05-09-2004 06:13									#61
	Got spare money?

Survival is the goal of evolution, yes?

	05-09-2004 06:27									#62
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Lancer Survival is the goal of evolution, yes?

no, survival is often the result of evolution.

	05-09-2004 06:27									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Lancer Survival is the goal of evolution, yes?

Survival, yes; Intellegence, no.

	05-09-2004 06:34									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

And I'm not saying intelligence is a goal. Intelligence is a means, like reproduction, of furthering survival.

	05-09-2004 06:42									#65
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"And I'm not saying intelligence is a goal. Intelligence is a means, like reproduction, of furthering survival."

I agree. The more intellegent, the more likely to be smart enough to survive to pass on one's genes, the more intellegent the next generation and so on, particularly as the stupid ones do dumb things and die.

I wonder if being pro abortion will eventually be bred out...hmm.

	05-09-2004 07:33									#66
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Azazel We cant see any planets, so far. We can only find some fluctuating interference in the spectra of stars, and some jumps in their gravity. That's hardly "seeing". We need some big-ass telescopes ( giant interferometers) to actually see anything.

You knew what I meant "detect"

	05-09-2004 07:35									#67
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Odin One thing that annoys me about the Sagan worshippers is that they assume that evolution leads to intellegence. Sorry, but there is no goal in evolution.

One thing that annoys me about some of the Sagan bashers is that they spout meaningless things like this

There may not be a goal, but there sure as hell is a lot of convergence.

<- Sagan basher

	05-09-2004 08:10									#68
	Put an end to popups!

I wouldn't say that there is any convergence in Evolution. It's just that the results are largely dependant on the surrounding environment, and earth is a relatively closed system.


If you where to compare evolution on earth to evolution on another planet, there would probably be very little convergence.


But, going by popular thought, humans are the only intelligent species on earth anyways - so there's no convergence there.

	05-09-2004 08:26									#69
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I wouldn't say it's convergence either, it's just the way evolution works - being an iterative process, each generation is a variation on the previous one.

Another reason is there are only so many successful strategies, and most species you see alive today are the results of successful stories. For example, there are only two broad categories of reproductive style: r-strategy and K-strategy. The former is "breed as many as you can and hope some will survive." The later is "careful tending of a few offspring."

	05-09-2004 13:17									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Well, here's the thing: I'm pro-abortion only because the anti-abortion position generally means no abortions under ANY circumstances. Having a mutant baby with no mouth and 15 arms? God hates you and wants the child to suffer as your punishment. The mother has a good chance of dying due to the pregnacy? Too bad, shouldn't have gotten knocked-up in the first place trollop. You're a rape victim? Then you shouldn't have dressed like a slut.

Our intelligence gives us the means to recognize that aborting a pregnacy may be the best course of action if there's a serious problem with the fetus or if the woman's life is in danger, thereby allowing her to live another day ... perhaps to try again. The rape scenario is just a morality thing. I'd prefer a mother not abort a perfectly healthy child, but it may be emotionally better for both parties.

Further, our intelligence gives us alternate means of reproduction, invetro fertilization, surrogate mothers, and perhaps cloning, chief among them. Also, if there's a threat to the species as a whole, then our intelligence gives us the means of finding other options for survival. Asteroid with Earth's name on it? Cryogenic hibernation underground until the dust settles or colonizing Luna or Mars to continue.

I'm sorry, but yes: Survival and propagation ARE goals of evolution. There are always new challenges that threaten the extinction of a species, so the name of the game has always been and always will be to not die out.

	05-09-2004 14:52									#71
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

talking about 'goals' of evolution is flawed, IMHO. What's the goal of a hurricane? what's the goal of a Magma chamber? what's the goal of a pyroclastic erruption? What's the goal of plate tectonics?

It's a meaningless question. A nonsense. Because only a system that makes decisions can have goals. a dog, a cat, a human, all of them make have goals (some more complicated than others, obviously). Not all processes can have goals. Only entities.

	05-09-2004 15:42									#72
	Support Apolyton

What defines an entity?

	05-09-2004 16:14									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

In hindsight 'Entity' may not be the most correct word, because it's definitions vary. I am having some trouble with wording my thoughts, so bare with me. I am rather certain that I am right in this one, I just have some serious problem with the wording.

	05-09-2004 16:14									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd I wouldn't say that there is any convergence in Evolution. It's just that the results are largely dependant on the surrounding environment, and earth is a relatively closed system. If you where to compare evolution on earth to evolution on another planet, there would probably be very little convergence.

Certainly the life on Earth has generated random features in the environment, which in turn have affected the evolution of other species (like the existence of insects with color vision has lead to the development of colorful flowers). These details might be different on different planets.

Considering planets that could harbor carbon-based life, however, they are bound to have certain similarities in environment, such as temperature and surface features. And considering convergent evolution has lead to similar features in far-away species on Earth, a somewhat similar environment would result in somewhat similar structures, I would say.

Of course, chance has such a large effect that there is no way in knowing the exact details of such structures, i.e. whether the dominant oceanborne species would resemble vertebrates such as fish, invertebrates such as insects or octopuses, or something completely different last seen on Earth during the Cambrian explosion, if even then. What is probable is they would have some similarities in function to some of the species on Earth. Remember that evolution cannot do everything - it is strictly bounded by physics, the environment and the feasibility and likelihood of developing any change that assists reproduction more than inhibit it.

	05-09-2004 16:19									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Azazel It's a meaningless question. A nonsense. Because only a system that makes decisions can have goals. a dog, a cat, a human, all of them make have goals (some more complicated than others, obviously). Not all processes can have goals. Only entities.

Hmm, I wonder what constitutes a decision-making system? Considering "intelligence" is just a way of processing information and adapting and reacting to your environment, I could say that any entity or system that is sufficiently complex could appear to be "making decisions", so to speak.

Of course, we have no way of knowing how close the behaviour of such a system resembles our thought patterns, so I agree with you in that we shouldn't discuss "goals" when dealing with complex systems wildly different from ourselves. After all, "goals" and "decisions" are human concepts, so they probably do not apply to different systems with complex behaviour. Their behaviour might appear as having goals, but that is just our interpretation.

	05-09-2004 17:16									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd I wouldn't say that there is any convergence in Evolution.

You'd be wrong. Ever heard about convergent evolution? It happens a lot. It even happens in VASTLY different environments on Earth - maybe as different as parts of Earth are from Venus.

	05-09-2004 17:42									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Convergent evolution is not about vastly different environments producing the same result, its about the same functional adaptations developing independently to combat the same obstacles relevant to their niche.

	05-09-2004 19:14									#78
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

And the point being that even vastly different environments ultimately have very similar obstacles, when you get to higher forms of life.

	05-09-2004 19:27									#79
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I reckon Azazel is broadly right here. Speaking of "goals" of evolution is meaningless because evolution is just a mindless, mechanical, iterative process. It does not require an intelligence, although sometimes evolution appears to be intelligent.


Kuciwalker,

"And the point being that even vastly different environments ultimately have very similar obstacles, when you get to higher forms of life."

"Obstacles" is a very vague term. Afterall, there are only a few things an organism is required to do, such as eat, rest, flee from predators, and reproduce. So yes, broadly speaking, these "obstacles" are very similar.

	05-09-2004 19:38									#80
	Support Apolyton

If you are reducing it that much then making distinctions about environment becomes irrelevent. It becomes little more than topology and anything can evolve in it.

	05-09-2004 21:47									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger I reckon Azazel is broadly right here. Speaking of "goals" of evolution is meaningless because evolution is just a mindless, mechanical, iterative process. It does not require an intelligence, although sometimes evolution appears to be intelligent.

he is most certainly right, read almost any 'popular' book on Evolution, falling into the 'evolution has goals' trap is usually one of the first things the author will warn against.

	05-09-2004 22:08									#82
	Increase Your PM Length

If Intellegence is such a good survival mechinism it would be much more common than in apes and dolphins.

	05-09-2004 22:13									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Why, in a thread about 'intelligence' are there so many people unable to spell the word correctly?

	05-09-2004 22:40									#84
	Increase Your PM Length

Because stupidity is a convergent evolutionary trait.

	06-09-2004 10:36									#85
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin If you are reducing it that much then making distinctions about environment becomes irrelevent. It becomes little more than topology and anything can evolve in it.

You don't get convergent evolution on very specific instances, you only get it on a higher level. For example, both bats and birds fly, but they do so differently. So the details differ, but the function is the same.

	07-09-2004 00:48									#86
	Got spare money?

Birds and bats developed flight due to the environment they inhabit.

My objection is to the removing of environment to the equation of convergent evolution and replacing it with the generic needs of 'higher' animals.

	07-09-2004 01:05									#87
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Odin If Intellegence is such a good survival mechinism it would be much more common than in apes and dolphins.

False assumption. You're assuming that evolution always creates the best systems, immideately. In fact, evolution has many flaws in creating designs. It's only power is that it is the only process that creates designs that can be seen in the most simple of enviroments. Intelligent design of systems, is, in the end, much better. It's problem is that you need brains/supercomputers/whatever for that.

It may create it given enough time. But the most complex breakthroughs take eons to create. (Multicellular organisms, neural systems, etc.)

It's a known fact. Other examples: When there is no pressure on an organism in that particular field, the fact that one has a better "game plan", or genetic makeup, won't matter.

If the Gazelle population is controlled mainly by predators, the fact that some of the Gazelles digest grass a whole lot better ( good in case of drought/famine/whatever) won't help them against the lion.

	07-09-2004 01:28									#88
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Azazel False assumption. You're assuming that evolution always creates the best systems, immideately. In fact, evolution has many flaws in creating designs. It's only power is that it is the only process that creates designs that can be seen in the most simple of enviroments. Intelligent design of systems, is, in the end, much better. It's problem is that you need brains/supercomputers/whatever for that. It may create it given enough time. But the most complex breakthroughs take eons to create. (Multicellular organisms, neural systems, etc.)

And you are making a false assumption that complexity is somehow prefered over simplicity. Remember, evolution has no goals? To say that there is a 'best system' or that evolution creates 'flawed designs' is saying that it has a goal.

And besides, we humans might make a big guffaw, but it's the simplest lifeforms that will continue on after we're all dead.

	07-09-2004 01:52									#89
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Azazel It's a known fact. Other examples: When there is no pressure on an organism in that particular field, the fact that one has a better "game plan", or genetic makeup, won't matter.

I was to ask you what you mean by genetic make-up, but at first I thought that would just be too facetious - as better implies a selection pressure is present. Being non-facetious I would assume you meant hypothetically better when facing a potential selection scenario. Then I read this:

quote: If the Gazelle population is controlled mainly by predators, the fact that some of the Gazelles digest grass a whole lot better ( good in case of drought/famine/whatever) won't help them against the lion.

The better make-up that allows you to eat grass in a famine could still be selected for, just not as rapidly as the ability to avoid lions UNLESS the ability to eat grass is in some way related to the ability to avoid lions.

	07-09-2004 01:57									#90
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd And you are making a false assumption that complexity is somehow prefered over simplicity. Remember, evolution has no goals? To say that there is a 'best system' or that evolution creates 'flawed designs' is saying that it has a goal. And besides, we humans might make a big guffaw, but it's the simplest lifeforms that will continue on after we're all dead.

I agree, just presently reading the 17th July issue of New Scientist, which has an article detailing how complex neural systems are in many cases unnecessary and inferior in survival due to their energy requirements. If an environment is such that simple organisms survive in it, more complex ones do not *necessarily* evolve. The human view would be that intelligence is a general trend, but it might not be so. After all, it took almost half of our planet's lifetime, over 3 billion years (at least for all we know), before the first relatively intelligent species emerged - we might be here just because of a series of random flukes.