Originally posted by Thequ1ckThen you are misusing the word evolution. Even creatures headed for eventual extinction are evolving. I realize that your misuse is common place and that the world evolution usually carries connotations of improvement and success, but it is incorrect to use it this way in a scientific setting such as this thread. Whether humans get more intelligent or less, die out or survive, they are still evolving until the very last one dies off.
Personally, I do believe evolution = greater intelligence but that's just my opinion.
If human's are too stubborn and unintelligent to react accordingly to their environment
then eventually (and actually relatively quickly) they will get wiped out.
I also do not think there is sufficient reason to believe an extinction event is imminent for humans, although I believe global warming spells major trouble and could potentially decimate the human population.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYeah, I know but you asked me what I believed.
Then you are misusing the word evolution. Even creatures headed for eventual extinction are evolving. I realize that your misuse is common place and that the world evolution usually carries connotations of improvement and success, but it is incorrect to use it this way in a scientific setting such as this thread. Whether humans get more intelligent or les ...[text shortened]... believe global warming spells major trouble and could potentially decimate the human population.
Surely you agree that evolution leads to increasing complexity.
This being the case can we not equate complexity with intelligence?
What many people don't get is that there is no mysterious driving force in evolution to make a species as a whole be successful or survive particularly. In fact, evolution often results in individuals tending to compete against other members of their own species although non-competitive cooperative behaviour is also a common outcome of evolution but, even then, that is not to make the species as a whole survive.
Also, the phrase “the survival of the fittest” is extremely misleading partly because of the connotations of the word “fit” include greater muscular strength and greater athletic ability which are characteristics that would often NOT be selected for by natural selection. The phrase “the survival of the fittest” is also extremely misleading because of the word “survival” which ignores the fact that it isn't really about survival but procreation ( hence peacocks evolve large tail feathers despite the fact this hinders survival! ) . Note also that, contrary to popular opinion, the phrase “the survival of the fittest” was NOT coined by Charles Darwin!
So I recommend the phrase “the survival of the fittest” should be discarded and condemned as erroneous and replaced with:
“the procreation of the best adapted”
This has much less of a ring to it but at least it is not misleading.
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Yeah, I know but you asked me what I believed.
Surely you agree that evolution leads to increasing complexity.
This being the case can we not equate complexity with intelligence?
Surely you agree that evolution leads to increasing complexity.
life has generally evolved to become more complex BUT that is purely because life started so simple that it could only start off evolving by getting more complex!
There is no hidden driving force in evolution to make a species evolve to become more 'complex' in particular.
In fact, there are examples of evolution making a species evolving to become 'simpler'. A good example of that would be the evolution of a snake from a lizard -the loss of legs could be regard as a 'simplification'.
The driving force of evolution has nothing to do with 'complexity'.
This being the case can we not equate complexity with intelligence?
even if we could equate that, that would be irrelevant ( because of the points I just made above ) . The driving force of evolution has nothing to do with 'complexity'.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by Thequ1ckNo and no. Sorry, but it is that simple: your assumptions are both just wrong.
Surely you agree that evolution leads to increasing complexity.
This being the case can we not equate complexity with intelligence?
Evolution does not necessarily lead to increasing complexity - it only seems like that because it started with the extreme of simplicity, a single cell. Given a sufficiently evolved creature, there is no guarantee that its subsequent evolution will make it more complex.
And no, complexity does not equate intelligence. The hermit crab has over five times as many chromosomes as a human, and a mulberry tree six times as many. Neither, I think you'll agree, is particularly intelligent. Intelligence needs a certain level of complexity, but complexity per se is not sufficient for intelligence.
Richard
Originally posted by Thequ1ckEvolution usually evolves to higher complexity but not always:
Yeah, I know but you asked me what I believed.
Surely you agree that evolution leads to increasing complexity.
This being the case can we not equate complexity with intelligence?
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-evolution-meant-simpler-complex.html
Originally posted by sonhouseI wouldn't even go so far as to say that it 'usually' evolves into higher complexity. The vast majority of organisms on the planet remain single celled.
Evolution usually evolves to higher complexity but not always:
Evolution results in some organisms getting more complex and some getting less complex and the overall result is a larger 'solution space' in which greater complexity does exist.
Originally posted by sonhouseCertainly there will always be a huge variation in complexity between species
Evolution usually evolves to higher complexity but not always:
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-evolution-meant-simpler-complex.html
and yes, some species will become less complex if their environment dictates it.
But as a whole, the animals higher in the food chain will show an increase in
intelligence as time progresses.
Originally posted by Shallow BlueInteresting you say that.
No and no. Sorry, but it is that simple: your assumptions are both just wrong.
Evolution does not necessarily lead to increasing complexity - it only seems like that because it started with the extreme of simplicity, a single cell. Given a sufficiently evolved creature, there is no guarantee that its subsequent evolution will make it more comp evel of complexity, but complexity per se is not sufficient for intelligence.
Richard
I've always wondered why birds are so beautiful. I mean, I know the brighter
the plumes, the more elaborate the dance etc entices more females.
But why do birds like bright plumages? What forces make the hen able to
recognise beauty much in the same way humans do?
I should also point out that complexity in the genotype does not automatically
translate to complexity of the phenotype. I've just shown that the key differences
between man and apes are down to a handful of base-pair changes.
Originally posted by humyOK, like I said this is a belief of mine. One that I had no intention of pushing on others.
The driving force of evolution has nothing to do with 'complexity'.
I've written in a previous post how I believe that the most likely reason for
existence is to substantiate future time loops. Time loops created by intelligences
far beyond the Omega point.
In order for this to occur intelligence had to evolve. That's right, I'm saying I
believe there IS a pull to evolution.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckI see you have cleverly changed the equation. You have restricted your claim to 'animals' and 'higher in the food chain'. You have also dropped complexity and replaced it with intelligence.
But as a whole, the animals higher in the food chain will show an increase in
intelligence as time progresses.
I remind you once again that of all living things, the vast majority are single celled.
Of multicellular life, the plants generally do not have intelligence because it is not required for their life style.
Many animals have intelligence because it is beneficial for finding food. And hunting other animals requires more intelligence than eating plants or other stationary food sources.
So yes, you are probably correct that at the top of the food chain there is greater intelligence. But even then, it doesn't imply a continual increase, overall nor a continual increase in any given species.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've not changed my argument. Firstly you asked what I believed. I am not prepared
I see you have cleverly changed the equation. You have restricted your claim to 'animals' and 'higher in the food chain'. You have also dropped complexity and replaced it with intelligence.
I remind you once again that of all living things, the vast majority are single celled.
Of multicellular life, the plants generally do not have intelligence because ...[text shortened]... doesn't imply a continual increase, overall nor a continual increase in any given species.
to argue this statement as it's a belief and something personal to myself.
I've changed the wording of my posts to engage in dialogue with you about the subject
at hand.
You are correct in that it is very important to use the correct words when
discussing this subject.
Your argument about the quantity or percentage of organisms being single-celled is
nonsensical to me.
Is it fair to say a building which has been built taller and stronger is no more
complex becuase the vast majority of cement is in the foundation?
Just to be clear, you don't believe that there's been a continual increase
in intelligence for homo-sapiens?
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
Interesting you say that.
I've always wondered why birds are so beautiful. I mean, I know the brighter
the plumes, the more elaborate the dance etc entices more females.
But why do birds like bright plumages? What forces make the hen able to
recognise beauty much in the same way humans do?
I should also point out that complexity in the genotype doe own that the key differences
between man and apes are down to a handful of base-pair changes.
But why do birds like bright plumages? What forces make the hen able to
recognise beauty much in the same way humans do?
what makes you think that a birds 'likes' bright plumages much in the same way humans do as opposed to just blindly and completely without feeling automatically respond to bright plumages with totally blind instinct?
What makes you think that a hen DOES recognise beauty much in the same way humans do? -since you cannot read the mind of a hen ( if it has a mind! we don't even know that! ) to know how such a different species feels or perceives something, there appears to be no premise for that assumption. For all we know, the hen has absolutely no perception or concept of beauty and is just driven by unconscious blind instinct like a totally cold unfeeling robot.
In answer to your previous question: birds evolve bright plumage because:
initially, before bright plumage starts to evolve, if it so happens that, within a population, very slighter brighter plumage generally indicates that the bird has better health ( esp genetically ) , then, if a mutation occurs that has the effect on instinct of making the bird select the mate with the brighter plumage then its offspring are likely to be healthier and so natural selection will keep selecting that mutation until it spreads throughout the whole population. But, after many generations of having that mutation, that mutation will have the effect of indirectly ( 'indirectly' because it woks by effecting the birds instinct ) selectively breading the birds to have ever brighter plumage -hence the birds evolve bright plumage.
I should also point out that complexity in the genotype does not automatically
translate to complexity of the phenotype.
yes, we all know that, but you are missing the point. Greater 'complexity' in just the genotype would be, nevertheless, greater complexity just the same. Are you implying that the phenotype of, say humans, is, say, not only more 'complex' than that of a mulberry tree ( how do you judge that? How do you measure that? ) , but, somehow, the greater 'complexity' of the human phenotype more than 'compensates' for the greater 'complexity' of the mulberry tree's genotype so as to have an overall greater NET complexity? If so, how do you judge that? How do you measure that? I mean, what none arbitrary criteria do you use to define how 'complex' something is?
Note that there is no evidence of the existence of a 'driving force' that generally tends to make species evolve to become more 'complex'. The only reason why life appears much more 'complex' than what is was is because it would have started as appearing very 'simple' so any change from that would be likely to make it appear more 'complex'.
For all we know, the hen has absolutely no perception or concept of beauty and is just driven by unconscious
blind instinct like a totally cold unfeeling robot.
When was the last time you looked at a pair of perfect perky breasts? Did you feel like a cold, unfeeling robot then?
How do you measure that? I mean, what none arbitrary criteria do you use to define how 'complex' something is?
Eesh, I waS hoping you would ask that as the question is somewhat...complex. Sorry for the cut and paste but there's
just too much to this subject to deal with in one post.
'Ashby's (1958, 1962) Law of Requisite Variety states that in order to achieve control, the variety of actions a control system
is able to execute must be at least as great as the variety of environmental perturbations that need to be compensated.
The larger the variety of available counteractions, the larger the set of disturbances that can be corrected, and the larger
the domain of potential environmental situations in which the control system can survive. All other things being equal, greater
control variety implies greater fitness. For example, an animal capable of finding and digesting more diverse types of food is
likely to survive and thrive in a larger variety of circumstances. Therefore, evolution through natural selection will tend to
increase control, and thus, because of Ashby's law, internal variety. This can be interpreted as a functional differentiation,
i.e. the appearance of more diverse activities or functions...
As an example, in our present society individuals and organizations tend to gather more knowledge and more resources, increasing
the range of actions they can take, since this will allow them to cope better with the possible problems appearing in their environment.
However, if the people you cooperate or compete with (e.g. colleagues) become more knowledgeable and resourceful, you too will have to
become more knowledgeable and resourceful in order to keep up with them. The result is an ever faster race towards more knowledge and better
tools, creating the "information explosion" we all know so well...
All other things being equal, a system that can survive situations A, B and C, is absolutely fitter than a system that can only survive A and B.
Such an increase in absolute fitness is necessarily accompanied by an increase in functional complexity. Thus, evolution will tend to irreversibly
produce increases of functional complexity...
By defining complexity as the combination of distinction (variety) and connection (dependency) in at least the spatial, temporal and scale dimensions,
we were able to redefine complexification as the combination of differentiation and integration in these dimensions...
The proposed mechanisms are not intended to show that evolution follows a preordained course towards some kind of Omega Point of maximal complexity.
Rather, it is assumed that evolution is largely unpredictable and contingent on a host of uncontrollable factors, which may steer its course in any of
an infinite number of directions. However, it is noted that directions in which complexity increases are generally preferred.'
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/papers/ComplexityGrowth.html