Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
PsiSeeker

Evolutionary arrow

7 posts in this topic

I occasionally get thoughts and ideas that I don't necessarily agree with however feel like sharing to see what other people think.

Based on odds and statistics evolution doesn't care how long we live much past the point where we're incapable to guarantee the survival of our offspring. Now whatever that sweet spot is there certainty is a natural decline in natural ability to succeed due to increasing random events due to lack of death. That is to say since evolution is no longer a factor there is just a watering down and declining effect once death stops being a leading contributor to the evolution equation.

Anyway, very basic thought, read over it several times, could definitely word it better to be more conformist bla bla, but the basic just of it is there. Hopefully generates some discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

may I ask for a bit of clarification? I read it twice and am not entirely sure of the point you make. Ive probably not had enough coffee..

typo

Edited by seeder
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I occasionally get thoughts and ideas that I don't necessarily agree with however feel like sharing to see what other people think.

Based on odds and statistics evolution doesn't care how long we live much past the point where we're incapable to guarantee the survival of our offspring. Now whatever that sweet spot is there certainty is a natural decline in natural ability to succeed due to increasing random events due to lack of death. That is to say since evolution is no longer a factor there is just a watering down and declining effect once death stops being a leading contributor to the evolution equation.

Anyway, very basic thought, read over it several times, could definitely word it better to be more conformist bla bla, but the basic just of it is there. Hopefully generates some discussion.

Well there still are evolutionary benefits to ageing. Traditionally grandmothers took care of the children while their parents produced. Older men lived to pass on more knowledge and wisdom to his family. There is evolutionary pressure for older people to continue to function in a group. Women taking care of children while they grow older are healthier and live longer than those who don't. The extra help lets their families prosper Moore. It might seem as we age and our children grow that our reproductive function disappears, but this is not true. We still function and continue to perpetuate our genes through helping out children continue to raise their own and passing down of valuable skills and experience.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on odds and statistics evolution doesn't care how long we live much past the point where we're incapable to guarantee the survival of our offspring. Now whatever that sweet spot is there certainty is a natural decline in natural ability to succeed due to increasing random events due to lack of death.

Two points:

1- evolution doesn't "care" about anything, any more than a pair of dice care about landing on any given number

2- Evolutionary success IS passing on dna.

what does "due to increasing random events due to lack of death" mean? That seems like just random words in a random order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I occasionally get thoughts and ideas that I don't necessarily agree with however feel like sharing to see what other people think.

Based on odds and statistics evolution doesn't care how long we live much past the point where we're incapable to guarantee the survival of our offspring. Now whatever that sweet spot is there certainty is a natural decline in natural ability to succeed due to increasing random events due to lack of death. That is to say since evolution is no longer a factor there is just a watering down and declining effect once death stops being a leading contributor to the evolution equation.

Anyway, very basic thought, read over it several times, could definitely word it better to be more conformist bla bla, but the basic just of it is there. Hopefully generates some discussion.

Evolution that is non-theist does not believe that evolution has a point. Most mutations are detrimental to survival, there is no arrow, just random mindless change. So I am not sure the question has any meaning.....or I don't understand it.....which is very plausible..... :geek::sk:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there still are evolutionary benefits to ageing. Traditionally grandmothers took care of the children while their parents produced. Older men lived to pass on more knowledge and wisdom to his family. There is evolutionary pressure for older people to continue to function in a group. Women taking care of children while they grow older are healthier and live longer than those who don't. The extra help lets their families prosper Moore. It might seem as we age and our children grow that our reproductive function disappears, but this is not true. We still function and continue to perpetuate our genes through helping out children continue to raise their own and passing down of valuable skills and experience.

It is highly beneficial to both groups for the very young to spend much time with the very old...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

may I ask for a bit of clarification? I read it twice and am not entirely sure of the point you make. Ive probably not had enough coffee..

typo

My bad, was massively intoxicated when I made the post.

The thought is that there is an average age of the human population where most of our offspring is produced and therefore anything after this average age isn't naturally selected for. As a result this point should be where we start to age. I was trying to think of why we start aging at around 27-30. I was thinking this may be due to most of our ancestors dying around this age. However this might not be entirely correct.

I think 7 is the age where most kids can start to survive in the wild, I don't know if that's accurate. Parents need to stay together for at least 7 years to raise their offspring so the parents health would be naturally selected for over those 7 years which would bring the average age of having off spring down to 20-23.

Without delving too far into it myself there does seem to be massive holes in this thought I'm well aware.

Well there still are evolutionary benefits to ageing. Traditionally grandmothers took care of the children while their parents produced. Older men lived to pass on more knowledge and wisdom to his family. There is evolutionary pressure for older people to continue to function in a group. Women taking care of children while they grow older are healthier and live longer than those who don't. The extra help lets their families prosper Moore. It might seem as we age and our children grow that our reproductive function disappears, but this is not true. We still function and continue to perpetuate our genes through helping out children continue to raise their own and passing down of valuable skills and experience.

My thought is that the impact of such benefit would be minimal due to the limited number of individuals that have made it into old age. I seem to remember that some genes are selected for based on behavior?

Two points:

1- evolution doesn't "care" about anything, any more than a pair of dice care about landing on any given number

2- Evolutionary success IS passing on dna.

what does "due to increasing random events due to lack of death" mean? That seems like just random words in a random order.

Apologies, my choice of wording is poor at the best of times, I'm trying to learn how to better communicate what's in my head but am finding it difficult as hell without over complicating everything.

"due to increasing random events due to lack of death" was meant to mean an increase in entropy once natural selection stops occurring. The thought is that aging can be thought of as increasing entropy.

Evolution that is non-theist does not believe that evolution has a point. Most mutations are detrimental to survival, there is no arrow, just random mindless change. So I am not sure the question has any meaning.....or I don't understand it.....which is very plausible..... :geek::sk:blink:

Very badly worded OP on my part haha. I think I meant arrow as in "zoning in on" or "focusing in on" To me evolution focuses in on certain things selected for.

It is highly beneficial to both groups for the very young to spend much time with the very old...

I agree however such an effect would certainly have been minimal when considering the entire human history due to the small number of individuals that actually made it into old age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.