there is scope to assess what objective content these ideas have.

I wouldn't reject the idea that humans are exceptional. I just don't think that is evidence for anything about evolution.

You have failed to produce any objective content so we are just going round in circles (not making any progress :))


As to my subjective opinion, I think that memetic evolutionary progress is an urgent matter if we are to curtail the mass extinction event that humans are inflicting on our planet.

"memetic evolutionary progress" ? Hmmm....

Personally, I think the concept of "memes" is serious abuse of the concept of evolution. Just as bad as aggresive management types using "survival of the fittest" to justify their tyrranical management style (but we had better not go down that road again!)


A logical conclusion of denial of progress in evolution could be to accept that it does not matter if humans go extinct. This may be acceptable for some disembodied pure objectivity, but it can hardly be acceptable for any subjective human being with an interest in the survival of the species.

Interestingly, we are probably on the same side on that. There are occasional comments by those who claim we shouldn't worry about global warming, implying that it doesn't matter if some species including humans become extinct - life goes on. I really, really disagree with that. We have a duty to make sure that mankind survives and, as part of that, to protect the rest of the biosphere. But that is getting somewhat off topic.

[HenrikOlsen]

The question at issue is whether the direction of evolutionary development can objectively be described as involving progress.
No, the discussion is whether you're able to make a definition of the word "progress" that doesn't involve "what evolution causes", and then show that evolution always cause progress as defined.

Similarly, the problem with "survival of the fittest" is to find a definition of "fittest" that doesn't involve "evolutionary advantage", and then show that evolution works because of the survival of the fittest under that definition.

BTW, please define "Apex".

[transreality]

There has been one broad direction of variation over time, at least among macroscopic lifeforms. This a move towards species being favoured that are buffered from the environment. Early animals were typically filter feeders exposed to the environment, such as brachipods. More modern animals are able to seal their shells, protecting themselves from variations in temperature, salinity or pH, or have other strategies from protecting themselves from variations in the environment, including things like fur, feathers, or the ability to build shelters. Probably what is driving this is the frequent mass extinctions that wipe out unprotected species, leaving the odd one that has a strategy for survival in conditions quite different from for which it evolved.

An average increase in genomic complexity (among macroscopic lifeforms) could simply be result of the accumulation of variation by mutation, necessary to acquire the genes capable of producing these results, by any number of various means.

[Strange]

An average increase in genomic complexity (among macroscopic lifeforms) could simply be result of the accumulation of variation by mutation, necessary to acquire the genes capable of producing these results, by any number of various means.

Except there is no general increase in complexity there, either. For example, the genome of what has just been sequenced. This is five times larger than the human genome. So we are "less evolved" than wheat!

[Robert Tulip]

Except there is no general increase in complexity there, either. For example, the genome of what has just been sequenced. This is five times larger than the human genome. So we are "less evolved" than wheat!This misses the point that genomes today tend to be more complex than the genomes of their own ancestors, honed by millions of years of cumulative adaptation. As well as sheer complication, complexity is a function of the likelihood of a situation occurring randomly. In evolution, nature exerts constant selective pressure for a genome to adapt or disappear. Each genome builds its entire genetic history into its structure, and thereby becomes steadily more complex.

[MM Thomas]

I found your entry quite helpful and interesting. I understand the need of academic narcissism of some to criticize that your post is elementary and unnecessary, but I'm glad I found it. The issue about male nipples goes back to the Middle Ages when scholars argued their necessity. The thought was that God did nothing without a purpose and so male nipples must have some purpose, or God was irrational or he didn't exist. I think the best most agreed upon solution was that if ever women became unable to nurse, men would be already equipped to step in and do the job.

I'm interested in the question of nipples because I wonder how we can be sure if something has a purpose or if it's just a thing that exists and has no purpose and perhaps never did have purpose. Human females have swollen breasts, which I think don't exist elsewhere in nature. Female apes, dogs, cats, etc. swell with milk, but they don't have the noticeable fatty tissue of humans. Now, we can look for a purpose for breasts, a current purpose or one of the past that is no longer useful, or we might think they are just accidents. That is, human breasts happen to have appeared and got spread through the gene pool for no purpose. So, I wonder how we can know whether something really has purpose or if we're just making up purposes that don't exist?

[HenrikOlsen]

One possible explanation for the female brests is that they're a consequence of the upright posture which resulted in a shift of most likely to conceive mating position to be lying down, front to front, which meant that the already existing sexual signal of big buttocks (signalling large pelvis, ie. easier childbirth, and being well fed, signalling ability to feed the children) which the male found attractive, caused a selection for bulging breasts as they stimulate the same attractiveness trigger.

[Ronald Brak]

Something that doesn't turn up until puberty is generally a secondary sexual characteristic. That is, something that's used for reproductive signalling. If boobs or body hair or beards were helpful for survival then children would have them too instead of putting them off until reproductive age. Secondary sexual characteristics don't have to 'make sense' any more than modern fashions or putting a stud through your tongue makes sense. It's just a way of attracting a decent mate. Or possibly an indecent one if you're that way inclined.

[MM Thomas]

There was a debate, oh . . . about a generation ago, between Desmond Morris and Elaine Morgan. Morris argued that breasts developed to incite lust. Morgan replied that we don’t have to think nature reformed women to encourage men; rather that whatever accruements women developed (even accidentally) would attract men.
It’s true that breasts cause men to lust, but it’s not so clear that breasts evolved for that purpose. It doesn’t matter what features women have, men are attracted because women have them. If women developed huge bony crowns on top of their heads, men would feel lust at seeing them. (No doubt women would drape them in lace, forbid us from touching them, privately boast about whose is largest, etc.)
So, I don’t think my question has been answered. How can we know if something develops accidentally, without any purpose whatsoever, or if it has a purpose that is currently unknown?

[Robert Tulip]

How can we know if something develops accidentally, without any purpose whatsoever, or if it has a purpose that is currently unknown?Breasts evolved through sexual selection like peacock tails. It is unusual that human females go in for ornament and display when in most species the female is drab.
From wikipedia:
"Sexual selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection) is the theory proposed by Charles Darwin that states that certain evolutionary traits can be explained by intraspecific competition. Darwin defined sexual selection as the effects of the "struggle between the individuals of one sex, generally the males, for the possession of the other sex". Biologists today distinguish between "male to male combat" or "Intrasexual Selection" (it is usually males who fight each other), "mate choice" or "Intersexual Selection" (usually female choice of male mates) and sexual conflict. Traits selected by male combat are called secondary sexual characteristics (including horns, antlers, etc.) and sometimes referred to as "weapons"; and traits selected by mate choice are called "ornaments". ...arbitrary female preference for some aspect of male morphology—initially increased by genetic drift—creates, in due course, selection for males with the appropriate ornament. This is known as the sexy son hypothesis. Alternatively, genes that enable males to develop impressive ornaments or fighting ability may simply show off greater disease resistance or a more efficient metabolism, features that also benefit females. This idea is known as the good genes hypothesis."

[MM Thomas]

I don't agree. Peacock tails are easy to assess, since we can determine which males will be more successful with the peahens. Not so with breasts. Can we determine which females will be successful with males given the size and shape of breasts? No, in fact, we'd be hard-pressed to add breast size and shape as factors with much significance regarding the odds of her reproduction. It seems that even the lack of noticeable breasts doesn't prevent those women from reproducing.

[Cougar]

There has been one broad direction of variation over time, at least among macroscopic lifeforms. This a move towards species being favoured that are buffered from the environment.

This makes sense, since life is always in contact with its environment, and separate from it, it must be generally robust enough to be able to suffer minor 'perturbations' without significant degradation. Any environment is going to have its share of perturbations.

Apparently, there exist environments in the Universe that are quasi-stable long enough to allow the long-term survival of such macroscopic lifeforms. :)

[Robert Tulip]

I don't agree. Peacock tails are easy to assess, since we can determine which males will be more successful with the peahens. Not so with breasts. Can we determine which females will be successful with males given the size and shape of breasts? No, in fact, we'd be hard-pressed to add breast size and shape as factors with much significance regarding the odds of her reproduction. It seems that even the lack of noticeable breasts doesn't prevent those women from reproducing.

A small tail does not prevent a peacock from reproducing. But the hens prefer big tails. It just seems to turn them on. Women's breasts have probably evolved to match male desires.

[swampyankee]

Given the emphasis on large breast size in popular culture -- at least US popular culture -- it's hard not consider that many males consider large breast size to be a major point of attraction, which is the entire point of a characteristic evolved for sexual display.

[MM Thomas]

Does every biological feature in every species serve a purpose or are some features merely accidental? By "accidental" I mean something that persists throughout the species but has no purpose.

[Robert Tulip]

Does every biological feature in every species serve a purpose or are some features merely accidental? By "accidental" I mean something that persists throughout the species but has no purpose.Non-coding DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA) evolved because it could, but much of it appears to serve no benefit to the organism, showing no evidence of selective pressure. See also Junk DNA is still Junk (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/junk_dna_is_still_junk.php)

[MM Thomas]

So, we could apply the rationale of natural selection negatively, i.e., non-coding DNA persists not because it adds a benefit, but because it doesn't kill us. Right?

[Robert Tulip]

So, we could apply the rationale of natural selection negatively, i.e., non-coding DNA persists not because it adds a benefit, but because it doesn't kill us. Right?
It seems there is space within the genome for DNA that makes no difference to the adaptivity of the organism. 'Not killing us' is an extreme point for stuff that has no effect at all. Non-coding DNA does not produce proteins, but some of it appears to evolve in ways that display selective pressure that science still does not understand. Maybe it is a bit like an attic that contains a pile of forgotten junk that no one worries about because the rest of the house has enough space. The junk is handed down to each generation. DNA that rides for free mutates by random drift rather than in the directional path produced by natural selection. I don't know, but perhaps if the random drift of junk ever reached a point that made a difference, selective pressure would kick in.

[HenrikOlsen]

I don't agree. Peacock tails are easy to assess, since we can determine which males will be more successful with the peahens. Not so with breasts. Can we determine which females will be successful with males given the size and shape of breasts? No, in fact, we'd be hard-pressed to add breast size and shape as factors with much significance regarding the odds of her reproduction. It seems that even the lack of noticeable breasts doesn't prevent those women from reproducing.
Sorry, that's an ID straw man.

It's enough that big breasted women have a slightly larger chance of getting picked for reproduction by the males slightly more likely to produce viable offspring for breasts to become bigger over time.


Does every biological feature in every species serve a purpose or are some features merely accidental? By "accidental" I mean something that persists throughout the species but has no purpose.
There are many accidental features, our design of one orifice for both eating and breathing is a common example. Once established it was a good enough solution that couldn't be undone because there's no gradual changes away from it that aren't competitively worse off there's only changes to compensate.
There are others that used to have a function but no longer do, they tend to stick around for a long time because there's no selection against it.

The mammal eye has an interesting accidental feature which isn't there in the octopus eye, showing them to have evolved from scratch completely independently, the mammal eye has the nerves in front of the light sensing cells while the occi eyes have them behind. With the earliest, primitive versions of the eye, being only one light sensitive cell in a pit, which way around it were turned had little effect on competitiveness given the vast advantage of having it at all, but that accidental orientation was locked down once the improvement of multiple cells happened.