Evolution Occurs

Jumbuli: Proof that humans can evolve into trolls.

Tolkien would be pleased.

 

Emanresu,
I'm curious-- do you think intelligence is an orderly and inevitable development or sheer happenstance?

 

I do not think that intelligence is an inevitable development. I am very much perplexed that the level of intelligence possessed by humans ever evolved at all. Human intelligence seems to be a very general thing, whereas natural selection tends to bring about specific adaptations in response to specific pressures.

I think that human intelligence may be like the peacock's tail. It was selected for vigorously beyond its adaptive use. Human intelligence, like the peacock's tail, was probably driven by sexual selection. This is what Fisher called runaway selection.

 

Intelligence is definately an orderly and inevitable development. It just depends on what you define as "intelligence". To me intelligence is synonymous with adaptation or "purposeful intent", and has nothing to do with an IQ test. Ants are "unintelligent" compared to us, yet we're sea sponges while compared to other forms of more advanced life.

Cells have intelligence, although only an amount which suits their given purpose. Hawks don't have to be as "intelligent" as us because they can swoop from the sky and catch their prey. What need do they have to build rocketships or traps? So I think all life is "intelligent", meaning that organisms have a functional capacity which suits its needs.

Quite frankly I think if you don't believe evolution occurs then you are blind. Just look how Homo-'s have changed from then till now. Look at all life within this context and it seems almost common sense that things evolve.

 

If you consider intelligence as a general term and not necessarily "human" intelligence it can be seen as a continuation of the evolution into more complex forms. Instead of the emergence of new molecules or sets of evolving molecules we now have the creation of new ideas and technology that compete for survival.

Consider the emergence of the bow and arrow. This small tool increased human survival big time and lasted thousands of years until new technology came along.

 

Tsurugi, I think I see what you mean but I disagree with your definition of intelligence. It is certainly true that humanity is not the crux of evolution, and it is certainly true that humans are not "more evolved" than chimpanzees, or even worms.

Although ants, eagles, and every other organism are adapted to a specific type of life, and quite proficient at surviving in their respective ways, I think it only creates confusion to refer to this as intelligence. I think the word intelligence should be reserved for a particular level of cognitive complexity and capacity. This is arbitrary in a way, but I think for the sake of simplifying communication intelligence should refer to cognitive abilities, while the ability of organisms to be proficient at survival should be referred to with some other word.

 

Here's the definition of intelligence from merriam-webster

1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) b Christian Science : the basic eternal quality of divine Mind c : mental acuteness : shrewdness
2 a : an intelligent entity; especially : angel b : intelligent minds or mind <cosmic intelligence>
3 : the act of understanding : comprehension
4 a : information, news b : information concerning an enemy or possible enemy or an area; also : an agency engaged in obtaining such information
5 : the ability to perform computer functions

I think #1 and 2 including the ability to understand and deal with situations and manipulate one's environment definitely leads to our survival and propagation.

Intelligence can be seen in bee swarms and ant collonies. While a bee or ant alone has no intelligence, when they are working together they form complex systems akin to the human brain and form in identity that can adapt and change with varying situations.

Therefore, intelligence when looked at as an open complex system can be compared with other systems found in nature.

 

I guess it all comes back to the question of the existence of free will.

 

If not free will, then at least a moral free will

 

I see what you're saying. I guess for the sake of simplicity I agree. The only problem I have is with the widespread notion that organisms have to have a brain or else you're some mindless input/output machine. And dont' even tell me humans are intelligent when people believe in the IQ test, have 10 bad marriages, and become drug addicts.

I think "intelligence" is inevitable though. All it is is the ability to receive information and apply it purposefully, to gain control. Basically its the Yin-Yang, one side trying to constantly overtake the other. Bacteria and immune system. Aircrafts and anti-aircraft. However you want to look at it, it is "forms" which basically grow in complexity or else die.

So when you say "human intelligence" (meaning its level of complexity and ability to problem solve) you're basically saying whether life will exist long enough to reach a highly-complex state. It's inevitable. Yin-Yang is the basic tenent of the universe, nothing lasts forever, the only constant is change, w/e. I kind of get off topic alot (sorry lol) cuz I work these ideas out in my head when I see em. Hope it makes sense tho.

 

I think I get what you're saying. I tend to agree with the Yin-Yang view point including free will vs. determinism.

Eric Chaisson in his 2001 book Cosmic Evolution: "The Rise of Complexity in Nature" defines complexity as the free energy rate desity. Where the flow of free energy is the input used by nature's diverse systems to create complexity. If the free energy stops the system moves to equilibrium and evolution stops.

If you take the energy per unit time per unit mass as the units of power (quantifying complexity) you get estimates such as.

Galaxies (Milky Way) : 0.5 erg s-1 g-1
Stars (Sun) : 2
Planets (Earth) : 75
Plants (biosphere) : 900
Animals (human body) : 20,000
Brains (human cranium) : 150,000
Society (modern culture) : 500,000

So one can see the move toward increased complexity.

 

Nothing in evolution is really inevitable, because evolution has no goals. Something will only arise if the pressure which selects for it arises. The majority of organisms will never evolve towards a human like intelligence, because for the majority of organisms there is no force selecting for it.

 

I wish I knew more about free energy rate density, maybe could you give me a brief explanation in layman's terms? I'm reading a lil right now so I think I could catch on quick.

But yah , I don't think that life inevitably develops into a human-like intelligence, although increasing degrees of intelligence are inevitable. I think human intelligence is a unique feature. The fact that we have opposable thumbs for manipulation allows vast new potentials for manipulating our environment compared to other forms (maybe other than tentacles). I'm not sure how the relationship between intelligence and fingers came into existence, but I know that it would make no sense for other animals to have our "intelligence". What use would a clam have for our intelligence if it didn't have the means to apply it?

But yah. I think indisputably evolution occurs.

 

If you take our body as an example of a system then the free energy would be the food we eat which is then used to produce 60-100 trillion cells each with DNA with 3 billion nucleotides.

So even thought the food we eat is relatively small it produces huge amounts of information.

It's hard to explain. This link explains it more indepth if you're interested.
http://nirmukta.com/2009/08/29/comp...easing-complexity-of-our-ecosphere/#more-1699

 

I agree. Except-- Life itself is inevitable, so who knows?

But the jury is still out on the survival value of intelligence. Maybe it's a dead end turn on the way to somewhere else.

 

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/11/21/vassileva.intv.poiner.marine.cnn

pretty cool

 

There is obviously, to anyone who has bothered to look at the evidence, no reasonable ground to doubt Darwinian evolution. I thought it might be nice for a change to talk about something that actually is hotly debated among evolutionary biologists.

Do you think that natural selection operates at the group level or only at the individual level? People familiar with Richard Dawkins know that he argues strongly that natural selection only operates at the level of the individual genes themselves. Others argue that natural selection operates on entire hives, colonies, and other groups.

At this time I tend to lean towards Dawkins gene-centric view. For example it seems that the sterility of a bee in a hive actually benefits that individual sterile bee. If it only benefited the hive as a whole that would pretty much prove group selection to be true, I think. Of course the fact that the individual benefits does not prove group selection to be false.

 

If the group level, then where's the line?

Since all aspects of the earthly enviroment are accesible to interaction, then the vacuum of space would be logical. Except that spores can survive exposure to space, which makes the whole Universe the group. Logically, group evolution would be goal oriented, individual survival oriented.

If, then, gotto... what?

 

More evidence of evolution:
1. The classification of organisms reveals a tree pattern.
2. The fossil record shows simple organisms in the oldest strata with more complex organisms only arising in younger strata, with not one single fossil existing in the wrong strata. For example, no fossil rabbits are found in the pre-cambrian strata.
3. Genetic studies reveal tree patterns that match the tree patterns of classification which were used before the theory of evolution by natural selection was proposed.
4. Many organisms, including humans, posses vestigial organs. Examples include animals with webbed feet that do not live near water, cave dwellers with eyes, and limb buds in the embryos of dolphins, as well as yolk sacks and genes for yolk production in human embryos despite the fact that we do not need a yolk sack and do not produce yolk.
5. Homologous structures such as the mammalian skeleton.
6. The poor design of many aspects of many animals. In humans this includes the backwards wiring of the eye, the poor design of the spine, and the placement of the drainage holes for the sinuses at the top of the sinuses where they are essentially useless.
7. The geographical distribution of living species. This includes the absence of frogs on oceanic islands despite the habitat being quite suitable.
All of these phenomena point to common ancestry and each one is essentially impossible to make sense of on the view that species are immutable aboriginal creations.

 

"evolution occurs". amazing. i never would have guessed.
but i do know what that's getting at.
that there are still ignorant people who insist on pretending that it doesn't.