Sep 19, 2006
Why Does Natural Selection Take So Long
In an item on The Register about why natural selection takes so long to get results, Dr Stephen Juan, an anthropologist at the University of Sydney makes several statements that seem to me to be at odds with evolutionary theory.
“Most mutations do not help the species survive.”
This is true in one sense, but natural selection doesn’t act on species, all it does is remove individuals from the gene pool that are no longer best adapted for a particular environment. If a mutation in an individual’s DNA mean it is better adapted to a changing environment then it will pass the “new” gene(s) on to its offspring who will then have the trait and the viability in that environment to reproduce and so on.
“A species and an environment exist in balance with each other.”
Do they? Perhaps, but only in the sense that should either one change radically then we will no longer observe a balance. Moreover, several mutations over several generations that allow individuals to cope with a changing environment leads to species diversity.
“Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings and to changes in those surroundings.”
No they don’t. Individuals either survive the new surroundings and pass on their genes to their offspring or they don’t. Usually, only those best adapted to new environmental conditions survive to do so. Populations may display synergetic effects between individuals but this is not the same as a population adapting.
“They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time.”
There is no such thing as “better” or “worse” evolutionarily speaking. An individual either survives and passes on its genes or it does not. If those genes endow the offspring with the ability to survive and pass the genes on again then the genes survive. If they don’t they are lost. Evolution is littered with dead-ends but every single living thing on the planet has ancestors that were capable of reproducing.
So, “island” in a succinct sentence or two, what *is* your point?
If you have it in your mind that somehow this whole universe was created just for humanity,
I don’t.
then consider this. We are but one species out of thousands, if not millions, on a single small planet, orbiting a single star among myriad other stars in a single galaxy within an enormous cluster or galaxies, within an even greater expanse of space peppered with yet more galaxies, and we exist at a point where we can ponder such questions 13,700,000,000 earth years beyond a time before which there was no space or time. If turns out that the universe has been or is littered with other sentient lifeforms, which it possibly may not be, then we are neither unique nor particular special.
Right, and the Goldilocks Enigma speaks to this and makes predictions about the *preferred region of the universe* where we can expect to find life elsewhere in the universe, which is why Richard Dawkins said that.
Further to my comment about chimps, I wasn’t trying to imply that they had any greater intelligence or skills, but the genomic analyses show that they have moved further along the evolutionary branch than humans –
I understand, and have read the recent reports. Regardless, I don’t consider humans nor chimps to be any more special than any other member of the ecobalance that we *contributing members* arose from and *belong to*.
Whoops, I forgot this link to very relevant information about “The Goldilocks Enigma”
http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2007/02/goldilocks-enigma-again.html
If you have it in your mind that somehow this whole universe was created just for humanity, then consider this. We are but one species out of thousands, if not millions, on a single small planet, orbiting a single star among myriad other stars in a single galaxy within an enormous cluster or galaxies, within an even greater expanse of space peppered with yet more galaxies, and we exist at a point where we can ponder such questions 13,700,000,000 earth years beyond a time before which there was no space or time. If turns out that the universe has been or is littered with other sentient lifeforms, which it possibly may not be, then we are neither unique nor particular special.
Further to my comment about chimps, I wasn’t trying to imply that they had any greater intelligence or skills, but the genomic analyses show that they have moved further along the evolutionary branch than humans – http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5808
island, I’m not sure why we need to invoke an anthropic prediction.
You don’t???… Did you read what I wrote, because it sure looks like a good reason to do so, if you ask me. Wait, let me go back and read it again… … … … Nope, it still looks like a good reason, unless you simply dont.want.to.hear.it.
what makes us so special? new evidence suggests that chimpanzees are more highly evolved than humans and so further down the evolutionary path from our common ancestor than we are.
Sure they are, and the moon is just as obviously made of Green cheese, but chimps aren’t ***specialized*** (not special), at making matter/antimatter particle pairs, which enables the asymmetrical thermodynamic process that causes the universe to evolve, whrereas, we… do… So we can argue the physics until nobody here knows enough about it to judge its validity, or you can just admit that the prediction *necessarily* and **self-evidentally** falls from any true strong anthropic cosmological principle, so you don’t *KNOW* a damned thing for certain, until we have a proven ToE… or MAYBE a valid proven theory of quantum gravity.
“god” forbid that the universe be Darwinian… that would just kill neodarwinians!
island, I’m not sure why we need to invoke an anthropic prediction. what makes us so special? new evidence suggests that chimpanzees are more highly evolved than humans and so further down the evolutionary path from our common ancestor than we are.