Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Evolution basically includes any concepts of devolution, simply because traits are gained and lost, in a pretty random way. The environment that forces evolution, does not automatically provide the tools to change in step with those forces (refer to symbiotic relationships for various examples, as means for positive change in species). You can find reasons that one trait may dominate a species, such as of specific forms of vegetation being present(etc...), but the presence of those forces does not necessitate a positive reaction.
I am of the opinion that there is both evolution AND devolution, but you can just as easily say that evolution precludes devolution as a process. I think of it along the same lines of having both species and subspecies, as specific terms, but I think it comes down to an opinion of scientific jargon.
I want that as a shirt.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/05/11 06:52:29
A species dies, which would be indicative that genes were not present which could have been beneficial. I think that on the macro-level, information like this could be useful. Studying samples that are large enough, could provide a deeper understanding of the forces that promote evolution.
What is the ratio of 'fail', to 'win'? I have seen some truly astonishing examples of evolutionary success, and heard of many terrible failures. Knowing which direction evolution works (at least abstractly), seems significant enough to investigate. Evolution is random, but the succession of microbes to advanced life-forms, indicates a pattern of some kind.
Interesting stuff is interesting.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/05/11 06:59:27
@ Wrexasaur - I have that shirt, signed by the artists
Awesome .
I need to add that to this series... hmm, maybe they are even by the same team?
dogma wrote:You can't promote evolution. Even the speed of adaptation is factored into the nominal process.
The presence of certain food-stocks can accelerate the rate of evolution. Humans have evolved to be lactose tolerant (at least in part, varying by the presence of milk as a food-stock) throughout civilization.
Promotion simply indicates contribution.
Not necessarily. It indicates only that life, on this particular rock, has evolved in accordance with the conditions on this particular rock.
It doesn't automatically assume it, but it can definitely be seen to suggest it.
Shuma wrote:It's rare for a species to die due to an inability to adapt. Usually it occurs due to an inability to adapt within the timeframe seemingly required. In a totally natural environment extinctions are exceedingly rare and typically the result of disease or massive natural disaster.
Extinctions of entire species are rare (but not non-existent), loss of mutation is very high. Not to suggest that all mutation is beneficial, but the loss is there.
I don't think I've ever actually heard of a failure outside of species whose failure is intrinsically linked to a human influenced environment.
Life can't always evolve, and environments change enough for extinctions to be noticeable. I would assume that extinction via the dominance of other species, is an action of evolution.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/05/11 07:20:41
dogma wrote:Contribution and promotion mean very different things. I agree that food stocks contribute to evolution, but I would not say that they promote it.
I'm not even sure that evolution can be promoted. It could, theoretically, be directed, but promoting it doesn't seem possible.
They can mean very different things, but it depends on how you define those terms.
I will concede to your point though, and suggest a different term.
How about niche, simply because it fits. (to provide a niche, add a better term if you have one... drinking beer )
Note: I consider a flower, to be the core form (concept, whatever) of advertising, and through this I consider promotion to be a large part of evolution.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/05/11 07:39:54
dogma wrote:In a sense that's true, but we must be careful to recall that in those instances promotion is a constituent of evolution, and so cannot be used to dictate the process in the sense that it seems you're refering to.
sebster wrote:I understand devolution as a philosophical concept, where it is thought that God created all the animals in their perfect forms, and all the mutation since has taken them away from that perfection, devolution. It's where the band Devo got their name.
From Wiki.
Streamlining evolution
"Devolution", the verb "devolve" and the past participle "devolved" are all common terms in science fiction for changes over time in populations of living things that make them less complex and remove some of their former adaptations. The terminology used herein is nontechnical, but the phenomenon is a real but counter-intuitive one, more accurately known as streamlining evolution. Since the development and maintenance of a feature such as an organ or a metabolite has an opportunity cost, changes in the environment that reduce the utility of an adaptation may mean that a higher evolutionary fitness is achieved by no longer using the adaptation, thus better using resources. This requires a mutation that inactivates one or more genes, perhaps by a change to DNA methylation or a methionine codon. Streamlining evolution allows evolution to remove features no longer of much/any use, like scaffolding on a completed bridge.
However, "devolution" in practice typically refers to changes that occur from a problem no longer existing rather than superior solutions existing. For instance, of the several hundred known species of animal that live their entire lives in total darkness, most have non-functional eyes rather than no eyes. This is due, for instance, to deterioration of the optic nerve. It occurs because mutations that prevent eye formation have low probability. However, several eyeless animal species, such as the Kauai cave wolf spider, who live in total darkness, and whose ancestry mostly had eyes, do exist. Together with gene duplication, streamlining evolution makes evolution surprisingly able to produce radical changes, despite being limited to successive, slight modifications.
It seems to be no more than a matter of jargon, and not one associated with philosophy. I would argue that there is a generally 'positive' movement to evolution, where species adapt to their surroundings according to the factors that comprise a specific environment. (positive= adaption, negative= lack of)
Catastrophic events that do not allow adaptation, indicate a lack of evolution in some species. My main point is that I would not be surprised if animals could simply lose certain adaptations, they could also lose the capability to have those adaptations, far in the future where they may be necessary to survival. I wouldn't consider humans losing brain-power (for instance, and if at all possible), and becoming more 'primitive', to be a 'negative' adaptation. I do think that patterns of that nature, are very interesting though, and I really don't know enough to confirm anything I am saying.
It's a cool idea, but it doesn't have much to do with science. In science evolution has no concept of progress, there is simply the current environment and adaptation to it. If if gets colder in time a species might evolve a thicker coat of fur, if it got warmer again it might evolve back to to a thinner coat of fur. While in one sense it would be going backwards, the truth is there's no better or worse level of development, there's just being suited to the present environment.
Survival is beneficial to individuals of any species, and within that framework, I would consider 'progress' to simply indicate survival.
I am not a Bio major, so... take what I say with a grain of salt.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/05/11 19:01:44
the internet wrote:Well, though discussed before, i don't actually think such a thing as devolution really exists. If our brains become peanut-sized and move down south to replace our penises, that's because GOD deemed it would suit best for survival as a species, and that's the best course of action to take, therefore it's evolution. And to be honest, it doesn't even seem so far-fetched, given our present day habits and tendencies.
Oh, and speaking of brains, look at the brontosaurus. It had the smallest ratio of brain mass/total weight, and still it fared just fine, till GOD SENT A WORLD WIDE FLOOD to pop up and spoil the party.
Da Boss wrote:As natural as ants building anthills or chimps forming gangs.
Or that natural soda... the one with just as much sugar as any other soda.
The social aspect does accelerate things massively and make it seem like something completely distinct, but I think that the idea that because more mutants survive evolution has stopped or slowed is erronous. For it to have stopped or slowed it'd have to be going in one direction. It isn't. It's going in all directions at once depending on environment.
There are some decent theories that humans are evolving into multiple species, through forces that were present, before we introduced technology as a means to evolve.
Putting human value judgements into evolution is easy to do, but it generally leads to a skewed view.
Now, I do have to say that I'm not a specialist in evolution, so I'd love to know any books or other sources that refute what I'm saying.
It is my favorite subject (Like I said though, not a Bio major), and what little I have read, indicates an extremely diverse set of opinions. Evolution is evolution, awesome.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/05/12 23:27:46
.
(to provide a niche, add a better term if you have one... drinking beer 