Nisroch isn’t talking about instinct. He’s saying the otters became more intelligent ( through evolution) and learned to open the clams. This changes which otters will survive ( maybe slower ones that can’t catch fish) but it is evolution in action. Just as is our ability to use medicine.
No. Adaptation is a consequence of selection, not its goal.
I wasn’t alluding that adaptation could have goals. Just that natural selection does work for the benefit of the species. It’s what is meant by survival of the fittest.
Couldn’t be more wrong man. Selection’s main purpose is adaptation.
Adaptation equals survival.
Did you ever read Darwin Finch? or do you just like the catchy login?
To get down to a specific case:
Juvenile Diabetes[sup]*[/sup].
If not treated, the victim dies before being able to reproduce.
With treatment, the victim can live long enough to reproduce.
Many/most of his/her offspring will be afflicted with JD, thereby locking the genetic pool into dependence on synthetic drugs. - If there are no more drugs, a large segment of the population dies (in evoluntionary terms).
Is this a good thing?
-
- assume the science is as stated, for the sake of clarity.
good thing-bad thing is not the question.
btw, a large segment of the population does not die in your scenario
Thank you happyheathen,
The only one who gets the big picture.
Its been real, its been fun, but it hasen’t been real fun.
Thanks for the amusment guys.
Good night all
x-ray vision:
Extinction (the eventual end for all species) is the most extreme form of natural selection: all individuals fail to pass through the filter. And extinction is hardly beneficial for the species, wouldn’t you agree? The results of natural selection can be beneficial to a population, but selection does not have the population (or species) “in mind” as it operates - each individual is scrutinized separately. Which is what I meant when I stated that it “doesn’t work for the benefit of the species.”
gportela:
Again, no: adaptation is the result of selection. Selection, however, has no goal.
One projection suggested 50% of the US population US could be affected by JD by 2050.
Scary enough?
happyheathen, regarding your JD example: All you’re describing is a change in environment; whether you think it’s a likely one or not simply boils down to a matter of degree. How it’s any different from any other adaptation to environment you haven’t made clear.
A population of mammals lives off red grass, but then green grass becomes more readily available. A large part of the population thrives by evolving and becoming dependent on both types of available food. If there’s no more green grass, lots of these mammals die. Is this a good thing? Perhaps not, but it’s evolution.
You are comparing synthesized drugs to naturally-occurring vegetation?
Seems like a bit of a stretch…
happyheathen, gportela,
Medicine is actually pro-evolutionary, even if you take “evolutionary” to mean advancement. Medicine makes it easier for humans with weak physical bodies to survive. This removes a large constraint on the human organism – before medicine, all human bodies had to be strong or they would be eliminated. After medicine, human bodies can be strong or weak and still survive. This means that genetic configurations that result in weak bodies, but other strengths, such as mental strength, are possible. It is likely that the greater freedom in viable genetic configurations (the greater flexibility) will result in better maximization of other strengths. Sacrificing the body’s ability to fight off infection might be worth it if it lead to being able to construct a light-speed spacecraft and survive within it.
Look at it this way. If we were still so evolutionarily constrained that we were all forced to be able to climb faster than a lion and beat off a jackal with our bare hands, then we would be chimpanzees, not humans. Yes, chimpanzees are much stronger and healthier, but I like to think I have a large advantage over chimpanzees in this modern environment. If I ever have to fight a lion, I will buy a gun, and if I ever catch small pox I’ll go the doctor and get some medicine. And if I want a banana, I’ll go the super market.
Weakness = Strength!
Orwell is beaming…
You seem to posit that superior intellect requires physical weakness, or, at the very least, it is desirable to artificially prolong life in the hope that an overriding “good” trait will evolve within the selected population.
I’m not too comfty with humans overriding natural selection - in the case of a genetic trait which, if untreated, results in death prior to puberty, it seems that natural selection is voting that individual out of the proverbial pool. By enabling that trait to be propagated to new generations, aren’t we countermanding nature?
I don’t think the folks who invented the various things which resulted in the manufacture of firearms were afflicted with “dead-before-you’re-13” genetic traits - such technologies have only been around about 50 years (remember iron lungs?). The Polio vaccine is not the issue - polio is NOT genetic. JD is - therein lies the distinction.
Many years ago, I knew a woman who was severely allergic to the usual springtime-in-the-midwest stuff. One day, while gulping her anti-histamines, she asked (rhetorically) “How did people survive before these medicines were invented”? I replied “Maybe they didn’t”. The expression on her face was quite interesting.
Show me where in the definition of evolution it is required that the changes in environment occur naturally.