4 ms·
Is an assumption. There is no evidence to say we are 100% optimised . Although I think it is likely.
by quickthrower2 3y ago
Is an assumption. There is no evidence to say we are 100% optimised . Although I think it is likely.
- maxbond 3y agoWhat about vestigial stuff, like leg bones on whales? https://www.icr.org/i/stage_248/whalelegs_stage.jpg https://www.icr.org/i/stage_248/whalelegs_stage.jpg Similarly, what about things like congenital diseases? Why does sickle cell anemia seem to be an imperfect answer to malaria? Etc. My suspicion is that evolution satisfices rather than optimizes, because once a trait which is in the process of changing ceases to be the limiting factor in reproduction it ceases to change rapidly. So unlike an optimizer, evolution often doesn't take free variables to extremes (eg remove the leg bones entirely) and doesn't find a global minimum, it finds a satisfactory location in phase space close to it's previous position. Or maybe it optimizes on a higher level, and satisficing is more advantageous because optimizing to local conditions will leave you unprepared for future environmental changes, and tolerating things like vestigial traits creates opportunities for advantageous mutations. I think both explanations could coexist. This is all speculation, to be clear.