Natural selection

[Megalodon]

Why not?!

That would be the long answer, wouldn't it?

By developing things like medicine, social structures like welfare or charity and vast technological innovations to help us live in any environment; and at the same time developing new ways of killing vast amounts of the population, we surpassed the "survival of the best adapted".

 

[vidiviciveni]

If Darwinistic theory is right how come it is the weak and oor that tend to breed and propagate the most whereas the rich and healthy are a minority and have few offspring?

Err... is it because there are billions of weak & (p)oor and just several millions of rich & healthy... do the math, and maybe just think about it for a second!

 

[Wowbagger]

I was asking the question of Megalodon, who stated we can't apply Darwinian theory to human societies.

Megalodon was wrong. (and arrogant in his presuming the OP does not deserve a long answer. We at JREF are here to educate. Not to mock.)

Lots of books apply Darwin's theories to society:

Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond is one of my favorites. And, it is a book well respected among most scientists. It plays out like "survival of the fittest enviornmental factors".

Even before that, the Darwinian behavior of memetics was popularized in the end of Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene, which helps us build better models of how societial ideas can form and spread.

Recently, Michael Shermer published Mind of the Market, which, in part, applies Darwin's theories to economics. The results are models that could better predict economic markets, as they emerge in various societies. (Though, this angle is still in its early stages of development.)

Those are just a few examples, off the top of my head.

I challenge anyone to come up with some aspect of life, that can't be explained by Evolutionary processes.

 

[idunno]

Err... is it because there are billions of weak & (p)oor and just several millions of rich & healthy... do the math, and maybe just think about it for a second!

huh!!!

 

[Wowbagger]

By developing things like medicine, social structures like welfare or charity and vast technological innovations to help us live in any environment; and at the same time developing new ways of killing vast amounts of the population, we surpassed the "survival of the best adapted".

What we are doing is changing the course of what counts as "survival of the best adapted". It would be hubris and blindness to suggest we are "surpassing" the process.

Read my previous post, with examples of books you can read on the matter.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By developing things like medicine, social structures like welfare or charity and vast technological innovations to help us live in any environment; and at the same time developing new ways of killing vast amounts of the population, we surpassed the "survival of the best adapted".

Not so. It only means we changed the environment which determines what is "most fit" or "best adapted".

Fitness, defined by reproductive success really doesn't mean what many people seem to think it means. If a trait is present in greater numbers in subsequent generations, it is a fit trait. In another environment, maybe something that is perceived as weakness or infirmity would prevent reproductive success, but in this environment (that includes all the human-made social structures that you mention) there is nothing acting to select against these "weak" traits, so they are not "unfit".

Reproductive success refers to the success of a trait in the next generation only. (Did the "selfish gene" manage to make many copies of itself in the next generation or fewer or none?) It doesn't have anything to do with being healthy or happy or "successful" in any other way.

Maybe it's true that the minimum qualities of a human that lead to reproductive success aren't the noblest or most flattering (maybe), but that's irrelevant.

 

[plumjam]

My interpretation, is that he thinks he spots a flaw in Darwin's theory: If survival of the fittest is true, then (according to his views) why are do many unfit people reproduce so much?

I answered by pointing out that it is reproductive fitness that ultimately matters. And, a lot of factors go into that, not just the subjective notions of 'fitness' we humans often notice.


To add to that:
The rich and healthy have adapted a survival strategy, where they don't need to reproduce as much, because their children are more likely going to be healthy and survive.

The sick and poor have adapted a strategy where they just try to have as many children as possible, in hopes that some of them will survive.

That summary also over-simplies the matter. There are a lot of complicated other aspects involved. But, my point is: Darwin's theory helps us develop explanations for the observations in the opening post. The observations are not really flaws, at all.

We humans have the ability to change the course of our own fitness landscape, more so (it seems) than any other life forms.

Good answer.

How about human beings who either
1. choose a celibate life, or
2. have sex but always use contraception/abortion in order to never have children
3. are born homosexual

If the selfish gene theory is true, and determinism is true, I fail to see how such phenomena can possibly arise. Yet the above 3 persist, and have persisted, for generation after generation.
People covered by any of those 3 cannot possibly be given birth to.
Yet they are, so there's something wrong with the theory.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That would be the long answer, wouldn't it?

By developing things like medicine, social structures like welfare or charity and vast technological innovations to help us live in any environment; and at the same time developing new ways of killing vast amounts of the population, we surpassed the "survival of the best adapted".

No we didn't.

Perhaps we changed what 'adaptation' means in relation to humans, but there is no way to 'escape Darwinian forces'.

If a comet hits the earth tomorrow, will people die? How have we 'escaped' any 'survival of the best adapted'? The whole phrase 'survival of the best adapted' simply means those who survive, survive. That's really it.

Survive to reproduce and you pass on your genes; don't pass on your genes and those genes are not part of upcoming generations.

ETA:

This whole idea of the 'rich' being the most fit is just dumb. Fitness refers to 's/he who leaves behind the most babies', not 'he who has the most resources'. You only need the requisite number of resources to leave behind lots of babies to be 'adapted to the environment'.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Try this one, idunno: the number of people who can write good poetry or compose wonderful music or play chess extremely well are relatively few. Why is this?

Surely they are superior minds, so why don't they have better reproductive success?

Such an observation is just as valid a criticism of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Which is to say a poor one that mostly shows a poor understanding of evolution by natural selection.

The problem is that this argument is lumping various notions of "superiority" in with "fittest" or "more fit".

And how does one define fitness in terms of natural selection?

 

[Gate2501]

Good answer.

How about human beings who either
1. choose a celibate life, or
2. have sex but always use contraception/abortion in order to never have children
3. are born homosexual

If the selfish gene theory is true, and determinism is true, I fail to see how such phenomena can possibly arise. Yet the above 3 persist, and have persisted, for generation after generation.
People covered by any of those 3 cannot possibly be given birth to.
Yet they are, so there's something wrong with the theory.

This is exactly what Iamme does. You are misrepresenting the Theory and using that straw man to defend your own beliefs. Natural Selection will not FORCE you to go humping anything that moves. It can only try it's hardest

Determinism could still lead someone to be celibate, or not want children. Determinism just means that effects have a tangible cause. As in the effect of man A being celibate is caused by his irrational belief in god which was in turn caused by many other effects!

Homosexuals are genetically *defective*(I know that I could find a nicer way to say this...sorry) as far as the system of natural selection and reproduction are concerned, but hey, there are plenty of kids to adopt!

 

[plumjam]

This is exactly what Iamme does. You are misrepresenting the Theory and using that straw man to defend your own beliefs. Natural Selection will not FORCE you to go humping anything that moves. It can only try it's hardest

Determinism could still lead someone to be celibate, or not want children. Determinism just means that effects have a tangible cause. As in the effect of man A being celibate is caused by his irrational belief in god which was in turn caused by many other effects!

Homosexuals are genetically *defective*(I know that I could find a nicer way to say this...sorry) as far as the system of natural selection and reproduction are concerned, but hey, there are plenty of kids to adopt!

How does the supposed homosexual genetic defect manage to get passed on to the next generation?

And no, in a Darwinian deterministic world I cannot see the physical origin of a brain state that tells the gonads to never do the bad thing with a lovely big lady.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

How does the supposed homosexual genetic defect manage to get passed on to the next generation?

And no, in a Darwinian deterministic world I cannot see the physical origin of a brain state that tells the gonads to never do the bad thing with a lovely big lady.

It isn't housed where you think it is. It is more complex than a simple gene change in a homosexual.

In other words, you are thinking about it all wrong.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If the selfish gene theory is true, and determinism is true, I fail to see how such phenomena can possibly arise.

Who says determinism is true? Who says it's a prerequisite for natural selection?


Another example: imagine that there's a gene that controls something absolutely essential to reproduction. An mutation results in a copy of that gene (an allele) that causes a failure in something essential for reproduction.

The way things are now, that allele will have zero reproductive success. It will disappear the next generation because having offspring with that allele (by inheritance) is impossible.

Aha!--but what if humans intervene. What if we use our free will and technology to clone that individual. Now there is one copy of that allele in the next generation. This is not reproductive success because 1) there is only 1 copy of that allele compared to 6.7 billion copies of the normal one and 2) it will disappear the next generation unless you clone that offspring.

Aha! What if cloning from somatic cells becomes such an accessible technology that it equals or even exceeds regular reproduction. What if almost all the babies are born as the result of cloning? Surely then we have done an end-around natural selection?

No.

Again, as Wowbagger said, all we've done is changed the environment to redefine what is "fit". (I see other problems in such a scenario--like a loss in variation in the gene pool, but let's disregard all that for this hypothetical.) If that allele that makes for a dysfunctional reproductive system becomes irrelevant to reproduction, then it will no longer be selected against, and it can no longer be said to be "unfit". Natural selection is still at work.

Now if there's no advantage to that allele, I don't think it would ever have tremendous reproductive success since it started out in a 1:6.7 billion ratio in the gene pool.

Let's hypothesize something else in that allele (or in human society) that actually favors the allele for dysfunctional reproductive system (I have no idea what that is--maybe it also causes substantially greater longevity for some reason, and in this future society you can make clones of yourself as long as you're alive). In that case, the allele that in today's world is definitely unfit would become the fitter of the two possible states of that gene. In that case, over time it would radiate through the population and be the more common one.

 

[Wowbagger]

How about human beings who either
1. choose a celibate life, or
2. have sex but always use contraception/abortion in order to never have children
3. are born homosexual

No one said evolution was perfect.

It is not impossible for the emergent phenotype of genes, from relatively-fit parents to result in reproductively unfit offspring. Just like it is not impossible for a "lemon" to come out of a car factory, no matter how careful and precise the assembly-line system was.

Investigations into the mechanisms of Evolution show us that different combinations of genes could yield results parents might not expect: Various diseases (where the parents were not diseased (though they could be carriers)), propensity to like computers (where the parents are technophobes), and a propensity to not want to have children.

Some of the factors are societal, as well. The evolution of memes help us explain how ideas that lead to celibacy could short-circuit the natural urge to reproduce, in some cases.

More about homosexuals: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB403.html

Most ants born will never reproduce, yet evolution explains their existence quite well: The non-reproductive workers ensure their genes will at least be passed on in their queen's offspring.

People covered by any of those 3 cannot possibly be given birth to.

So they just popped out of nowhere?!


Remember: Evolution is NOT a ladder. It is a bush. Not all branches are going to grow more branches.

 

[plumjam]

It isn't housed where you think it is. It is more complex than a simple gene change in a homosexual.

In other words, you are thinking about it all wrong.

Ok, so I'm wrong. What is your explanation of homosexuality vis-a-vis Darwinism, then?

 

[Gate2501]

Ok, so I'm wrong. What is your explanation of homosexuality vis-a-vis Darwinism, then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation

Is a good, easy to understand place to start.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ok, so I'm wrong. What is your explanation of homosexuality vis-a-vis Darwinism, then?

I know the question wasn't put to me, but I did already address issues like this. I'd say it's the same thing as applies to many other human traits--how do you explain poetry writing and the ability to compose (and even appreciate music)?

Humans evolved as social animals (and we have relatively near relatives in the other 2 species of chimpanzees to compare to). Humans evolved a lot of traits that were beneficial for such an environment (facial recognition, pattern recognition, the ability to deduce intention, language, etc.) A by product of these traits explains a LOT of human endeavors.

Homosexual behavior is pretty common in mammals and other primates. It might have an advantage for the survival of the village or clan (as with altruism in humans and mimicry in non-poisonous animals it could be explained by helping the reproductive success of closely related members at the "cost" of the individual). I suspect that it's something that is merely not selected against--like most human endeavors. (I juggle--and I doubt that juggling has ever caused greater or lesser reproductive success. Does that mean that natural selection can't explain juggling? Juggling makes use of structures and functions that were selected for--arm swinging patterns that use the same motions as arm swinging while walking, a brain that can learn, etc.)

Is that what you're after?

 

[plumjam]

Who says determinism is true?

From experience I would say a minimum of 90% of the people in this forum.

Who says it's a prerequisite for natural selection?

A similar percentage.

There's a choice. Determinism and Darwinism cannot both be simultaneously true - any look at human society will tell you that. One of them may be true. Both of them may be false.

Another example: imagine that there's a gene that controls something absolutely essential to reproduction. An mutation results in a copy of that gene (an allele) that causes a failure in something essential for reproduction.

The way things are now, that allele will have zero reproductive success. It will disappear the next generation because having offspring with that allele (by inheritance) is impossible.

Aha!--but what if humans intervene. What if we use our free will and technology to clone that individual. Now there is one copy of that allele in the next generation. This is not reproductive success because 1) there is only 1 copy of that allele compared to 6.7 billion copies of the normal one and 2) it will disappear the next generation unless you clone that offspring.

Aha! What if cloning from somatic cells becomes such an accessible technology that it equals or even exceeds regular reproduction. What if almost all the babies are born as the result of cloning? Surely then we have done an end-around natural selection?

No.

Again, as Wowbagger said, all we've done is changed the environment to redefine what is "fit". (I see other problems in such a scenario--like a loss in variation in the gene pool, but let's disregard all that for this hypothetical.) If that allele that makes for a dysfunctional reproductive system becomes irrelevant to reproduction, then it will no longer be selected against, and it can no longer be said to be "unfit". Natural selection is still at work.

I understand, but none of that is natural selection. You've changed from natural selection to human selection. Intelligent design, if you like

Now if there's no advantage to that allele, I don't think it would ever have tremendous reproductive success since it started out in a 1:6.7 billion ratio in the gene pool.

Let's hypothesize something else in that allele (or in human society) that actually favors the allele for dysfunctional reproductive system (I have no idea what that is--maybe it also causes substantially greater longevity for some reason, and in this future society you can make clones of yourself as long as you're alive). In that case, the allele that in today's world is definitely unfit would become the fitter of the two possible states of that gene. In that case, over time it would radiate through the population and be the more common one.

Possibly. But only thanks to the intelligent design of the humans involved in the choices being made. At which point the whole Darwinian natural selection theory is no longer applicable, so you're actually talking about something else.. a different selective 'system' (conscious free will)

Nor does any of that cast any light on homosexuality (I'm not sure if you meant it to or not)

 

[aggle-rithm]

If Darwinistic theory is right how come it is the weak and oor that tend to breed and propagate the most whereas the rich and healthy are a minority and have few offspring?

Several reasons:

1. In many parts of the world, the poor have an economic incentive to procreate. While in developed countries, children are considered a drain on resources, in undeveloped countries they are often considered an asset (more hands to work the fields).

Even in developed countries there can be more of an incentive for the lower classes to procreate than the rich. For instance, some may view more children as a tax shelter. Until recently, the welfare system in the US rewarded prodigious reproduction handsomely. The rich have had no such incentive.

2. Rich people tend to plan better. Therefore they don't procreate beyond their ability to handle their offspring, either financially, practically, or emotionally.

3. The ability to acquire vast wealth is rare and (apparently) not particularly hereditary.

 

[Wowbagger]

Determinism and Darwinism cannot both be simultaneously true

Darwinism is ultimately quite deterministic. Any role "randomness" plays is often exaggerated.

There may be some random elements in mutation, but the selection process is entirely non-random. Natural selection has a way of ironing out the "random" bumps, to such a great degree, that predictions can often be made about the results.

We often describe mutations as "random", but mostly because they are unconsciously indifferent to the survival of the life form. We know that they are ultimately caused by something: cosmic rays hitting atoms or whatever.

It is certainly inaccurate to claim Darwinism means life is the result of random chance or happy accidents.

Evolution is neither chance nor design. It is an algorithm. And, a practically inevitable one, at that.