What makes us evolve (in terms of thought or activity)?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Skid Mark

Is learned behavior . . . . "evolution"?

You can teach an animal a trick, but because it has learned or even has the capacity to learn, is doesn't necessarily mean that it has evolved.

Perhaps humans have not evolved in the last 200,000 years, but have retained the capability to "learn new tricks" instead.

This is what I would agree with. Until we reach a unified, peaceful and environmentally sound world I don't think humans should consider the evolution of our toys and tools as evolution of the human.

We have essentially been warriors, hunters and gathers who played with toys from as far back as archeological evidence goes.

We have physically made some adaptations as evidenced in our DNA but I believe a sentient being can only be considered evolved once it learns how to live in harmony with other sentient beings and the environment.

Unless of course we start giving birth to hybrid children with X-men abilities or some other obviously evolved characteristics.

a reply to: Isurrender73

I agree with that assessment entirely, in fact it's what inspired me to post this thread in the first place.


I don't think we would be able to evolve naturally at all until we start living in harmony with nature, ourselves and other species.. I think without that balance we start to devolve.

If you're asking about humans in particular, and what separates us from the rest, I'd say language and teaching. Other animals have forms of language and teaching, but these are primitive signals and imitative behavior. Humans have hit critical mass in language and learning. What separates a space shuttle from an airplane? It doesn't have radically different qualities, but it can reach escape velocity.

The most significant evolution of the human race now isn't in its genes but its memes. We aren't bound by mere chance experiences any more to develop more evolved forms of technology and culture. We can pass down the fruit of our experiences in ways animals can't; our descendants can build on them to deliberately seek new methods to accomplish their desires.

Animal evolution is driven by chance. The more knowledge is accumulated by the human race, the more our evolution will be driven by knowledge.

a reply to: nonjudgementalist

Meh, evolution has to do with pain...

so I would say feeling pain and adapting to stop feeling the pain, is what stimulated us to evolve....

Just saying it is pretty elementary...

**** ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS *****

The off topic discussion stops now. discuss the topic at hand or walk away. Post removals and bans are next.

***** DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST *****

a reply to: Phantom423

Human evolution is actually speeding up too.

From National Geographic News:
Human Evolution Speeding Up, Study Says

December 11, 2007

Explosive population growth is driving human evolution to speed up around the world, according to a new study.

The pace of change accelerated about 40,000 years ago and then picked up even more with the advent of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, the study says.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

And this from Scientific American:

Culture Speeds Up Human Evolution

Analysis of common patterns of genetic variation reveals that humans have been evolving faster in recent history

That is a great answer to what makes us evolve: culture.

But what is it specifically about culture that makes us evolve? That is a very interesting question.

a reply to: VP740

Hmm, great answer.

I like how you said teaching instead of "education"... Anyone can educate themselves about anything... But to have a teacher typically implies someone older wiser and more knowledgeable than yourself feels that the information they have acquired is important enough to be passed on to the younger generations. Without teachers (either in person or in books) we would continually be starting from scratch.

a reply to: nonjudgementalist

Simply pressure. It really isn't just cultural. It's also environmental. In fact, I would think that environmental would be number one. Think migrations - why do migrations occur? Primarily because of negative environmental changes - weather, volcanism, competition with other species. Enough pressure that the population has to adapt. The blue eye study is very interesting - there's another paper out there (I'll find it later) which describes when and how the gene was actually initiated - I think it was in southern Europe - Ukraine region. I'll look it up. What was the pressure? Obviously something to do with the wavelength of light which the eye had to adapt to.
I'll post it tomorrow.

a reply to: Phantom423

How interesting. My dad has blue eyes.

Trial and Error, while it can be considered a cognitive reaction, animals do learn at different rates, the problem is if it does not get taught to the species young. Like how some cats learn to look both ways when crossing the street as opposed to the cats that don't look, and would those cats have learned to communicate that to its young. Another, more primitive example would be how did most predators learn to attack the throat of their prey for an easy meal, did it happen by mistakenly hitting a vital point, and the animal figures out, hey if I bite their hard enough easy meal? How do some animals form packs or even learn how to pounce for that matter. Was it something installed in their brains of their first breath, or was this a slow process that had to be learned first, taught, practiced, and pretty much beaten into their DNA due to risking themselves to larger prey or competitors.

Does learning behavior become instinct?

To humans, this would be no different then an education, and may be even a religion for that matter. As for physical changes, no clue, being a by product of the environment maybe, but it could have something due to with mental adaption, but which could be a much slower process then physical changes.

a reply to: Bicent76

Pain ok, what about emotional pain? That too? I think it must...

Hmm so many answers coming through this is great.

originally posted by: nonjudgementalist
a reply to: Bicent76

Pain in, what about emotional pain? That too? I think it must do...

Hmm so many answers coming through this is great.

I will expand on it, I dunno how clear it will come out..

I am far away...

Pain, emotional makes us evolve, and yes physical as well. We have to survive, which coincides with evolving, a human being can adapt to any place on Earth..

A instinct is developed by doing something over and over again until it is instinctive in theory it carries on to our offspring creating evolution I suppose..

I do not think I can prove it, but evolution has to do with us surviving in life and creating instincts to pass along to our offspring.. We are all part of evolution, their is more de-evolving now thou, then evolution I am afraid, if anything is evolving now it is AI, or computers etc. machines are evolving faster than the human, the human, is becoming lazy etc..

The machine in this reality, is going to be the irony, we will evolve it more than ourselves do to our laziness to evolution I am willing to bet...

a reply to: nonjudgementalist

Evolution only advances by the annihilation of the 'unsuccessful'.

No amount of action other than the death of others propels us forward in evolutionary terms.

Too many people hold on to the pipe-dream that being good or striving towards a goal has any significant effect on evolution.

The science is amoral and does not care.

The concept that we can assist evolution is flawed and leads to evil.

a reply to: nonjudgementalist

Bio-feedback, adapt or perish.

This is my thoughts..

a reply to: chr0naut

Evolution only advances by the annihilation of the 'unsuccessful'.

False. But what do you mean "advances?" Ability to survive in a given environment? How is that an advancement? What about when that environment changes, again? Perhaps closer to what is was previously. Then that "advancement" didn't turn out so well, did it?

No amount of action other than the death of others propels us forward in evolutionary terms.

Everything dies. You seem to be confusing extinction with death. Different concepts, but extinction of one species is not required for the evolution of another.

Too many people hold on to the pipe-dream that being good or striving towards a goal has any significant effect on evolution.

Yes. A fallacy. Evolution has no truck with will.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

Evolution only advances by the annihilation of the 'unsuccessful'.

False. But what do you mean "advances?" Ability to survive in a given environment? How is that an advancement? What about when that environment changes, again? Perhaps closer to what is was previously. Then that "advancement" didn't turn out so well, did it?

No amount of action other than the death of others propels us forward in evolutionary terms.

Everything dies. You seem to be confusing extinction with death. Different concepts, but extinction of one species is not required for the evolution of another.

Too many people hold on to the pipe-dream that being good or striving towards a goal has any significant effect on evolution.

Yes. A fallacy. Evolution has no truck with will.

I should have said 'proceeds' rather than 'advances'. The ability of a changed genome to 'survive' in a particular environment implies that 'unfit' genomes do not survive.

If genes stay in the gene pool, there is no change. For change to happen some genes have to be permanently removed.

The premise of the OP is that we can make ourselves evolve via will or intent and that a favorable advantage equates with evolutionary change.

Survival of the fittest implies non-survival of the unfit. Not 'nice', but there it is.

a reply to: chr0naut

If genes stay in the gene pool and procreate, there is no change. For change to happen genes have to be permanently removed.

That has nothing to do with "annihilation of the 'unsuccessful'", or the death of others. Everything dies, no matter how "successful" their species is.

The premise of the OP is that we can make ourselves evolve via will or intent.

Aside from deliberate genetic manipulation, not much reason to think so.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

If genes stay in the gene pool and procreate, there is no change. For change to happen genes have to be permanently removed.

That has nothing to do with "annihilation of the 'unsuccessful'", or the death of others. Everything dies, no matter how "successful" their species is.

The premise of the OP is that we can make ourselves evolve via will or intent.

Aside from deliberate genetic manipulation, not much reason to think so.

Can you please explain some other method that removes genes from the gene pool, other than the death of the carriers of the unsuccessful genes (including their offspring who also carry the unsuccessful gene)?

a reply to: nonjudgementalist

You are correct in that we may be in a temporary interregnum where fitness issues no longer determine the rate of reproduction, and therefore, for a while, the population's average attributes, measured in intelligence, health, or other obvious things, goes down. Maybe the planet will bounce back or maybe we've blown our chances.

As for the bacteria example, I don't know what to say except that there are mutations that will increase the rate of budding in bacteria which are living in a resource-rich environment, and these mutations will tend to dominate. Until the petri dish gets filled, of course.

a reply to: Woodcarver

You have a very deterministic view of how evolution works. I see it as more probabilistic. Some mutation happens, and maybe it meets a fitness test and either dies off or reproduces, or maybe it doesn't and it just keeps reproducing, even though it has less of some fitness attribute than something else. Randomness is also part of life.