Natural selection inefficiency?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2014, 06:48 AM
Natural selection inefficiency?
I'll admit I'm not very well versed in the theory of evolution by natural selection. I understand it at an elementary level. But I've been thinking why it is that some of the inefficiencies in our bodies haven't been weeded out.

I assume that there are genes that cause bad eye sight like myopia. I have myopia. Funny thing is I had perfect vision right up until the 11th grade. That's when things started getting a little out of focus. I could get by nearly perfectly without it being obvious that I needed glasses. The 12th grade came and I couldn't sit at the back of the class anymore, but I could still get by normally. 1st year in college I needed glasses to survive.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume that in our infancy as a species we heavily relied on our senses. All of them especially sight. You can see where I'm going with this. So vision would've been of paramount importance for hunting and plain old survival. Our species may have had the good sense to differenciate labour. The big strong guys would be the hunters and what not. I'm thinking they would've been doing most of the mating. Guys with poor vision would've been lower on the pecking order. They may not have even got any pussy. I'm thinking my idea of how thing would've went down must obviously be wrong. Why else would we have people like me that need glasses? God I hate them!

8000 years before Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 07:08 AM
Re: Natural selection inefficiency?
Have you not recalled your ancient literature and history lessons?

Old blind guys with no ability to hunt wound up sitting around and learning all the oral tales to tell to the public.

While Hunters and warriors were out dying, Homer and other blind legend weavers were capturing the minds of the women. These guys were considered oral experts for a reason ya know.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 07:12 AM
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
(18-02-2014 07:08 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Have you not recalled your ancient literature and history lessons?

Old blind guys with no ability to hunt wound up sitting around and learning all the oral tales to tell to the public.

While Hunters and warriors were out dying, Homer and other blind legend weavers were capturing the minds of the women. These guys were considered oral experts for a reason ya know.

So that's why people who use glasses are more intelligent than sport people?

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
18-02-2014, 07:18 AM
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
Yeah, nature sure can fuck up, but god can't. He, he, he.

Aren't you glad we live in the 21st. century? We're a little more progressed--so your chances of getting as much vagina today is almost as much as the big guys chances.

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Orson Welles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 07:42 AM
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
(18-02-2014 06:48 AM)BlackMason Wrote:  But I've been thinking why it is that some of the inefficiencies in our bodies haven't been weeded out.

Because evolution is an on-going process. What you are asking is why evolution hasn't yet come up with an optimal solution.

There are several things to bear in mind.

Selection pressure keeps changing. Our environment changes. For example, some people suffer from the evolutionary adaptations of the immune system to parasites and there is very little chance of them getting tape worms in modern society.

Even if selection pressure did not change then the fact that there are inefficiencies would suggest that there has not been enough time for evolution to weed out these inefficiencies.

Be glad that we aren't all perfect because if the evolutionary niche that we fill never changes then we will likely end up becoming too specialised, like the peacock.

Often it's a compromise. For example, the danger of giving birth versus the selection pressure for larger brains.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 08:56 AM
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
(18-02-2014 07:42 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 06:48 AM)BlackMason Wrote:  But I've been thinking why it is that some of the inefficiencies in our bodies haven't been weeded out.

Because evolution is an on-going process. What you are asking is why evolution hasn't yet come up with an optimal solution.

There are several things to bear in mind.

Selection pressure keeps changing. Our environment changes. For example, some people suffer from the evolutionary adaptations of the immune system to parasites and there is very little chance of them getting tape worms in modern society.

Even if selection pressure did not change then the fact that there are inefficiencies would suggest that there has not been enough time for evolution to weed out these inefficiencies.

Be glad that we aren't all perfect because if the evolutionary niche that we fill never changes then we will likely end up becoming too specialised, like the peacock.

Often it's a compromise. For example, the danger of giving birth versus the selection pressure for larger brains.

Wrong.

There is one central principle to evolution (amongst others). Selection pressure only applies to traits which affect the fitness of an individual prior to the age of reproduction.

After reproduction, genes are no longer under the pressure of selection. Therefore, deleterious phenotypes which only occur after the age of reproduction are not selected and randomly distributed to the offspring.

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 08:57 AM
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
(18-02-2014 08:56 AM)Youkay Wrote:  Wrong.

There is one central principle to evolution (amongst others). Selection pressure only applies to traits which affect the fitness of an individual prior to the age of reproduction.

I know that. Why does that make what I said wrong?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 09:03 AM
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
I'm just going to say, evolution isn't perfect. It makes animals adapt to their environment, but it doesn't make them perfect in every scenario.
Evolution is like a lazy student. He turns in the bare minimum on any project and doesn't do any more.
So, evolution is just to survive, not to make you a superhero with no flaws.
Also, your the sperm and egg cells you are made of could have had copy errors or mutation, which is why we get these horrible things.

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
18-02-2014, 09:08 AM
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
What you said was just wrong. Just like the many other things people here in this thread say.



The OP asked a a very simple question, and the answer to that question is:

There is one central principle to evolution (amongst others). Selection pressure only applies to traits which affect the fitness of an individual prior to the age of reproduction.

After reproduction, genes are no longer under the pressure of selection. Therefore, deleterious phenotypes which only occur after the age of reproduction are not selected and randomly distributed to the offspring.

Next question please

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Youkay's post
18-02-2014, 09:11 AM
RE: Natural selection inefficiency?
(18-02-2014 09:08 AM)Youkay Wrote:  Next question please

"There is only one central principal to evolution (amongst others)"

My question is, how does this statement make sense?

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Elder Cunningham's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: