First alien signal may have been detected...!

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Dauphin]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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

[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.


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.

[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.

[reds4ever]

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.

[Odin]

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

[reds4ever]

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

[General Ludd]

Because stupidity is a convergent evolutionary trait.

[Urban Ranger]

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.

[Dauphin]

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.

[Az]

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.

[General Ludd]

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.

[Dauphin]

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:

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.

[Jarouik]

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.