Is there an evolutionary advantage to death?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Is there an evolutionary advantage to death? » Is there an evolutionary advantage to death?

Is there an evolutionary advantage to death?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Is there an evolutionary advantage to death?

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 431

Posted 10/07/09 - 03:28 AM:	#31
wuliheron wrote: Being able to shuffle three cards in a game of three card Monte faster than I can shuffle a full deck does not make three card Monty a more "adaptive" game, it simply makes it faster. There are countless insects and microorganisms that have gone extinct precisely because the number of cards they had to shuffle was insufficient for their changing situation. Polio and small pox are just two examples of all but extinct microorganisms, and the number of insects going extinct today is astronomical. Despite their ability to adapt quickly many are still loosing ground because of fundamental physiological limitations their dna simply cannot adapt to. For the term "adaptability" to have any demonstrable meaning it must be placed in a specific context. Of course, the mass media tends to focus on those bugs and diseases that continue to plague humanity, but there are countless more that are beneficial that are going extinct at rates estimated to be among the highest in the history of the planet. Another problem besides placing such statements in context is the exact definition we might choose for microorganisms. Mitochondria, for example, are thought to represent a symbiotic relationship between animal cells and microorganisms that occured hundreds of millions of years ago. Is it the microorganism evolving or the human genome? Hence you can define your terms in any way that is beneficial to your argument and then restrict the argument to only those contexts that support it, but you are merely playing with words. I don't believe defining adaptiveness as the rate at which an organism can adjust to a new environmental stressor is overly self-serving. Humans are cognitively, culturally, and technologically adaptive, but not biologically adaptive. There are but 1 species of Homo extant in the world today. There are countless species of insects. There are microbes that live in suffocating sediments, under frozen lakes, in hydrothermal vents, in salt crystals, etc, etc. We believe that humans have "conquered" the world, but in truth we are ridiculously fragile, and ill-adaptive. The environmental temperature variations between, say, the Inuit and the Bedouins is laughable compared to the range of environments for which micro-organisms (with whom I would indeed class mitochondria) have adapted.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4150

Posted 10/08/09 - 10:58 AM:	#32
Arkady wrote: I don't believe defining adaptiveness as the rate at which an organism can adjust to a new environmental stressor is overly self-serving. Humans are cognitively, culturally, and technologically adaptive, but not biologically adaptive. There are but 1 species of Homo extant in the world today. There are countless species of insects. There are microbes that live in suffocating sediments, under frozen lakes, in hydrothermal vents, in salt crystals, etc, etc. We believe that humans have "conquered" the world, but in truth we are ridiculously fragile, and ill-adaptive. The environmental temperature variations between, say, the Inuit and the Bedouins is laughable compared to the range of environments for which micro-organisms (with whom I would indeed class mitochondria) have adapted. You are again merely playing with words and numbers. If you wish to argue merely for the sake of arguing you will need to find some other sucker. Otherwise, show me the money, show me the proof of your assertion.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 431

Posted 10/08/09 - 01:54 PM:	#33
wuliheron wrote: You are again merely playing with words and numbers. If you wish to argue merely for the sake of arguing you will need to find some other sucker. Otherwise, show me the money, show me the proof of your assertion. The proof of what assertion? What numbers?
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4150

Posted 10/08/09 - 05:35 PM:	#34
Hell, I'd settle for a dictionary definition of "adaptive" as being merely a function of how fast something changes its dna. However, if you can pull it off (which I doubt), I'd love to see a reference to an evolutionary or systems expert that agrees with you. Otherwise you are just shooting from the hip as far as I can tell.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 431

Posted 10/08/09 - 06:13 PM:	#35
wuliheron wrote: Hell, I'd settle for a dictionary definition of "adaptive" as being merely a function of how fast something changes its dna. However, if you can pull it off (which I doubt), I'd love to see a reference to an evolutionary or systems expert that agrees with you. Otherwise you are just shooting from the hip as far as I can tell. If you like, the following is from dictionary.com: –adjective serving or able to adapt; showing or contributing to adaptation: the adaptive coloring of a chameleon.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4150

Posted 10/09/09 - 01:17 AM:	#36
That's a contextual example of the use of the word, not a definition. However, seeing as it actually uses a specific context it is a step in the right direction.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 431

Posted 10/09/09 - 02:58 AM:	#37
wuliheron wrote: That's a contextual example of the use of the word, not a definition. However, seeing as it actually uses a specific context it is a step in the right direction. No: it's a definition followed by a contextual example.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 524

Posted 10/09/09 - 03:36 AM:	#38
uhh... prevention of overpopulation? Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4150

Posted 10/09/09 - 11:24 PM:	#39
Arkady wrote: No: it's a definition followed by a contextual example. "Being able to adapt" is self-referential, while "serving" doesn't reference anything. Here is a definition of the root word: Dictionary.com wrote: a?dapt? –verb (used with object) 1. to make suitable to requirements or conditions; adjust or modify fittingly

psychotick
Dazed and confused

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 05, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 119

Posted 10/10/09 - 03:21 AM:	#40
Hi, Clearly death is necessary at some point or worldly resources would be used up by the oldies thus robbing the young and reproductively capable of chances to spawn. But for humans who don't just drop a few litters and die after a few years but rather have fewer offspring and have the long term job of raising them to maturity, survival of the parents at least until the youngest children have matured has to be a selective advantage. Ignoring the trappings of modern covilization, say lets go back approx ten thousand years ago, humans born to parents who died when they were only five years old would have been less likely to survive and reproduce. I'm unsure whether the presence of surviving grandparents would be so beneficial, but I would suspect that it would be of some advantage, but not nearly as great as having parents surviving. Coming forwards into more modern times, the role of natural selection in human evolution has lessened as it has been replaced to some extent with our own selective breeding. Yes I know it sounds like intelligent design but its not. All I'm saying is that as we have become a more advanced species, we have started to modify the criteria by which mates are selected. In short we have started to breed ourselves much as we have bred dogs and sheep. Don't believe me? Then ask yourselves what women want in a mate - yes I know its a mancentric point of view, but I'm male so sue me. Besides its generally the females who chose who they'll have children with. These days what matters more, the ability to run fast and throw a spear? Or the ability to be successful in society? By success lets consider issues such as the accumulation of wealth, dependant upon intelligence and family background (please no jokes about inbred nobles or Donald Trump!). We also value health, note health as opposed to athleticism though the two do cross paths. Healthier people tend to live longer. We value education, usually based on intelligence and a 'good family background'. We value genius and creativity, explain to me how else Charlie Chaplin could have had a child at 86, and Picasso was also an older father. There's plenty of evidence around to show that more intelligent people live longer in our socierty. To return to the topic, for many species there is an evolutionary advantage to the parental generation dying off early after they've completed their spawning duties, but at present I suspect its the other way around for humans. There's an evolutionary advantage for parental generations to survive longer, especially now that we've started guiding our own evolution. Cheers.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.