4 ms·

My definition of optimal was in terms of control over the environment. We could kill all 50 billion chickens if we wanted to. If we want to redefine optimal to

by hpvic03 14y ago

My definition of optimal was in terms of control over the environment. We could kill all 50 billion chickens if we wanted to. If we want to redefine optimal to mean quantity of genes in the environment, then humans don't come out on top right now, but we could if we wanted to; I am sure that if we desired we could set up a lab to replicate more of our genetical material than any other species has in the environment. Also, by this definition the most optimal human would theoretically attempt to turn all of the matter in the universe into copies of his/her genes. A gene for a behavior that affects the number of sexual partners an animal has would likely have been selected for or against long before H sapiens evolved, thus enough iterations have occurred to weed out polygamy in mammals if it was a detrimental behavior. As for your ride-along-nose-picking thesis, I suppose it could be true. Nose picking only recently became a detrimental behavior in terms of evolutionary timescales.

dalke 14y ago
I figured you would say that about chickens. Basically, if you pick a definition which only works for humans, then sure, humans are going to be the winner. You might as well say that humans are the most optimal because they are the only ones to have put satellites into orbit around Mars. True, but not a useful species comparison. Tell me, can you even apply your concept of "wanted to" to any other species? Which are the most successful fish species by this definition? Could any species of ant ever "want to" kill all humans? If they really wanted to, could they succeed? As it stands then, your definition is useless, and propaganda for the supremacy of the humans species. If we go extinct tomorrow - pretend this is the height of the Cold War and WW3 starts, with 50,000 nuclear weapons going off across the surface of the planet - then would an alien observer say that we were a successful species, because of our massive effect on the ecosystem, or would they say that we were a dismal species, which only lasted for a few hundred thousand years? If we go extinct next year because of a hyper-virulent virus which kills only humans, would you say that that virus is more optimal than humans? Your answers probably say more about you than provide a useful guide to how to measure evolutionary success. As to the amount of genetic mutation present, that's just silly. There's 844 million tons of maize harvested each week, with plenty left as chaff. Assuming an average human mass of 65 kg and a population of 7 billion gives 460 million tons of people. Corn DNA is slightly larger than human DNA and plant cells tend to be smaller than animal cells. By the mass or count definition, corn is more successful than humans. There's 651 million tons of wheat harvest each year, but wheat's genome is 5x bigger than humans, so there's certainly more wheat DNA in the world than human DNA. In any case, you're again too focused on the individual. Evolution only cares about genes, not individuals. That's why your correct extrapolation - "the most optimal human would theoretically attempt to turn all of the matter in the universe into copies of his/her genes" - shows that that definition of optimality is invalid. Individuals aren't relevant. There's no guarantee that duplicated genes in cloned copies of a single individual are better at survival than having a mix of genes spread across a heterogenous population. And your last paragraph shows that you don't understand the effect of mutation in evolution. All you are thinking of is the weeding out part. Mutations occur all the time. Humans have about 0.003 mutations per genome per generation. For every 4000 births, there is a mutation. Few are improvements. Nearly all have no effect or are negative. Suppose one mutation has a really good advantage, and the only child from that person both 1) inherits the gene and 2) has a brand new nose picking mutation which confers a slight negative effect. Then that person's children will inherit both mutations. The really good one is going to spread, and the new, detrimental mutation will also spread -- even though it doesn't help improve survivability!
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

by hpvic03 14y ago

dalke 14y ago

I figured you would say that about chickens. Basically, if you pick a definition which only works for humans, then sure, humans are going to be the winner. You might as well say that humans are the most optimal because they are the only ones to have put satellites into orbit around Mars. True, but not a useful species comparison. Tell me, can you even apply your concept of "wanted to" to any other species? Which are the most successful fish species by this definition? Could any species of ant ever "want to" kill all humans? If they really wanted to, could they succeed? As it stands then, your definition is useless, and propaganda for the supremacy of the humans species. If we go extinct tomorrow - pretend this is the height of the Cold War and WW3 starts, with 50,000 nuclear weapons going off across the surface of the planet - then would an alien observer say that we were a successful species, because of our massive effect on the ecosystem, or would they say that we were a dismal species, which only lasted for a few hundred thousand years? If we go extinct next year because of a hyper-virulent virus which kills only humans, would you say that that virus is more optimal than humans? Your answers probably say more about you than provide a useful guide to how to measure evolutionary success. As to the amount of genetic mutation present, that's just silly. There's 844 million tons of maize harvested each week, with plenty left as chaff. Assuming an average human mass of 65 kg and a population of 7 billion gives 460 million tons of people. Corn DNA is slightly larger than human DNA and plant cells tend to be smaller than animal cells. By the mass or count definition, corn is more successful than humans. There's 651 million tons of wheat harvest each year, but wheat's genome is 5x bigger than humans, so there's certainly more wheat DNA in the world than human DNA. In any case, you're again too focused on the individual. Evolution only cares about genes, not individuals. That's why your correct extrapolation - "the most optimal human would theoretically attempt to turn all of the matter in the universe into copies of his/her genes" - shows that that definition of optimality is invalid. Individuals aren't relevant. There's no guarantee that duplicated genes in cloned copies of a single individual are better at survival than having a mix of genes spread across a heterogenous population. And your last paragraph shows that you don't understand the effect of mutation in evolution. All you are thinking of is the weeding out part. Mutations occur all the time. Humans have about 0.003 mutations per genome per generation. For every 4000 births, there is a mutation. Few are improvements. Nearly all have no effect or are negative. Suppose one mutation has a really good advantage, and the only child from that person both 1) inherits the gene and 2) has a brand new nose picking mutation which confers a slight negative effect. Then that person's children will inherit both mutations. The really good one is going to spread, and the new, detrimental mutation will also spread -- even though it doesn't help improve survivability!

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]