3 ms·
> Evolution has no need to produce 10x more rather energy-expensive molecules than it needs, so it doesn't produce bacteria that do that. You don't seem to und
by pfarnsworth 10y ago
> Evolution has no need to produce 10x more rather energy-expensive molecules than it needs, so it doesn't produce bacteria that do that.
You don't seem to understand natural selection. The idea of evolution producing something that an organism "needs" is akin to saying that God decided that the organism "needed" it and changed its genes.
The theory of natural selection is a completely passive process. For every generation of an organism, the genes are naturally randomized, producing various expressions of genes, and once there is selecting event, those that are not selected for will go extinct. That's what natural selection means. The idea that a giraffe "needed" a long neck is preposterous because it implies that the animal willed itself to have a longer neck. Instead, the giraffe's ancestors had a variable length neck, but given its particular circumstances, those with longer necks survived, and passed those genes on.
So there very well might be naturally occurring bacteria that produce 10x efficiently, but they haven't been selected for, yet.
- kbenson 10y ago> You don't seem to understand natural selection. The idea of evolution producing something that an organism "needs" is akin to saying that God decided that the organism "needed" it and changed its genes. I'm pretty sure he understands it fine, and is just using shorthand that makes it easier to describe. There exists no approximation of a fitness function in nature that selects for this output because it's not efficient for survival, until we come along and create custom environments and select for survival based on energy output.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- GauntletWizard 10y agoI can't decide which I find more annoying; The grandparent's misuse of terms, or the people pointing out that 'that's not how evolution works, it doesn't go towards anything, just away from what doesn't work.' I'm sure plenty of people don't get it, but it's really, really, really convenient shorthand for "Selective pressure has thus far favored" to say that "Evolution wants" or "Evolution needs". It's simple, it's unambiguous, and it's often backed up by our own human perceptions - Most of our wants and needs are based on selective pressure, so generalizing that to other selective pressures as 'wants' and 'needs' is a very natural abstraction. (I've decided which is the most annoying: Meta-pedants like me.)
- jerf 10y agoI've learned the hard way that using the klunky English required to be "correct" in an otherwise two-paragraph reply just isn't worth the time. If I were writing a scientific paper I'd be more careful, but HN comments don't benefit from the bloat. I suppose I could #include<evolution_isnt_anthropomorphic> up front and then carry on.