Why things evolve?

[bahman]

Negative mutations will be eliminated and no longer effect the species. A positive mutation will be passed on and will continue to effect the population of a particular species. Negative mutations will be eliminated and positive mutations will continue. A mutation that is eliminated will not have an effect on the species, and will not be able to balance anything, especially a positive mutation that continues long after the negative mutation is gone.

Negative mutation has negative impact in population of a species. Correct? Positive mutation has positive impact in population of species. Correct? So there is a cancellation in population growth due to mutations. The net effect of mutation on population is zero if there is a exact cancellation between negative and positive mutations.

[Greta]

Negative mutations will be eliminated and no longer effect the species. A positive mutation will be passed on and will continue to effect the population of a particular species. Negative mutations will be eliminated and positive mutations will continue. A mutation that is eliminated will not have an effect on the species, and will not be able to balance anything, especially a positive mutation that continues long after the negative mutation is gone.

Negative mutation has negative impact in population of a species. Correct? Positive mutation has positive impact in population of species. Correct? So there is a cancellation in population growth due to mutations. The net effect of mutation on population is zero if there is a exact cancellation between negative and positive mutations.

Organisms with problematic mutations are less likely to reproduce and pass on their characteristics than those with useful mutations.

[Terrapin Station]

This is a conundrum. Logic suggests that evolution is non-directional, but the evidence of four billion years of life is compelling IMO. When you think about it, the idea of non-progressive evolution is at odds with how nature works. All living things mature over time - and it appears that ecosystems and the biosphere itself are not exempt from this dynamic. Evolution can be thought of as the processes involved in a maturing, or perhaps ageing, biosphere.

Factually, nothing is better or worse than anything else. Nothing counts as progress or regress. Those valuations are a factor of individual persons thinking about things in terms of their preferences, in terms of goals they have or they imagine that they would have in a particular situation (for example, "If I were a rabbit . . . ").

That solves the supposed conundrum.

[bahman]

Negative mutations will be eliminated and no longer effect the species. A positive mutation will be passed on and will continue to effect the population of a particular species. Negative mutations will be eliminated and positive mutations will continue. A mutation that is eliminated will not have an effect on the species, and will not be able to balance anything, especially a positive mutation that continues long after the negative mutation is gone.

Negative mutation has negative impact in population of a species. Correct? Positive mutation has positive impact in population of species. Correct? So there is a cancellation in population growth due to mutations. The net effect of mutation on population is zero if there is a exact cancellation between negative and positive mutations.

Organisms with problematic mutations are less likely to reproduce and pass on their characteristics than those with useful mutations.

Yes, that I know. The main question is that whether there is a cancellation in population growth due to negative mutation and positive mutation such that the random process does not cause any effective change.

[OuterLimits]

Yes, that I know. The main question is that whether there is a cancellation in population growth due to negative mutation and positive mutation such that the random process does not cause any effective change.

A single mutation happens in a single individual. The other individuals have no mutation or different mutations. Most individuals have no significant mutation and so life goes on normally. A single individual with a destructive mutation dies before mating, or is more likely to, or less likely to mate.

A single individual with a beneficial mutation is mildly faster and stronger, or more attractive to potential mates, or some other way in which his mutation is more likely to be passed on.

Let's say there is a mutation which gives major significant improvement in intelligence and strength. Let us further say that it greatly diminishes the individual's interest in mating. This "Superman" gene will not get passed on to any offspring and goes by the wayside - a "destructive" mutation.

"Nothing succeeds like success."

[thedoc]

Negative mutation has negative impact in population of a species. Correct? Positive mutation has positive impact in population of species. Correct? So there is a cancellation in population growth due to mutations. The net effect of mutation on population is zero if there is a exact cancellation between negative and positive mutations.

Incorrect, negative or positive mutations only effect the individuals that have that mutation, there is no effect on the population as a whole, and the effect on the individuals with a negative mutation is likely to only be for a generation or 2. A positive mutation will eventually effect the whole population as the mutation is spread through the population. In this case there is no cancellation of positive by negative because the positive continues and the negative disappears. There may be a balance of the different mutations, but only for a generation or 2, as the positive mutation will outlast the negative.

[thedoc]

So there is a cancellation in population growth due to mutations.

"Population Growth" is a "red herring" and not relevant to the discussion. A population can be successful when it is stable without any growth, and in this case a positive mutation may not cause any population increase, but simply allow the species to continue to exist in it's present condition in the face of a changing environment. (Note, a populations environment includes all factors that are part of that environment, predators of course, but also other species that may eat the same food, and are competition for that food source. The environment is not limited to just the climate and landscape.)

[TSBU]

Also, a mutation can be good for reproduction and bad for survive. Cancer are cells reproducing more than they should.

I have the feeling that this thread is lot of people talking about nothing. But I may be wrong, of course.

Things doesn't change, they reorganize, and we put a different name to new structures. They do it based in rules, about structures, some disappear, other disappear later, only the whole Universe remains, the big table with balls crashing each other, for ever.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is an agreement between scientist that each being/thing evolve as a matter of fit better in a situation. The fitness is allowed toward a better end because of random change in structure of any being/thing.

This is a conundrum. Logic suggests that evolution is non-directional, but the evidence of four billion years of life is compelling IMO. When you think about it, the idea of non-progressive evolution is at odds with how nature works..

no it is not. That is just your anthropomorphism talking.
You equate "progress" with humanity and complexity.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There is an agreement between scientist that each being/thing evolve as a matter of fit better in a situation. The fitness is allowed toward a better end because of random change in structure of any being/thing.

This is a conundrum. Logic suggests that evolution is non-directional, but the evidence of four billion years of life is compelling IMO. When you think about it, the idea of non-progressive evolution is at odds with how nature works..

no it is not. That is just your anthropomorphism talking.
You equate "progress" with humanity and complexity.

True. It's part of that egocentric idea that humans are somehow 'more evolved' than everything else. Actually, our weak, puny bodies are pitifully lacking in environmental adaptations.

[thedoc]

This is a conundrum. Logic suggests that evolution is non-directional, but the evidence of four billion years of life is compelling IMO. When you think about it, the idea of non-progressive evolution is at odds with how nature works..

no it is not. That is just your anthropomorphism talking.
You equate "progress" with humanity and complexity.

True. It's part of that egocentric idea that humans are somehow 'more evolved' than everything else. Actually, our weak, puny bodies are pitifully lacking in environmental adaptations.

It would be interesting to see how long humans could survive, without all the technology that our intellect has provided, in any age other than the present one. (And technology here includes everything, back to the first stone tools and beyond.)

I am often amused by those who say we should all go back to a more primitive time, I really don't think they realize all that we would have to give up. I don't want to go back, modern medications, that technology is providing, is keeping me alive. I know there are some who will say that I should just let go, and not be a burden on society, as just one more mouth to feed. People who say that, can go get stuffed.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It would be interesting to see how long humans could survive, without all the technology that our intellect has provided, in any age other than the present one. (And technology here includes everything, back to the first stone tools and beyond.)

I think most of us, young and old, would be dead in a matter of weeks, if not days. The survivors would be those doomsday loonies who live in the woods and don't pay taxes.

[Greta]

This is a conundrum. Logic suggests that evolution is non-directional, but the evidence of four billion years of life is compelling IMO. When you think about it, the idea of non-progressive evolution is at odds with how nature works..

no it is not. That is just your anthropomorphism talking.
You equate "progress" with humanity and complexity.

True. It's part of that egocentric idea that humans are somehow 'more evolved' than everything else. Actually, our weak, puny bodies are pitifully lacking in environmental adaptations.

Nope. Not at all. I am surely one of the least anthropocentric humans you will ever meet online.

Hobbs, it's just history. Increased complexity has always been the long-term trend. Just as a single ant does not suggest the complexity and sophistication of an ant nest, neither does a puny, soft human suggest the capability to extend the biosphere's reach and territory to other worlds.

I loathe the "one human life is worth more than the lives of a thousand cattle" attitude as viscerally as anyone, but we cannot doubt that humans are an extension on what's come before, an emergence akin to the first multicellular animals. We have extra capacities that allow us puny softlings to dominate even apex predators. Due to the efficacy of abstract intelligence and convergent evolution, I would expect other species to increasingly develop their own abstract intelligence if given the time to develop. Unfortunately they won't get the chance, perhaps as Neanderthals may have formed civilisations if they'd survived the ice age and H. sapiens.

[Greta]

This is a conundrum. Logic suggests that evolution is non-directional, but the evidence of four billion years of life is compelling IMO. When you think about it, the idea of non-progressive evolution is at odds with how nature works. All living things mature over time - and it appears that ecosystems and the biosphere itself are not exempt from this dynamic. Evolution can be thought of as the processes involved in a maturing, or perhaps ageing, biosphere.

Factually, nothing is better or worse than anything else. Nothing counts as progress or regress. Those valuations are a factor of individual persons thinking about things in terms of their preferences, in terms of goals they have or they imagine that they would have in a particular situation (for example, "If I were a rabbit . . . ").

That solves the supposed conundrum.

Let's explore the idea of progression in nature. The clear inferential evidence before me is that you personally have progressed hugely from infancy and childhood. Here you, a smart bloke posting stuff on philosophy forums, no doubt various skills and abilities. Importantly, also increasing understanding of self and environment via experience and learning. A clear case of progression.

I think that progression is maturation. Why should the biosphere have an unordered life when everything within it does? I think it more likely that the biosphere itself is moving into a reproductive phase than the "humans as cancer/parasite/evil spirits" notions.

[Hobbes' Choice]

no it is not. That is just your anthropomorphism talking.
You equate "progress" with humanity and complexity.

True. It's part of that egocentric idea that humans are somehow 'more evolved' than everything else. Actually, our weak, puny bodies are pitifully lacking in environmental adaptations.

It would be interesting to see how long humans could survive, without all the technology that our intellect has provided, in any age other than the present one. (And technology here includes everything, back to the first stone tools and beyond.)

I am often amused by those who say we should all go back to a more primitive time, I really don't think they realize all that we would have to give up. I don't want to go back, modern medications, that technology is providing, is keeping me alive. I know there are some who will say that I should just let go, and not be a burden on society, as just one more mouth to feed. People who say that, can go get stuffed.

Interesting but not relevant.
We have reasons for extra-somatic evolution. You'd have to say how would we be made to give them up? We'd just invent them all again. So, an odd, hypothetical.
There are human reasons why technology evolves but no intention behind natural evolution.