3 ms·

Evolution is not optimizing anything. What's happening in the biosphere is a process of mutation & selection, it's not optimization towards any particular goal

Evolution is not optimizing anything. What's happening in the biosphere is a process of mutation & selection, it's not optimization towards any particular goal or objective. Furthermore & slightly more abstractly, b/c of conservation of mass & energy, what's actually happening is re-organization of existing biomass into different life forms enabled by solar radiation.

47282847 1y ago
Survival?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
heavyset_go 1y ago
> what's actually happening is re-organization of existing biomass into different life forms enabled by solar radiation. And the flux of geothermal and chemical energy
- measurablefunc 1y ago
  That's true. We wouldn't have fossil fuels w/o geological activity & mass churning.
nathan_douglas 1y ago
I suppose I fail to see why evolution through natural selection is not optimizing. That was Darwin's big idea, right? That given heredity, selection, and variation you end up with life forms we'd consider optimized for their environments? Or do you mean that optimization by definition must include intent, and evolution as a mindless process has no intentionality? I'm just not sure what you're driving at.
- robotresearcher 1y ago
  Optimization is by definition with respect to some cost function or goal. Evolution has none. Evolution happens, but has no goal.
  - nathan_douglas 1y ago
    Ah! That makes sense. Thank you for explaining!
  - davidkwast 1y ago
    The goal is to accelerate Entropy
  - emmelaich 1y ago
    I would say the goal is survival. Which happens at the cell/dna.. level (mostly) not the organism. (nod to Dawkins)
    - the_af 1y ago
      Evolution has no goals, not even survival. Evolution is something that happens. Some species survive for a while, others don't. Think of it like saying water has the goal of flowing down the mountain along the path of least resistance. Of course it doesn't, it's just something that happens. There's no goal.
      - emmelaich 1y ago
        Perhaps it's an over-anthrophormic term.
  - moi2388 1y ago
    That’s the claim. But are we sure about that? I certainly have a goal when selecting my partner and creating my offspring; at the very least that they’re happy and healthy.
    - deleted 1y ago
karmakurtisaani 1y ago
But genetic algorithms are used for optimization all the time. I don't see how evolution is much different from them. A shark is pretty damn optimized bunch of molecules to survive in water, would you not agree? I suppose this boils down to your definition of "optimize".
random3 1y ago
That's a rather strong statement, but incorrect in both result and formulation. How is mutation and selection entail it's not optimization? Your motivating the lack of a goal for a process by describing it's composition. It seems like a logical (Non sequitur fallacy) and categorical erorr. For reference > optimization = the selection of a best element, with regard to some criteria, from some set of available alternatives What's the selection selecting from, what's evolution evolving towards? Moreover, you motivate with conservation. Conservation is an optimization criterion.

47282847 1y ago

Survival?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

heavyset_go 1y ago

> what's actually happening is re-organization of existing biomass into different life forms enabled by solar radiation. And the flux of geothermal and chemical energy

measurablefunc 1y ago
That's true. We wouldn't have fossil fuels w/o geological activity & mass churning.

nathan_douglas 1y ago

I suppose I fail to see why evolution through natural selection is not optimizing. That was Darwin's big idea, right? That given heredity, selection, and variation you end up with life forms we'd consider optimized for their environments? Or do you mean that optimization by definition must include intent, and evolution as a mindless process has no intentionality? I'm just not sure what you're driving at.

robotresearcher 1y ago
Optimization is by definition with respect to some cost function or goal. Evolution has none. Evolution happens, but has no goal.
- nathan_douglas 1y ago
  Ah! That makes sense. Thank you for explaining!
- davidkwast 1y ago
  The goal is to accelerate Entropy
- emmelaich 1y ago
  I would say the goal is survival. Which happens at the cell/dna.. level (mostly) not the organism. (nod to Dawkins)
  - the_af 1y ago
    Evolution has no goals, not even survival. Evolution is something that happens. Some species survive for a while, others don't. Think of it like saying water has the goal of flowing down the mountain along the path of least resistance. Of course it doesn't, it's just something that happens. There's no goal.
    - emmelaich 1y ago
      Perhaps it's an over-anthrophormic term.
- moi2388 1y ago
  That’s the claim. But are we sure about that? I certainly have a goal when selecting my partner and creating my offspring; at the very least that they’re happy and healthy.
  - deleted 1y ago

karmakurtisaani 1y ago

But genetic algorithms are used for optimization all the time. I don't see how evolution is much different from them. A shark is pretty damn optimized bunch of molecules to survive in water, would you not agree? I suppose this boils down to your definition of "optimize".

random3 1y ago

That's a rather strong statement, but incorrect in both result and formulation. How is mutation and selection entail it's not optimization? Your motivating the lack of a goal for a process by describing it's composition. It seems like a logical (Non sequitur fallacy) and categorical erorr. For reference > optimization = the selection of a best element, with regard to some criteria, from some set of available alternatives What's the selection selecting from, what's evolution evolving towards? Moreover, you motivate with conservation. Conservation is an optimization criterion.