Biological Energy Redistribution?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by KUMAR5, Dec 21, 2017.

  1. MRC_Hans Skeptic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    835
    Key words here are "I think". What you think is not really very intersting, sorry. By the way, can you define the boundary between mental and physical?

    Hans
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Apart from greater reproductive success, whether better survival is also not a purpose for getting evolution by natural selection? If yes then whatever environment to which people are constantly exposed or opting, may it be new technology by using more mental power and less physical power, why it also can't serve as a new mean for better survival to our offsprings by bringing evolutionary changes in them? Simply, I mean, why we can't be progressively evolving towards using more mental power and less physical power due to changed environment(technology) for survival? I do no know, whether it can also increase our reproductive success or not?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    As I mentioned in my last post, Why exposure or option of new technology by using more mental power and less physical power serve a purpose of greater success for surrvival & fitness(reproduction) to our offsprings and so call for a need of evolution by natural selection to it?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    It is self explanatory. Today, we are using more mental based technology of both creative & destructive nature than physical activities(agriculture, hunting food,walking etc. I doubt, it can be a reason to new evolutionary changes for survival & fitness.
     
  8. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    In fact, the more education people get, the less they reproduce. But don't those who use high tech have similar genetics to those who don't? I don't see what trait is providing a reproductive advantage.
     
  9. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Do people not have children due to the physically inactive nature of their lifestyle? No. Does their earlier death effect their reproductive capacity? No, since these health effects don't show up until well after typical childbearing age for women, and well after most men start a family. This says to me that a physically inactive lifestyle has relatively small evolutionary pressure against those who practice it. Even obese children don't have much of an obstacle to reproductive success later in life.
     
  10. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Evolution is slow process. All odds and even may not be apparent sooner but still it will be affecting in anyway by some mutations. Probably, a weaker or sick person bring weak or sick children or may not due to lesser mutated genes. I do not feel, evolutionary pressure can only be one sided i. e. Supportive to greater survival, fitness, reproduction and needs. Why it can not support opposite to these as well as unhealth, greed, luxury, extinction depending on need of the time and conditions,? Today, due to overpopulation and unhealthful unnatural prefrences, we are opting birth control mechanisms and tools for unhealth, why can't it be adopted as evolutionary chamge? Sorry, big odd to say, but I doubt that Darwin could only see one side of evolution due to environment, conditions or future need prevailed in his time. We may also need to look other side or destruction side of nature.
     
  11. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    The above quote suggests heritable physical or behavioural changes, may mean physical & mental link. Moreover mutation are either harmful or neutral but rarely beneficial. To look onto other or diadvantage side of evolution, we may need to check, why harmful or neutral mutations can not be evolved depending on need of circumstances.
     
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,108
    Your first sentence does not make sense. Can you rephrase, in a grammatical sentence with a subject, a verb and an object? Also can you make it clear whether this is a question or a statement?
     
  13. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,308
    In animals, energy isn't generated at a central power generation organ and then distributed around the body by wires. Energy is generated wherever it's needed by cellular metabolism. So the brain generates its own energy. What is distributed around the body are sugars in the blood stream. Digestion breaks down complex carbohydrates into simpler sugars like glucose and fructose, which act like gasoline/petrol for cells. Some organs (the brain among them) use more of this than others.

    Evolution does have an effect on energy requirements in the body. There's an interesting discussion of sloths in this week's New Scientist. Sloths eat leaves which are a very low nutrition food-source. So they have evolved to use as little energy as possible. They hang passively from tree limbs by their hook-like claws. They rarely move and then only very slowly. (Which has the added benefit of making them more difficult to perceive by predators that are attracted by rapid movements.) And I'd guess that their brains take a larger share of nutrients than is typical for most animals. Animals that move rapidly (birds come to mind) doubtless devote a larger percentage of the sugars in their blood to their muscles.

    So conceivably, if human evolution continues to favor brain over brawn, our temporal successors might have bigger brains that consume more body resources and less developed musculature. For example, these.
     
  14. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Thanks for showing future human.,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    In view of recent fsst changes anf if these continue, it may be possible. Your reply support my thoughts. Btw, how larger brain is relsted with greater consciousness and intelligence?
     
  15. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Sorry. Evolution is related to greater survival and fitness for reproduction not only to reproduction. However, I now feel, it may just be one sided approach. Probably, evolution may also be related to lesser survival and lesser reproduction depending on need of the time and prevailing conditions. Therefore we are opting for birth control measures and unnatural, unhealthful destructive technology.
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,108
    Try to get this into your head: evolution works by favouring reproduction of the better adapted members of a population. If a trait does not lead to more offspring, it does not get amplified within the population and no evolution results.

    It is the height of stupidity to suggest that evolution can somehow favour a lesser degree of reproduction, because greater reproductive success is the mechanism by which evolution operates.
     
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Because fitness in an evolutionary sense is not the same thing as health. Fitness is only the ability to reproduce your genes or those of your relatives (which also likely share some of your genes). So yes, we can evolve to be unhealthier personally, but only if it's associated with greater reproductive success, and thus the opposite of extinction.

    Greed is not truly a genetic trait, it's a cultural one.
     
  18. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Okay. Btw don't we see few communities or species who can not reproduce more and are on the threat of extinction? If they are, how they got evolved accordingly?
     
  19. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    Btw, don't we see few communities in human and other species who are not able to reproduce more and are on a threat of extinction? If they are, how could they got evolved accordingly,?
     
  20. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Simple, they adapted to different conditions than exist today. Evolution itself isn't responsible for their demise.

    For instance, flightless birds evolved on islands with few predators, but the introduction of rats and cats to these ecosystems means that their eggs are rapidly eaten before they grow to adulthood. The way to adapt would be to gain flight again, but where is the first one that starts to use their vestigial wings again and gain some reproductive advantage? So evolution favors reproductive success, but it can't see the future and often leads species down dead ends from which there is no escape.
     
  21. KUMAR5 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    459
    But people also get genetic cause to infertility and diseases. Does is not oppose to survival & fitness due to evolution?
     
  22. MRC_Hans Skeptic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    835
    Evolution has no morals or ethics. Yes, if overpopulation exists in an environment, evolution might favor species that breed slowly. There is certainly a destructive side to evolution. An example: Lions are flock animals. They live in prides of several females with one male. This male, of course, sires all cubs in the pride. To avoid over-population, and to ensure good conditions for already born cubs, females do not get into heat till their cubs have come of age. Now, sometimes, a younger, or stronger, male lion will fight the male of a pride, kill him or drive him away and take over the pride. Then its first action will be to kill all cubs. .. Because then the females will get into heat again, he can mate with them and sire new litters of cubs, which will carry HIS genes. Destructive, but favored by evolution because it progresses the new male's genes.

    Hans
     
  23. MRC_Hans Skeptic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    835
    Ah, OK, now I understand what you mean by "mental energy". Fine, but modern life does NOT require more mental energy. In fact, it probably requires less. Living in a "primitive" prehistoric world requires a lot of "mental energy". Nobody is there to help you, you need to remember everything because there are no textbooks to follow, no google or GPS. And if you forget, you die.

    Some research actually indicates that modern human's brains are being reduced in size.

    Hans
     

Share This Page