|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 1, 2023 10:10:28 GMT
I'm not informed on this subject, so this is very much a beginner's question.
It has been pointed out that it is more difficult to kill a single cell organism than it is to kill an animal. So, it doesn't make much sense to say the purpose of evolution is survival.
If I recall correctly from school, single cell organisms replicate by binary fission. This seems far more efficient than the mating procedures of more 'advanced' species. So, it doesn't make much sense to say the purpose is to replicate.
I'm aware of a theory of evolution that addresses these issues. But it is from a philosopher, not a scientist. Furthermore, it is more than a hundred years old.
What is the current theory? Why does evolution occur? Is it the result of random exposure to radioactivity, or something along those lines?
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 1, 2023 10:29:33 GMT
It's genetic mutation.
Positive mutations which lead to a higher survival rate get passed on through reproduction unsuccessful ones don't.
The giraffe with the longest neck sees the lion before his buddies and is therefore more likely to survive predation and go on to breed more longer necked giraffes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 1, 2023 10:31:42 GMT
It's genetic mutation. Positive mutations which lead to a higher survival rate get passed on through reproduction unsuccessful ones don't. The giraffe with the longest neck sees the lion before his buddies and is therefore more likely to survive predation and go on to breed more longer necked giraffes. Yes, that makes sense among more advanced species. What does a single cell organism achieve by evolving into something that is more vulnerable, though? Or was that evolution merely random - the result of exposure to radioactivity, for example. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 1, 2023 10:41:28 GMT
It has been pointed out that it is more difficult to kill a single cell organism than it is to kill an animal. So, it doesn't make much sense to say the purpose of evolution is survival. The purpose of evolution is something humans add with their minds. Our experience is of coming up with bright ideas and trying to make reality do what we imagine. Evolution is more like an assault course that kills off failures. The competitors left standing will be better at assault courses without any need to measure or intend anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 1, 2023 10:46:32 GMT
It's genetic mutation. Positive mutations which lead to a higher survival rate get passed on through reproduction unsuccessful ones don't. The giraffe with the longest neck sees the lion before his buddies and is therefore more likely to survive predation and go on to breed more longer necked giraffes. Yes, that makes sense among more advanced species. What does a single cell organism achieve by evolving into something that is more vulnerable, though? Or was that evolution merely random - the result of exposure to radioactivity, for example. You can imagine two cells in close proximity getting an advantage from the lucky break that one generates an environment the other prefers. Multiply this again and again and add tens of millions of years and you start seeing whole clumps of specialised cells appear. Edit - i have thought of an analogy - It is far easier to destroy a chemical compound than destroy an atomic element. However, if you have atomic elements, chemical compounds are inevitable - it's a bit like that? It's also a matter of what humans notice. If you were to count by the number of individual organisms, I would imagine single cell organisms are winning hands down over multicellular organisms - it's just we don't see the little buggers |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 1, 2023 10:50:58 GMT
It's genetic mutation. Positive mutations which lead to a higher survival rate get passed on through reproduction unsuccessful ones don't. The giraffe with the longest neck sees the lion before his buddies and is therefore more likely to survive predation and go on to breed more longer necked giraffes. Yes, that makes sense among more advanced species. What does a single cell organism achieve by evolving into something that is more vulnerable, though? Or was that evolution merely random - the result of exposure to radioactivity, for example. It's a numbers game. The higher the population the higher the chance of mutation. The more mutations the higher the chance of a positive trait. We saw this with the increasing speed of new variants of the covid virus as it spread across the world. The positive traits which prospered meant the virus became more easily spread yet less deadly leading to more and more cases. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 1, 2023 10:57:32 GMT
It has been pointed out that it is more difficult to kill a single cell organism than it is to kill an animal. So, it doesn't make much sense to say the purpose of evolution is survival. The purpose of evolution is something humans add with their minds. Our experience is of coming up with bright ideas and trying to make reality do what we imagine. Evolution is more like an assault course that kills off failures. The competitors left standing will be better at assault courses without any need to measure or intend anything. I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the 'survival of the fittest theory' is something that human beings have imposed to make sense of evolution? When you say that it is 'like an assault course that kills off failures', you appear to subscribe to the survival of the fittest theory. My problem is that this doesn't address the fact that it is more difficult to kill a single cell organism than a more 'advanced' being. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 1, 2023 10:59:43 GMT
Yes, that makes sense among more advanced species. What does a single cell organism achieve by evolving into something that is more vulnerable, though? Or was that evolution merely random - the result of exposure to radioactivity, for example. It's a numbers game. The higher the population the higher the chance of mutation. The more mutations the higher the chance of a positive trait. We saw this with the increasing speed of new variants of the covid virus as it spread across the world. The positive traits which prospered meant the virus became more easily spread yet less deadly leading to more and more cases. Like Mags' post, this also makes sense. But only up to a point. Why would a single cell organism evolve into something that is easier to kill? The single cell organisms on the ocean's floor were much less vulnerable than the fish they evolved into. The gradual 'evolution' into fish seems like counter-evolution more than evolution, if the purpose of evolution is survival. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 1, 2023 11:05:06 GMT
The purpose of evolution is something humans add with their minds. Our experience is of coming up with bright ideas and trying to make reality do what we imagine. Evolution is more like an assault course that kills off failures. The competitors left standing will be better at assault courses without any need to measure or intend anything. I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the 'survival of the fittest theory' is something that human beings have imposed to make sense of evolution? When you say that it is 'like an assault course that kills off failures', you appear to subscribe to the survival of the fittest theory. My problem is that this doesn't address the fact that it is more difficult to kill a single cell organism than a more 'advanced' being. Is it though? A bird can eat a slug more easily than a slug can eat a bird. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 1, 2023 11:06:40 GMT
It's a numbers game. The higher the population the higher the chance of mutation. The more mutations the higher the chance of a positive trait. We saw this with the increasing speed of new variants of the covid virus as it spread across the world. The positive traits which prospered meant the virus became more easily spread yet less deadly leading to more and more cases. Like Mags' post, this also makes sense. But only up to a point. Why would a single cell organism evolve into something that is easier to kill? The single cell organisms on the ocean's floor were much less vulnerable than the fish they evolved into. The gradual evolution into fish seems like counter-evolution more than evolution, if the purpose of evolution is survival. This is very vague. I am likely killing single cell organisms as i breath in and out. However, i would not be at such a keen advantage vs a group of cells that's also a tiger. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 1, 2023 11:07:42 GMT
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the 'survival of the fittest theory' is something that human beings have imposed to make sense of evolution? When you say that it is 'like an assault course that kills off failures', you appear to subscribe to the survival of the fittest theory. My problem is that this doesn't address the fact that it is more difficult to kill a single cell organism than a more 'advanced' being. Is it though? A bird can eat a slug more easily than a slug can eat a bird. Aren't birds more vulnerable than single cell organisms? |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 1, 2023 11:10:12 GMT
Like Mags' post, this also makes sense. But only up to a point. Why would a single cell organism evolve into something that is easier to kill? The single cell organisms on the ocean's floor were much less vulnerable than the fish they evolved into. The gradual evolution into fish seems like counter-evolution more than evolution, if the purpose of evolution is survival. This is very vague. I am likely killing single cell organisms as i breath in and out. However, i would not be at such a keen advantage vs a group of cells that's also a tiger. But single cell organisms weren't under threat from tigers at the dawn of evolution. There were no tigers or humans. Only single cell organisms. Your answer is from our perspective today. I'm talking about millions of years ago when evolution began. What was achieved by the first evolution? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 1, 2023 11:13:27 GMT
The purpose of evolution is something humans add with their minds. Our experience is of coming up with bright ideas and trying to make reality do what we imagine. Evolution is more like an assault course that kills off failures. The competitors left standing will be better at assault courses without any need to measure or intend anything. I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the 'survival of the fittest theory' is something that human beings have imposed to make sense of evolution? When you say that it is 'like an assault course that kills off failures', you appear to subscribe to the survival of the fittest theory. My problem is that this doesn't address the fact that it is more difficult to kill a single cell organism than a more 'advanced' being. Not really - survival of the fittest is a bit redundant but it's also unarguably true. If fitness is the ability to do the assault course and the assault course kills off those who can't do it, then those who survive are, definitionally, the fittest. My point was more that the assault course itself has no purpose / intent. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on May 1, 2023 11:15:17 GMT
It's a numbers game. The higher the population the higher the chance of mutation. The more mutations the higher the chance of a positive trait. We saw this with the increasing speed of new variants of the covid virus as it spread across the world. The positive traits which prospered meant the virus became more easily spread yet less deadly leading to more and more cases. Like Mags' post, this also makes sense. But only up to a point. Why would a single cell organism evolve into something that is easier to kill? The single cell organisms on the ocean's floor were much less vulnerable than the fish they evolved into. The gradual 'evolution' into fish seems like counter-evolution more than evolution, if the purpose of evolution is survival. Not all single cell organisms evolved into fish. Single cell organisms still exist. They both fill niches in the habitat and compete with others in their niche not each other. The fish evolved to fill new niches, the surviving single cell organism didn't. Both are successful and have survived. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 1, 2023 11:16:05 GMT
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the 'survival of the fittest theory' is something that human beings have imposed to make sense of evolution? When you say that it is 'like an assault course that kills off failures', you appear to subscribe to the survival of the fittest theory. My problem is that this doesn't address the fact that it is more difficult to kill a single cell organism than a more 'advanced' being. Not really - survival of the fittest is a bit redundant but it's also unarguably true. If fitness is the ability to do the assault course and the assault course kills off those who can't do it, then those who survive are, definitionally, the fittest. My point was more that the assault course itself has no purpose / intent. Hmmm. I see where you're coming from. But that doesn't explain why evolution began. If the things that have 'evolved' from single cell organisms don't actually make single cell organisms more survival capable, what was the purpose? |
|
