4 ms·

Evolution would not allow waste of energy and complexity for just one on/off switch. Inefficient things die out in the course of millions of years. Neural tissu

by xvilka 3y ago

Evolution would not allow waste of energy and complexity for just one on/off switch. Inefficient things die out in the course of millions of years. Neural tissue on itself is far older than humanity, so it had much more time to perfect.

lukebitts 3y ago
That’s not true at all. If something is a waste but doesn’t meaningfully change yours odds of suvival, “evolution” won’t care
- xvilka 3y ago
  Out there food and energy are often scarce. Evolution does care about efficiency in that particular case a lot. True, there are ecosystems with plenty of free food but they are rarity.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Evolution doesn't care about anything.
    - runsWphotons 3y ago
      it is possible this is not quite true
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        No, that is not possible.
        runsWphotons 3y ago
        At least in plants there is some evidence that mutations produced and then acted on by natural selection are not fully random. It is a long held assumption this should not be possible, but there are interesting lines of evidence suggesting it may be. It would open the chance of there being a kind of (limited) underlying logic.
        runsWphotons 3y ago
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6.pdf This is an example. Epigenetically driven evolution in arabodopsis, which protects certain regions from mutation. In a very limited sense, evolution might be said to "care" about something here, as it is kind of taking direction from the environment, not simply acting on uniformly random mutations. Nothing like this is known in animals or most anywhere else afaik.
golergka 3y ago
Peacocks, antlers, art.
- Lerc 3y ago
  It is arguable all three have evolved for the same reason.
jacquesm 3y ago
> Evolution would not allow waste of energy and complexity for just one on/off switch. Inefficient things die out in the course of millions of years. Neural tissue on itself is far older than humanity, so it had much more time to perfect. Sorry but that's not how evolution works at all. You are essentially postulating that evolution results in efficient outcomes given enough time whereas there are many, many examples of evolution delivering results but clearly sub-optimal ones. It's not a given that evolution will lead to an efficient solution, it's not even a given that it will lead to a solution at all.

by xvilka 3y ago

lukebitts 3y ago

That’s not true at all. If something is a waste but doesn’t meaningfully change yours odds of suvival, “evolution” won’t care

xvilka 3y ago
Out there food and energy are often scarce. Evolution does care about efficiency in that particular case a lot. True, there are ecosystems with plenty of free food but they are rarity.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Evolution doesn't care about anything.
  - runsWphotons 3y ago
    it is possible this is not quite true
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      No, that is not possible.
      - runsWphotons 3y ago
        At least in plants there is some evidence that mutations produced and then acted on by natural selection are not fully random. It is a long held assumption this should not be possible, but there are interesting lines of evidence suggesting it may be. It would open the chance of there being a kind of (limited) underlying logic.
        runsWphotons 3y ago
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04269-6.pdf This is an example. Epigenetically driven evolution in arabodopsis, which protects certain regions from mutation. In a very limited sense, evolution might be said to "care" about something here, as it is kind of taking direction from the environment, not simply acting on uniformly random mutations. Nothing like this is known in animals or most anywhere else afaik.

golergka 3y ago

Peacocks, antlers, art.

Lerc 3y ago
It is arguable all three have evolved for the same reason.

jacquesm 3y ago

> Evolution would not allow waste of energy and complexity for just one on/off switch. Inefficient things die out in the course of millions of years. Neural tissue on itself is far older than humanity, so it had much more time to perfect. Sorry but that's not how evolution works at all. You are essentially postulating that evolution results in efficient outcomes given enough time whereas there are many, many examples of evolution delivering results but clearly sub-optimal ones. It's not a given that evolution will lead to an efficient solution, it's not even a given that it will lead to a solution at all.