Hi, Hoping someone could answer a couple of queries I have about evolution being a layman. All the material I read on the subject accepts evolution is driven by natural selcetion, it doesn't necessarily have to be, the farming industry is an example of this, but it is accepted almost wholesale evolution is driven by natural selection. There are a few alternative arguments such as the selfish gene and more cranky theories such as Lamarck's. What I would like to question, 1. Are there any viable alternative theories to natural selection. 2. Natural Selection and alternative theories are all the result of looking for 'a' driving force for evolution. Can't there be multiple causes all interacting with one another. Why do these theories look for 'a' cause, presumably they have ruled out the multiple cause possibility, what is the evidence for this?
OP, Not sure exactly what you're asking but I have a response given the way I interpret the question. I feel that humans, with their intelligence, have found ways and are in the process of overcoming Natural Selection. Here's an example, one form of Natural Selection is any member of a group of animals that is sickly or otherwise physically incapacitated more or less either gets left behind by the herd/pack/group or gets picked off by a predator. Now, logically speaking, any person that is physically handicapped, or with Down's Syndrome/MMR, etc. would normally be a burden on society/humanity/herd, etc. But with modern medicine and infrastructure, people that would theoretically get left behind/discarded can be productive members of society. And as our intelligence and technology increases, we will be able to cure/fix shortcomings like that more and more (cybernetic appendages, genetic enginneering/ 'weeding out' disease and mental disorders). Intelligence and advanced technology trumps natural selection.
The selfish gene does not contradict the notion of natural selection. Natural selection is the most common, but there are other kinds of selection such as sexual selection or artificial selection. Evolution is "driven" by many factors besides selection, such as the variation present that selection could act upon, the reproduction rate, the mutation rate, etc...
Spider, I agree with everything you stated, which for me begs the question, Why is it that if a woman is looking for a guy that will be best suited to father and raise their children; why do I see so many women dating, and attached to the most jackass, degenerate, worthless pieces of shit of a guy that walks this planet?
There are two reasons. 1. Aggressive males that other males do not like represent an ability or at least an attitude that shows the female they will defend her and her offspring. 2. Humans have culture, which is new, and which is often contrary to the long term needs of the species.
That's an old fashioned way to look at it, as other 'aggressive' males could challenge or kill the original aggessive male, leavning NO father for her children. Besides, the jackasses I was talking about are NOT good fathers, whether it be nurturing or defending his children. A dead beat dad is not going to put forth an effort to defend his children. So, I guess those women are too stupid to realize that an aggressive man isn't necessarily going to be a good father. Then the human specie won't survive for long if that's the case; paralysis by cosmetic and selfish preferences.
1. With humans and many other animals, mating behavior is largely about appearance, not substance. Good fathers don't have a look that is immediately apparent. People react out of instinct. 2. The human species is doing OK, we don't live such a fine line between survival and extinction like other animals do.
And us going on looks an instinct have gotten us really, really far compared to where we could be, huh? Like I said above, humanity is doing OK because of our intelligence, not our instincts.
Cranky? I thought Lamarckian evolution was pretty intuitive the first time I read about it. Like how my dad really loved boxing and football and math and I was always really good at those things. Check this out: http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/?a=f They wouldn't be alternatives, natural selection is clearly a real thing. If I were to kill you, you won't pass your genes on to anyone unless you already have. There are other factors. There are multiple causes interacting with each other.
That's why my statement included 'and attached'. You don't get attached to someone you are just having fun with.
For most creatures, there is only natural selection (which covers selection by various factors in the environment), and sexual selection. Humans can select animals for breeding to create domestic versions, and they can breed themselves (eugenics). That said, it is not the complete picture of how evolution works. How do the variations occur that then become selected? What is the unit of selection, the organism, the gene, the species?
so to summarise.. There are multiple causes of evolution, chance, genetic drift, natural selection, founder effects and geographical isolation that drive evolution in animals. In special cases such as humans it's more complex and other factors are involved such as the reproduction rate, the mutation rate, sexual selection, eugenics and more. However all this must be balanced with the fact we don't actually know what is becoming selected, the organism, the gene, the species. Am i correct
Not exactly. Reproduction rate, mutations, sexual selection, they are factors in most species. None of them are really the cause of evolution. The cause is iteration with variation and selection. In those conditions, even within a computer, we may see evolution occur. Currently, we think that the gene is the unit of selection. Please see www.talkorigins.org for more information.
Several reasons: If you accept that males that are bad at child rearing have an abundance of masculine traits, and these are determined by testosterone, then a male with lots of testosterone will display masculine traits. Why is this good? Because testosterone is an immune suppressant, so males that can survive with high levels of testosterone have good diseases resistance. Masculine traits in the EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptedness) were good for protecting a mate from rival males. If you are a non-human animal, and there is a female nursing offspring that's not yours, the fastest way to have her bear your offspring and nurse them is to kill her existing offspring and mate with her. Males that could protect their paternal investment from infanticidal males would be valuable. Some traits don't need to have a reason to be attractive. If there is a male trait that females find attractive, then it's good to have your sons have that trait, as it will increase their likelihood of passing on their genes. These traits need not have any other purpose- they can even be detrimental to survival. Females can have multiple offspring. A young 20 something is fit and capable of bearing offspring in worse conditions than a 30 something, with a higher chance of both her and her offspring surviving. By pairing with an aggressive male, she gains any of the benefits listed above, while mitigating them with her youthfulness. When she gets older, she'll probably settle down with a pussy.
