The end of evolution

[Midnight]

And now for something completely different.

 

I was interested to find out that our brains are just about as complex as the physical structures of the brain itself will allow. In other words, although there are admittedly varying levels of 'intelligence', there is a hard limit to how interconnected our brains can become and how fast we can process information, and some think this limit has already been reached.

 

I've been thinking about this for a while, and started thinking about evolutionary processes in modern civilisation as well as technological advancement and what this could mean for the future and came to the conclusion that it was likely that human evolution had all but stopped.

 

This isn't new, a google search for 'end of evolution' will return an interesting discussion about this topic, with one of the main proponents of this idea, Steve Jones, taking part.

 

The basic idea is that the historic pressures that have resulted in human evolution, are now no longer applicable.

 

As an example, genetic mutations that previously may have made it difficult for an individual to survive into adulthood would have, due to natural selection, slowly over time been less common as you were less likely to pass on these genes. In modern society, these pressures are largely non-existent. We have medicine to either treat or compensate for these problems, and altruistic behaviour going back thousands of years (likely due to evolutionary pressures on social interactions) has led us to care for the disabled, even if dis-advantageous to the individual (selfish gene, un-selfish animal).

 

Sexual selection still takes place due to preferences for certain traits etc, but if anything our smaller world is going to result in less genetic variety as time progresses, except for cases (and I can't think of any suitable current examples) where large groups of populations do not mix. Therefore, evolution is slowing down, and will eventually stop as we humans continue to use technology to shape our environment and become biologically homogenous.

 

The argument against this is that evolution is such a slow process and that environment does change quite radically, so evolution may have just paused, but will continue when the environment again changes drastically enough. I would agree with this, except for the fact that since the last ice age our ability to adapt to new environments may have in fact caused this slow down in human evolution. We can't know the future, but it would be surprising if existing and future technologies would not allow us to adapt to any changes that would ordinarily help evolutionary processes.

 

Putting these thoughts together led me to think up a couple scenarios for the future.

 

Scenario 1:

The third world catches up to the first world, capitalism continues as ever and society worldwide is largely separated into a few rich elites and the poor majority.

Sexual selection continues to occur, but less between the two groups, creating two more or less distinct human species. Again, not my idea, and not entirely convincing as a probable scenario once given enough thought, but interesting and I would think entirely possible given the right conditions.

 

Scenario 2:

As above, society is divided into two distinct groups / classes due to financial inequality, but the timescales for any noticeable evolution to take place cannot compete with the advances in technology which have a much more immediate effect.

The rich are able to afford new technologies (whether genetic manipulation, or bio/tech implants) to increase intelligence, strength etc, whilst the poor cannot hope to keep up with these developments and languish into a sub-species (i.e. us).

 

Scenario 3:

Civilisation as we know it fails, either from human direction (i.e. war, revolution), or environmental causes (i.e. natural catastrophe of some sort). We revert to a state before civilised society, where violence is more likely to get you somewhere and small tribal groups again becomes the norm.

Evolution due to these pressures continues (slowly) until the next form of civilisation takes shape, at which point we begin again to order our world around us and end up back where we started (if we're lucky).

 

I'm no expert in evolution etc but wanted to see if anyone had any thoughts on this as well as whether anyone could offer up any alternative scenarios. Just for fun, of course. (And to help forget the drivel).

Edited September 17, 2010 by Midnight

[Tudor]

Now now! There's nothing to chaos-theory!

 

I honestly don't get the dystopic outlooks many people have on civilization, I am a fair bit Anarchist in my leanings, but I don't think humans are as primal as people make them out to be. I do think there is hope for the world, and the more people I meet the more convinced I am of this.

Capitalism is a kind of mean deal in our society, especially as it doesn't seem to improve, but it seems the global value of money is steadily shrinking, while the big dogs, hemmin gthe process of markets by their saving and raw-money dealing never lose their stashed money. (can someone correct me on this if it's completely wrong?) But I don't see our world going down the gutter with inequality and war. War is silly and shouldn't exist, and probably will not in the future depending on the discoveries we make in psychology and similar fields.

[demagogue]

If you're talking about straight up evolutionary theory, then one of the leading theories is punctuated equilibrium, Gould's theory, which says that species basically evolve to best fit their niche in the ecosystem and will stay in stasis in that niche until something disrupts the equilibrium and you get serious selection pressure, then you get a relatively rapid evolution to match the new equilibrium which stays stable until the next punctuation... Under this theory, evolution doesn't "add up", species stay stable for long stretches then evolve in short spurts, and the dominant player is environment change and other ecosystem changers (introducing new species, disease, etc, which usually come back to environmental change too), though natural selection and genetics are still the actual agents of evolution of course.

 

Looking at it that way, the "end of evolution" is actually the norm; it's the "start" of it that's rare and special. To the extent that this "end" is a special kind of equilibrium, it's true that humans have much more control over the environment than other species to mitigate and socially adapt (then again, we have a lot more control to make the environment worse, amplify natural harm, and perversely maladapt too; cf climate change, which is driving a mass extinction event right now as we speak.) The other thing that makes me a little skeptical is that our era is still so short in geologic time that it really doesn't count yet; it *looks* like we have technology & know-how to overcome the punctuations, but how sturdy will the by over the long haul? There have been periods of equilibrium lasting millions of years, and it varies by species; look how long sharks have lasted... To say the last 50 or 200 years of human history is somehow "special" on an evolutionary scale strikes me as a bit premature and maybe a bit more tinged with hubris. Interesting to think about, anyway.

 

Edit: As for your scenarios, Sc. 3 reminds me of the saw-tooth theory of civilization, which says civilization will tend towards stable liberal democracies that can support everybody very efficiently ... then there might be individual disasters that set it back, but it starts going back to that situation (so a graph of it might look like a jagged saw tooth).

 

I was thinking about this when I was outlining a story of visitors to Alpha Centari being frozen in a suspended state (at the atomic level) for the 80,000 year long trip to get there, then reanimated... When they sent a radio signal back to earth (which takes a few years round-trip), what can they expect the reply to be? Will English be an ancient language? Will civilization be further along in progress, about the same, regressed, set back to the stone age, or non-existent?

[LEGION]

Scenario 2 seems quite possible, I can literally see it coming.

 

But where is the Fallout-scenario? We have too much nukes around the world, some of them lost to who knows and a lot of egomaniac or megalomaniac idiots in charge. As BrokenArts rightfully said, "We´re all DOOMED!!"!

 

But let´s wait until we have the next financial crisis. Really, world order is in change and not for the good. What the, why do I get a big headache right now? No good sign.

Anyway, capitalism leads us right to the end, too late to change people´s minds, they won´t want to either, so let the BANG begin. "Just don´t burn the paintings in the louvre, that´s all."

 

And what will it be after the BANG? I don´t know. I assume it all ends on, what was it? The 21. December 2012? It was 19:00 o´clock german time IIRC. That´s the point when Jesus comes back to tell us: "Sorry, but you fucked up. Good bye."

 

If not and mankind goes on I don´t think we can´t evolve anymore. What´s with that 'theories' that we don´t use large amounts of our brains? Sth like that lets me dream of psychokinetic abilities and such. That should give mankind the insight to start over again without the idea of money and the 'let´s work to death'-mentality. Oh, and fuck the police-state-mentality, too.

 

Let´s see if I was right in time before the more intelligent looking answers will come...

edit: guess not.

Edited September 17, 2010 by LEGION

[Tudor]

Just a note, the thing about our brains is we only use about 20% to think, the rest is motor skills and stuff like that, but we almost always use it at full capacity. Som people thought we had a couple of kilos of unused neurons there for some reason.

 

ALso, a world order is probably never going to happen, as we all know it could only benefit the status quo:P.

[Baddcog]

Skinny Puppy had lyrics in a song in the 90's

 

'Aqcuired Defficiency'. A song about the effects of modern medicine.

 

Sure we may be living longer due to it, but we are also seeing more problems. (Kid's on drugs for ADD, Diabetic medications...)

------------

 

In some cases technology can help further human advances, and possibly the evoltion of human intellegence. But then again it can make us weaker too.

 

Take Guitar hero for example. When I was a kid we learned how to play music in school, we learned notes, scales, etc...

Now most kid's learn how to push 4 buttons in sequences. While it might be fun it certianly isn't teaching music. So I understand music, but when todays kids get my age will they?

 

We went out and excersised (and obviously didn't pay attention in english class), played outside, discovered. Now kids play games, send texts, and take (prescription) drugs to get rid of the built up anxieties caused by not getting exercise (and or eating healthy).

 

50% of America is obese/and or becoming diabetic because of all the corn syrup/sugar processed foods are made from.

 

What kind of effect will these things have on human evolution. Will humans become diabetic and ill at birth, unable to sustain the species, or will we become adapt at processing sugars that our bodies obviuosly can't currently process very well?

 

Will humans forget how to do basic things because technology is spoon feeding us everything and we don't even have to try anymore?

----------

 

And yes sexuality has always played an important part in evolution. Certian traits have always led to reproduction.

 

But that's changing. It used to be brawn, the strongest, fittest hunters got the food, thus the women.

 

Now it's (almost) all about money. So you don't have to be strong, smart, wise, fast, good looking... You just have to have money.

It can be won in the lottery, given, stolen, inherited....

 

So genetics aren't playing as large a part in evolution as they used to, so it's very possible that we'll start seeing devolution. That's already becoming quite evident in America, just watch politics.

 

We're also pumping more toxic chemicals into the enviroment faster than ever before. Will humans become immune to this or will we turn into crab people because of it. Or will Cancer just start catching up and killing everyone sooner and faster?

---------------

 

I don't personally think humans can evolve physically much more. Without some drastic change like space life (where most likely we'd start to look like aliens, big brains and worthless bodies) there's nothing to force a change.

Currently humans are probably less capable physically as a whole then ever before, but that's not evolution, it's just an adaptation to a sedentary lifestyle that can change at any time.

 

I think the biggest possibility for evolution is in awareness, enlightenment. At least that's where the biggest change needs to be, but with the current situation of people in high power spreading fear and grabbing all the goods doesn't bode well IMO. It actually seems that alot of people tend to be 'un-enlightening'.

[Tudor]

Do you live in the states?

Cause that's terrible, and nothing like the world I know!

 

The food industry is a big stick in our collective brain, wherever it points us we will go, simply because it's the same companies making everything, and since we all live under their wings we let them cram stuf finto our foods that isn't healthy at all. I happen to be kind of well taught about this and don't eat anything with taste enhancers, artificial sweeteners or artificial that much of anything, no colours or aromas no nothing, and definitely no palm oil.

 

 

I am a bit leaning towards de-urbanization because, while I do believe in co-operation, I don't believe in huge masses being able to co-operate. I think the future in The Final Question is kind of interesting, and quite likely.

Edited September 17, 2010 by Tudor

[Midnight]

War is silly and shouldn't exist, and probably will not in the future depending on the discoveries we make in psychology and similar fields.

War is indeed silly, and until the Iraq war I would not have thought that wars of adventure were going to be a feature of our modern times, but there you go. With dwindling available resources, changing climate and the inevitable growth of the under-developed world, China and India, I don't think that discoveries in psychology will be able to prevent future wars.

 

Looking at it that way, the "end of evolution" is actually the norm; it's the "start" of it that's rare and special. To the extent that this "end" is a special kind of equilibrium, it's true that humans have much more control over the environment than other species to mitigate and socially adapt (then again, we have a lot more control to make the environment worse, amplify natural harm, and perversely maladapt too; cf climate change, which is driving a mass extinction event right now as we speak.) The other thing that makes me a little skeptical is that our era is still so short in geologic time that it really doesn't count yet; it *looks* like we have technology & know-how to overcome the punctuations, but how sturdy will the by over the long haul? There have been periods of equilibrium lasting millions of years, and it varies by species; look how long sharks have lasted... To say the last 50 or 200 years of human history is somehow "special" on an evolutionary scale strikes me as a bit premature and maybe a bit more tinged with hubris. Interesting to think about, anyway.

Well, even within an evolutionary equilibrium you're still going to have genetic adaptation due to predator prey cycles which result in an evolutionary arms race. Humans have possibly outgrown this stage of evolution long ago, but I was more interested in the idea that it may in fact be natural for any species of a certain stage of advancement to leave behind evolution and advance further solely through technological development.

 

I also think that it isn't entirely arrogant to suggest that humans have over the last couple centuries had a unique impact on evolution. We've created completely new species that would not have ordinarily evolved through domestication of animals. We've developed methods of killing animals on a much larger scale than any single or pack of predators could previously have done, and aren't limited to the types of animals that we are able to influence.

 

Still, I think your point was that on massive geological scales it is foolish to suggest we can know whether we can fully adapt to whatever changes come our way, and I'd completely agree with that.

 

But where is the Fallout-scenario? We have too much nukes around the world, some of them lost to who knows and a lot

Scenario 3?

 

 

[demagogue]

Well, even within an evolutionary equilibrium you're still going to have genetic adaptation due to predator prey cycles which result in an evolutionary arms race.

 

Reading back over the Punctuated Equilibrium wiki article, apparently outside the punctuations there really isn't directed adaptations that add up ... Genetic drifts cancel each other out and there's just a meandering around the phylogenetic mean, as they put it. The arms race you're talking about is exactly what happens when a punctuation is going on, e.g., introducing a new predator or prey into the ecosystem is just the kind of thing that breaks a stable equilibrium and leads to a period of adaptation as everybody whose niche got disrupted adjusts. So you had the right idea; it's just a matter of what counts as "equilibrium".

 

Going back to what changes *could* happen to humans, I think one thing special about human brains is of course language & meaning -- the ability for abstracting experience into concepts manifested by abstract grunts/symbols that can be communicated, including to itself in its mind, which is what I gather "thinking" is at its root. And the root of that, from what I've read anyway, is the combination of the brain's ability to recognize situations and concepts from experience with the social "game" of predication that kids learn from their parents growing up to conventionalize it as "meaning" and put it to use. Anyway, just read a great book on it by Bodgan called "Predicative Minds".

 

The point is, I think that ability and practice is a threshold thing; once crossed the species will have the ability to think any thought at any level of abstraction, so it's a kind of end-point in itself. (Not to say we might not lose it a few million years down the road, either the ability or the cultural practice. But as long as it's there, I think it's safe to say we've "arrived", and any other species that gets that ability could get that status too.) But all this, how we can conceptualize experience, is different than what we can actually experience itself... I could imagine us being able to experience new things: non-Euclidian geometry, eco-location, new colors like infra-red or ultra-violet, or even one shade of red looking like a completely new color, things like that. It doesn't really change how we can express ideas, just that we have new experiences to talk about that others can share because they experience them too.

[nbohr1more]

Evolution isn't going anywhere.

 

It trends towards whatever we deem the source of power and success. If being a Rap Musician makes you rich powerful and successful then that is the trait that will be desirable and thus the direction for evolution. But, obviously, I don't think that fleeting cultural characteristics are the primary direction for all this. The problem now is that the people who make money (and thus have the power desired from the evolutionary stance) are not the actual people who create the technologies (etc) that lend valid value to their financial status. But that is not a blanket rule, there will be people who are both financially and creatively gifted and they will continue to "win".

 

The seeming stability of evolution comes down to one primary factor, "monogamy". As long as it's illegal to have more than one wife, no alpha-male will be able to spread his genes to a significantly disproportionate number of (reproductive) women. If the world continues to trend secular (or Mormon?) then this barrier to rapid evolution will come crashing down (presuming that this secular future also entails both citizens with no regard for the costs of child rearing and women who don't mind being part of a harem for some stud... ) Caveats aside, Mormon style families would be seen as evolutionary power-houses and might draw folks to emulate...

 

Overshadowing all this is our Cyberpunk future. The real evolutionary winners will be the humans that augment themselves with technology.... or merge with the singularity....

[sparhawk]

I never understand why anybody could think that civilisation can fail and humanity will fall back to some barbarian mode. The very fact that civilisation exists in the first place is, that it will also continue in case of a war. Simply because humans are a social species and therefore tend to go back to a civilisational behaviour.

 

Also I don't see why there are some people thinking that we are suddenly "outside evolution", whatever that is supposed to mean. Of course evolution continues. We just don't see it always. And you should consider that evolution can take place in fast and slow steps, but the evolution of a species takes a very long time. And personally I think we are currently seeing quite a rapid evolution of the next level, i.e. computerised species.

[Fidcal]

My thoughts:

 

As sparhawk says, the process of evolution cannot stop but yes it probably tends to perfect niches for different species until the environment changes.

 

A horse, let's take a racehorse, probably cannot improve much more if at all simply because of the physics.

 

The human brain, let alone conscious thinking is still not well enough understood to predict. It is not impossible that the the human mind might evolve way beyond what we have now.

 

Social evolution progresses. I am a great believer that since evolution is infallible that it must get better and better. I see no reason to suppose that the progress over the last thousand years will not continue.

 

Human physical evolution. Uh oh! This might be 'broken' because there is little disadvantage in being born with poor health since society cares for the weak. In Singapore something like 60% to 80% of the entire population have eye defects. Likely in a jungle, chimpanzee situation they would die out but in a modern human society, not much problem. This is why health is probably deteriorating generally. There is little evolutionary pressure to maintain good health, at least in certain areas of health.

 

Ageing: a side issue. Since evolution relies on the survival of the fittest then it relies on dying. It would be an advantage for evolution to speed up generations because then evolution speeds up (eg, fruit fly) so it seems certain to me that evolution 'invented' the ageing gene, ie, that ageing is genetic. Therefore, since mankind is now developing the ability to manipulate genes and because the will to survive is paramount, I predict it is certain that ageing will be eliminated and we will all live until we have an accident or mortal illness. How will this affect evolution?

[Midnight]

@demagogue: Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't previously realised the two were as compatible as that before.

 

Of course the mechanisms of evolution cannot be stopped, the question is whether a species can reach a stage where their control over the environment minimises the effectiveness of evolution to the point where it hardly registers. My take is that civilisation is simply too complex to be able to rely on real stability for the great length of time, so it could be that in those changes is where we will find natural evolution (maybe leaning to more mental changes than physical). It's still the case though that technology and how it affects us is going to overtake long term evolutionary changes.

 

Ageing: a side issue. Since evolution relies on the survival of the fittest then it relies on dying. It would be an advantage for evolution to speed up generations because then evolution speeds up (eg, fruit fly) so it seems certain to me that evolution 'invented' the ageing gene, ie, that ageing is genetic. Therefore, since mankind is now developing the ability to manipulate genes and because the will to survive is paramount, I predict it is certain that ageing will be eliminated and we will all live until we have an accident or mortal illness. How will this affect evolution?

A little OT but that reminds me of a

about artificial life and evolution, where this was discussed (not in great depth). It was interesting that the majority of a-life never reached maximum age, and this is true in human history. It's only recently, with better medicine and access to an abundance of food (in some parts of the world at least) that humans are reaching old age.

 

I think the driving force behind the ageing gene was likely to have had to do with sexual reproduction, by creating a long term clock perhaps that the body can work by. It is absolutely advantageous to speed up ageing in order to pass genes on to the next generation, but only after enough time has passed to test those genes within the environment.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Midnight

[jaxa]

If evolution is dead it will be because of:

 

1. Social safety nets, opposition to concepts of social darwinism. Earth/civilization not in crisis allowing social safety nets to persist.

2. Synthetic biology. Could lead to a new eugenics push which would engender heavy opposition towards "designer babies". Will divide rich and poor but lower costs or ability to edit DNA after birth could lessen impact. Synthetic biological changes can't be considered evolution because there is no natural selection, "selection" is based on ability to pay, choice, etc.

[Fidcal]

In a way, evolution has become conscious - as us. Evolution has 'designed' a species that can consciously manipulate genes and therefore evolutionary progress. Skynet Evolution has become self aware.

[stumpy]

I noticed something odd in the pub a couple of months ago, and I checked it again a few weeks ago, as for evolutions in some areas it can bee seen that body shapes have changed oddly in the past few years. There was a group of 12 guys and three girls aged between about 18 and 21, the guys all had very short legs and very long torso's compared to what is normaly percieved. I though for a bit that it was an odd form of dwarfism, although the guys were all over 6ft tall there leg length belonged to guys of about 4ft6ins tall. While the girls had very short bodies and very long legs, the girls were all 5ft 8ins tall. Being in a slight drunk state, I came up with the thought of it was easy to see that certain sex positions were impossible for the guys to physically do without standing on a box reguardless of how tall they were. But also none of the guys could sit on the high stools near the bar without the aid of a ladder to get on them.

 

so on the evolution of this group the guys were built for sitting around doing nothing with there legs, and the girls were built to sit on high stools next to bars and still place there feet on the ground. (the group were all caucasian).

 

so bodywise in evolution terms this leads to a weird conclusion that men in the future will look like ET and girls will become heads with legs.

[LEGION]

1. Social safety nets, opposition to concepts of social darwinism. Earth/civilization not in crisis allowing social safety nets to persist.

 

But you don´t think social safety nets are a bad thing, do you?

 

And I think we have an ongoing crisis that will shape a lot in the future and also existent social nets are not present everywhere. F.E. USA.

 

@Midnight:

Scenario 3?

Yes, of course. I was just thinking of an scenario without the hope of surviving mankind, though I know that it is very unlikely.

[sparhawk]

It is not impossible that the the human mind might evolve way beyond what we have now.

 

The question is wether we would realize that. Personaly I don't think that HUMANS will change that much, and if they change it's questionable wether it's still HUMANS as we think of it today.

 

Consider this: So you have a fly and because of environmental pressure they start to change and grow four wings. Now biologists in a few years would term this four winged flies with a different name thus essentially making it a new species. But what about the original set of flies? They still can exists in some environment that hasn't forced the adaption, but of course we wouldn't see them any different then now, because that's what they are. Same things with any other species. If computers become conscious on a large scale level it is not neccessarily so that we might recognize this, just as a cell is most likely not aware of their fellow cells being a human being. It would just see a large collection of fellow cells with different "jobs". To recognize that this colleciton of cells is something different in it's entirety the cell would have to step out of it's experience level, which of course can not do, as it would be something different then.

 

Social evolution progresses. I am a great believer that since evolution is infallible that it must get better and better. I see no reason to suppose that the progress over the last thousand years will not continue.

 

Don't know if "better" is the correct term. Evolution tends to enforce a stable equilibrium until the environment changes and needs a different equilibrium. Wether this is "better" is only a matter of conception, because the dying species will experience it as bad while the adapted species will experience it as normal or good.

 

Likely in a jungle, chimpanzee situation they would die out but in a modern human society, not much problem. This is why health is probably deteriorating generally. There is little evolutionary pressure to maintain good health, at least in certain areas of health.

 

See above. "Good health" is relative. Good for what? As you said yourself, in a jungle environment it might not be sufficient, but in a city it is, so why should this be a problem? It could only be seen as a problem in relation to "the old ways".

 

It would be an advantage for evolution to speed up generations because then evolution speeds up (eg, fruit fly) so it seems certain to me that evolution 'invented' the ageing gene, ie, that ageing is genetic.

 

On the cell level this is not true, because cells don't need to die. Only the particular process that came up for us, includes dying. Of course there are still casualities and other forms of killing which also would decimate the population and require erplacement, but that would be a different society evolved to the needs of that environment.

 

If evolution is dead it will be because of:

 

How can evolution be dead?

 

1. Social safety nets, opposition to concepts of social darwinism.

 

Social safete nets are also part of the evolution.After all, they were not jumping into live on it's own and suddenly where there because of quantum fluctuation. They were developed and are still under development.

 

Synthetic biological changes can't be considered evolution because there is no natural selection, "selection" is based on ability to pay, choice, etc.

 

Which is also a selection mechanism, jsut on a different level than before. For evolution it doesn't matter HOW the selection takes place, only THAT it happens.

 

So if the selection is that I must like it, then this is what the evolution will gravitate around. If the selection process is the average of millions of poeple and how they want their babies, then this is what the evolutionary processes are gravitating around. And this is a kind of feedback process, because of those selection is not successfull in terms of reproduction then there will survive a set of genoms that may tend to not mess so much around, or mess in "the correct" way so that more individuals of that mindset will reproduce. And the nice thing about it is, that there is no "right" or "wrong" because individuals will just do what they "know" is "right".

[Baddcog]

i don't think it's unreasonable for humans to realize that they've mentally evolved. but it wouldn't be because one day they just realize it, like a fly or cell wouldn't realize it.

 

but instead because we have documented history to reflect on. once humans realize that war is just part of our primeval survival instinct and realize that it is no longer needed then culture as a whole will have evolved and be able to read about atrocoties like hiroshema and realize that mentally/spiritually we have moved on.

 

much like the cyborg thing.but i still don't consider that evolution, that's a choice that could be made, and scientificaally possible even now (implants so deaf can hear and blind can see).

but the gene code isn't changing, so that's not evolution, it's personal enhancement, until humans are born with robot parts it'll never be evolution,

[Fidcal]

I struggle to clarify what I meant by social evolution so will just air a few ideas I've had.

 

It's worth stating that there is natural selection in creatures, what most people think of when they hear the word 'evolution' and then there is the absolute principle of evolution. I've often tried to find a definition or even define it myself without success (anyone?)

 

Roughly, evolution is a process that works in any system where there is the possibility of selection and propagation not just in natural creatures. Darwinian natural selection in living creatures is just one example of evolution. In my opinion, evolution is infallible and one of the few scientific theories that does not really need proof since it can be logically deduced (a lot easier with hindsight!) If anything, the onus is on others to prove it is false.

 

But whereas the principle does not imo need proof, it's application in a particular system does. The only proof I believe necessary is:

 

1. Characteristics can change in that system (mutation.)

2. Characteristics are passed on to succeeding generations.

3. There is some means of selection.

4. There is sufficient time.

 

Examples:

 

In engineering: If someone devises an improved (more efficient, faster, cheaper) method of welding then that method will tend to get adopted by the majority and older methods die out.

 

In education: If a new teaching method is invented that is 'better' than previous methods it will tend to get adopted in preference to those earlier methods.

 

In commerce: If a new idea makes more profit than it will tend to replace ones that make less money.

 

In societies: if people in general are uncomfortable with injustice, crime, poverty, slavery, inefficient political systems, steps eventually will be taken to select ways to improve things. Evolution does not care if these are concepts or absolute universal truths. All it needs is 1, 2, and 3 above and you cannot stop it. It's easier to let the cat out of the bag than stuff it back in. Once you've solved a crossword it's very hard to unsolve it.

 

Progress may fail at any point or even take a back step but overall the principle cannot fail. A prey animal born with a longer leg might have a better chance of outrunning predators but it might die of disease in its first year and never breed. But if there are enough animals and enough time then sooner or later another one will mutate.

 

Given time (4 above, ie, if we don't get destroyed) then since 1, 2, 3 are absolute certainties, then the perfecting of mankind's overall happiness is inevitable.

[demagogue]

@Fidcal, what you're talking about is what Dawkins called memes, then Kate Distin wrote a book on the process called The Selfish Meme. The evolution of ideas and culture works on different but related principles than biological evolution, but it's worth keeping them separate. You're supposed to get to the causal root of a process, which for evolution is replication and selection of phylotypes in the genetic code.

 

But for cultural evolution the exact causal process isn't known ... We know there's communication and selection of the root ideas, but I don't think we know enough about knowledge representation to know how an idea is recognized, represented, and used in the brain. I mean, the mechanism for "idea recognition" alone would have a lot of implications -- people may interpret the same "idea" very differently -- and is very interesting to think about IMO. I'm interested in the research on neuroeconomics, one punchline of which is the idea that the brain takes-up ideas more readily ("selects" them) to the extent they improve the relative expected utility of the person. That is, ideas may get indexed with an REU tag, and ideas with higher REU values trump ones with lower ones, though I'm sure it's much more complicated than that. But it's an interesting mechanism to think about.

 

I read another great book not too long ago (have to remember the title), explaining some differences between biological and cultural evolution. Cultural replication is virtually "costless"; you just have to communicate it. And selection occurs on an exponential looking graph. One person communicates it to everybody around him, which in turn communicate it to everyone around them, and everybody can tweak it to their own use and evolve their own thinking over time... As opposed to biological evolution which occurs geometrically (you pass it only to the next generation, in one-shot instances, and have to wait for them to have kids to repeat the process again). So cultural evolution can spread through a population more quickly; a tool-use can fit a niche much faster than waiting for a new finger shape to evolve, which is why humans burst on the scene when they did. I mean, for all other animals, behavioral traits are genetically grounded, so behavior changes can just occur geometrically. Humans are first ones (AFAIRead in a book) to behave based on "ideas" they can predicate (some other animals can communicate signals, and new signals can spread exponentially; but not predicate ideas).

 

Also memes don't really have the same kind of hard selection pressure. People can get along with bad ideas for a long time. (Then again, a lot of genes don't have selection pressure either; that's why I think it was 90-some-odd% of the genetic code is non-used random garble along for the ride.) I guess a difference is an idea can still be had, it's not just along for the ride from other ideas you do use (or maybe there are a lot of these kinds of ideas too), but just because you have an idea doesn't mean it's "used" and changes how you do things, whereas a phylotype by definition is a trait expressed in your construction -- though there's complexity here too since genes have to interface with the cells & proteins doing the work in the real world; it's not like an easy 1-to-1 mapping from gene to trait. And of course, not every trait in your body changes your fitness; we have all sorts of tack-on lumps that don't affect replication so are sort of along for the ride in another way.

[Fidcal]

Some good points there demagogue. The selection pressures in society are probably both conscious and unconscious: desire for improvement, safety, security, comfort; probably things like greed, hunger and so on. I sense an overwhelming current that pushes us along. Look at the pressures on governments these days on most semi-free western countries. They can't UNemancipate women even if they wanted to for instance. Nobody can. As awareness is raised about false assumptions like inequalities there seems to be powerful instincts and compulsions to change the situation. Those are selection pressures it seems to me.

[sparhawk]

i don't think it's unreasonable for humans to realize that they've mentally evolved.

 

What I meant is, that if humans are part of a bigger entity, which evolved, we wouldn't be able to really understand all the implications of it, just like cells don't even though they may have a basic understanding of their immediate environment. The whole is bigger then just the sum of it's parts.

 

is just part of our primeval survival instinct and realize that it is no longer needed then culture as a whole will have evolved and be able to read about atrocoties like hiroshema and realize that mentally/spiritually we have moved on.

 

Personally I wouldn't qualify that as evolution, more similar to the process of becoming adult from a child, but maybe that is a tiny evolution.

 

much like the cyborg thing.but i still don't consider that evolution, that's a choice that could be made, and scientificaally possible even now (implants so deaf can hear and blind can see).

 

Well, why is this no evolution? I mean we evolved our immune system to aid and protect us, and having implants and modern medicine is just another step.

 

but the gene code isn't changing, so that's not evolution, it's personal enhancement, until humans are born with robot parts it'll never be evolution,

 

I see that differently, because the abillity to use tools is definitely a evolutionary process. And once a pupolution becomes such an integral part with it's tools that they depend on it, you can not realistically seperate it anymore. An ant hill is just as integral a part of the ant society as are the indivudals.

 

In my opinion, evolution is infallible and one of the few scientific theories that does not really need proof since it can be logically deduced (a lot easier with hindsight!) If anything, the onus is on others to prove it is false.

 

I think most people would agree that this would be a perfect example of why evolution is NOT a scientific theory if it can be proven just by hindsight.

 

As a matter of fact Astrology works the same. You can only proof the claims with hindsight.

 

Personally I think that this is a shortcoming of the scientific definition, because I don't really believe that evolution is not a scientific theory.

 

The only proof I believe necessary is:

 

1. Characteristics can change in that system (mutation.)

2. Characteristics are passed on to succeeding generations.

3. There is some means of selection.

4. There is sufficient time.

 

That's no proof that are just the setup which you need to find the proof.

 

In engineering: If someone devises an improved (more efficient, faster, cheaper) method of welding then that method will tend to get adopted by the majority and older methods die out.

 

Wrong. A good example is VHS and Beta. There are other examples but that's the one that immediatley comes to my mind. There are far more parameters that just being better. It's the same in evolution. For example, from what I read I'm of the opinion that Orang Utans have similar abillities as we do, but we were first. Time is critical in evolution.

 

In education: If a new teaching method is invented that is 'better' than previous methods it will tend to get adopted in preference to those earlier methods.

 

Also wrong.

[sparhawk]

The evolution of ideas and culture works on different but related principles than biological evolution, but it's worth keeping them separate. You're supposed to get to the causal root of a process, which for evolution is replication and selection of phylotypes in the genetic code.

 

In my opinion this is just a matter of hair splitting. Just like there are people who would never accepts robots to be capable of feelings just because we designed computers in the first place.

 

I mean, the mechanism for "idea recognition" alone would have a lot of implications -- people may interpret the same "idea" very differently -- and is very interesting to think about IMO.

 

Not MAY, it's a fact. just look at religions and the concepts of god.

 

That is, ideas may get indexed with an REU tag, and ideas with higher REU values trump ones with lower ones, though I'm sure it's much more complicated than that. But it's an interesting mechanism to think about.

 

Daniel C. Denett as an intersting book about how consciousness is generated which goes in a similar direction "Consciousness Explained". Quite an interesting read, especially because he doesn't use the vailed mystical aspect or the quantum fluctuation crap that is often used (like Hofstaedter does). Rather he uses a mathematical statistical concept which works entirely on it's own, instead of relying on some unknown hidden features like the above. Most of these theories at the core have no real explanations and try to hide it with a lot of math and words.

 

I read another great book not too long ago (have to remember the title), explaining some differences between biological and cultural evolution. Cultural replication is virtually "costless"; you just have to communicate it.

 

Communication takes time and of course you need to have the physical entity that is able to communicate it. The coin is different, but it's not costless, so I assume that's why you put it in quotes.

 

As opposed to biological evolution which occurs geometrically (you pass it only to the next generation, in one-shot instances, and have to wait for them to have kids to repeat the process again).

 

Well the process might be faster, but that can also happen in a individuals. Consider bacterias. You start with two, thwo two replicate and so on and you have also exponential growth. Not very different IMO.

 

Humans are first ones (AFAIRead in a book) to behave based on "ideas" they can predicate (some other animals can communicate signals, and new signals can spread exponentially; but not predicate ideas).

 

AFAIK Orang Utans can, and also other animals. They just don't use it as extensivelly as we do.

 

Also memes don't really have the same kind of hard selection pressure. People can get along with bad ideas for a long time.

 

Just like genes which are not (always) expressed.

 

(Then again, a lot of genes don't have selection pressure either; that's why I think it was 90-some-odd% of the genetic code is non-used random garble along for the ride.)

 

Funnily enough, there are studies which seem to indicate that this "unused" stuff is not as useless as it was though in the beginning. Not really surprising though, as you can't really expect that scientists can make a good guess as to what is really needed and what not as soon as they start. But that's how knowledge gathering works. Reminds me a bit of the claim "we are only using 10% of our brain".

 

we have all sorts of tack-on lumps that don't affect replication so are sort of along for the ride in another way.

 

Exactly.

[Fidcal]

@Sparhawk:

 

I didn't want to use the word 'theory' but couldn't think of the correct name for something that can be deduced logically. It does not need hindsight but with hindsight one can look back and see that we could have worked it out logically that evolution must take place in any system as described having the four criteria I listed. I'm sure some old Greek philosopher could have worked it out if they had had reason to consider it.

 

I wrongly implied that the only proof that evolution is a valid principle are the four things I listed. I meant the only proof needed that evolution will take place in any system is the presence of those four. For example, If I want to prove that evolution took place say, in the formation of the solar system I would have to find those four things actively present. If I found them then I would be certain that evolution took place. Until then, I don't know either way.

 

The VHS and beta examples do not demonstrate that better engineering will not TEND to be adopted, simply that in that individual case it didn't happen. That was similar to saying a herd of horses faster than another herd and living in the same area but which happened to die out anyway disproves natural selection in animals. It doesn't. In general that faster prey animal would TEND to survive but in any particular instance it might not. Clearly engineering techniques have *generally* improved and will keep on improving despite some 'bad' choices.

 

The same is true in teaching and in every system where there is propagated change and selection. A few hundred bad choices in the 20th century are irrelevant in 10,000 years time. There were trillions of bad selections in nature and trillions of good ones which outnumbered them because they tended to survive.

 

I stand by my four criteria and that they must constitute the evolutionary process in any system where they are present, even in a computer program it must work if defined correctly:

 

1. Possibility of change

2. Propagation of change

3. Selection of the best.

4. Time