Biological Energy Redistribution?

Which say little about the genetics of a species with culture.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If environment

If environment interaction become a reason to evolution then how all type of constant exposure of any environment can not be related to evolution?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because, as you stubbornly fail to understand, an environmental factor only drives evolution if it affects the success of the organism at reproducing. If it has no effect on that, it will not cause any evolutionary response.

For goodness sake, read something about natural selection before you ask any more of these silly questions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All try

All type of constant envolonmeb

Okay but still those evolved response can still be of disruptive selection nature i.e. supporting extreme of both creative or destructive side to which such offspring can be evolved accordingly. Probably we are already evolved to it therefore preferring extreme of creation & destruction. Can we say, we are such tive evolved that our reproductive success is still maintained but by Disruptive selection?

 

But social complexity and social dynamics will also be an environment so why we or our next generations can't be evolved by these accordingly?

 

Gibberish.

 

I think you meant covfefe.


Anyway, this is pointless. Kumar begs the question.
Any informative response given is just given a thin coat of paint as one of his evolutionary factors and sent back out pretending to be a two-way conversation.

 

Yes, our artificial environment is an influence on our evolution, but you have to point to something specific.

 

Is that not called "conforming" to social standards, which can sometimes lead to devolution....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The old practice of Japanese foot-binding comes to mind.
Or the neck rings used by several African Tribes. I read that in those societies a long neck is desirable, so they keep adding rings to the neck so that it can only grow upward. For some individuals this has created such a long and weak neck that it can no longer support the head without the bracing of the rings.

 

There is no such thing as de-evolution except in pop culture. What would be the mechanism?

 

Lack of use. Cave dwelling fish once had eyes, but in that environment eyesight is useless and their eyesockets are overgrown with scales.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150911-blind-cavefish-animals-science-vision-evolution/

I would call that de-evolution of the ability to see, because it isn't environmentally necessary and sight is energy intensive. The fish has evolved other means of finding its food.

 

Technically, that's just evolution.

 

I understand, in the end it's all part of slow evolution (adaption), fast mutation (sometimes to great advantage), and natural selection (the probabilistic sorting).

I was just making a point that once functional organs can lose their function, but may be re-adapted for life in a specific environment where the original function has no survival advantage. But that is specific to bio-chemical processes. This is why I used the term "devolve" rather than "de-evolve"

from Webster

 

Clothing probably lead to losing our natural coat. It seems to be harmful and somewhat devolution. Let us consider, destructive modern introduction, unhealth tools, nuclear weapons etc. To survive by these can be a need for survival and fitness for future. Why we can not be evolved of these? In one sense it is survival and fitness in another sense it is deadly and dangerous for survival and fitness. What we shall consider it... Evolution or devolution?

 

A very profound question, IMO.

Humans are some of the most vulnerable species. Our toughness and persistence began to wane with the industrial revolution, which demanded the profit it was due, by saving labor time.
This scenario may be the end of humans as the most dominant in numbers but in sheer power. Human are an "invasive species and a threat to life on the planet.

 

So, it can be taken as devolution.

 

It would be nice if we somehow evolved resistance to nuclear war, but you have to be specific. Evolution can't anticipate future problems, it only works by spreading genes from reproducing life forms, and so far, modernity has increased lifespan, decreased infant mortality, and developed treatments or cures for diseases that would have killed people in the past. How could what you propose possibly work?

 

For Pete's sake! No! (To W4U as well).

All change is evolution. There is no such thing as "devolution".

All species, since the dawn of time, have been balancing their energy budget. If a feature results in them breeding more (such as by getting more food), then that trait is carried forward.

Whales were once land creatures. They evolved to a marine habitat to take advantage of the food supply. A fluke-like structure was more advantageous for a marine mammals, so it evolved toward a fluke-like structure. They did not "devolve" their legs.

Fish evolved eyes a long time ago. Fish that live in total darkness don't gain an advantage with eyes, so they put that energy into other traits (possibly a lower metabolism) that helped them survive better and breed more.


The very concept of devolution is self-contradictory. It would mean that some trait X, causes a species to have more difficulty reproducing, yet paradoxically, the species reproduces better. Say, a cave-dwelling fish living in utter darkness squanders its energy budget on large high-acuity eyes - eyes that not only do not help it compete, but actually hurt its competitiveness. Yet, utterly contrarily, (and without gaining any other advantage) it manages to produce more offspring. That's a self-contradiction.

 

Modernity introduced and introducing an environment of extreme side of unhealth and destruction as well as of its treatments and of new creations. Our present and future should be based on this prefered environment. It may be somewhat Disruptive not Directional selection as aConsicious not natural evolution.

 

How new change can benefit or harm us may need to be evolution or devolution. If new change is in our harm, why it can not be expressed as devolution,?