4 ms·

> Natural selection seems to have little regard for longevity. I'd argue the opposite, that natural selection depends entirely on death, not just to weed out t

> Natural selection seems to have little regard for longevity. I'd argue the opposite, that natural selection depends entirely on death, not just to weed out the less fit, but also because Without death, there would be no evolution. This is by definition, at least for an environment that can only support a limited population. Corollary: The maximum rate of evolution is proportional to the rate of generation turnover, that is to say it is inversely proportional to life span. (http://qr.ae/L5v6z http://qr.ae/L5v6z) Mother Nature did not build us to last, but quite "intentionally".

trhway 12y ago
> The maximum rate of evolution is proportional to the rate of generation turnover, that is to say it is inversely proportional to life span. it is true for r-selection only.
- eevilspock 12y ago
  First, r/K selection is a theory, a controversial one at that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory#Status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory#Status). Second, there is no contradiction between the two theories. According to r/K selection, long life-span is a typical characteristic of K-selected species, while short lifespan is typical for the r-selected. The theory I espouse would simple add that the continuum between K-selected and r-selected species would tend to correspond to a continuum of evolutionary rates. If you still disagree, please follow the link and point out flaws in the argument.
  - trhway 12y ago
    >The theory I espouse would simple add that the continuum between K-selected and r-selected species would tend to correspond to a continuum of evolutionary rates. Looking at the last 2B years who has shown higher "global" evolutionary rate - the line of living matter leading to humans or the line leading to fish? While of course it is obvious that the "local" evolutionary rate - rate of producing and churning through minor changes - is higher for shorter lived. In short - giving the result the human rate of evolution
    - eevilspock 12y ago
      You have fallen for the false assumption that evolution is teleological and that humans are the farthest along that teleological path. From some quick googling (if I had time I'd come up with better): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/04/not-as-evolved-as-we-think/ http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/04/not-as-evolved... http://spacetimechronicles.blogspot.com/2009/03/are-we-pinnacle-of-evolution.html http://spacetimechronicles.blogspot.com/2009/03/are-we-pinna...
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - trhway 12y ago
        >You have fallen for the false assumption that evolution is teleological it isn't false, it is true - the evolution leads to exponentially more complex systems. There is a very simple mathematical reason for that - evolution changes are small continuous deltas and a delta-changes to a more complex system cover more volume in the parameter space. Very rough - an organism with 2 times more types of cells, limbs, other morphological and behavioral features, etc.. will produce 2 times more of survivable variations. >humans are the farthest along that teleological path. mammals are farthest down the complexity path and humans just a bit further as it seems that we have a bit more complex brain. Your Harward link is wrong on at least 2 metrics of biological systems both of which shows clear [exponential] increase as result of evolution - complexity and entropy increase integrated over given biological system's life-path in the space-time (that ability to maximize entropy beyond what can be achieved by following local gradient is the main differentiator between live and regular matter)
petewailes 12y ago
Natural selection doesn't work how you think it does. It's about fitness for making to the point where you have reproduced. Dying after that point doesn't come into it much, except in that surviving after is a result of other properties that are also good.
- eevilspock 12y ago
  Nothing I said contradicts your description of natural selection, that "fitness for making to the point where you have reproduced." But you are missing my point that the rate of evolution produced by natural selection is dependent on the turnover of the population. The parents need to die to make room for more fit offspring once the carrying capacity of the eco-system has been reached. If you still disagree, can you follow the link and point out flaws in the logic there?

trhway 12y ago

> The maximum rate of evolution is proportional to the rate of generation turnover, that is to say it is inversely proportional to life span. it is true for r-selection only.

eevilspock 12y ago
First, r/K selection is a theory, a controversial one at that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory#Status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R/K_selection_theory#Status). Second, there is no contradiction between the two theories. According to r/K selection, long life-span is a typical characteristic of K-selected species, while short lifespan is typical for the r-selected. The theory I espouse would simple add that the continuum between K-selected and r-selected species would tend to correspond to a continuum of evolutionary rates. If you still disagree, please follow the link and point out flaws in the argument.
- trhway 12y ago
  >The theory I espouse would simple add that the continuum between K-selected and r-selected species would tend to correspond to a continuum of evolutionary rates. Looking at the last 2B years who has shown higher "global" evolutionary rate - the line of living matter leading to humans or the line leading to fish? While of course it is obvious that the "local" evolutionary rate - rate of producing and churning through minor changes - is higher for shorter lived. In short - giving the result the human rate of evolution
  - eevilspock 12y ago
    You have fallen for the false assumption that evolution is teleological and that humans are the farthest along that teleological path. From some quick googling (if I had time I'd come up with better): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/04/not-as-evolved-as-we-think/ http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2013/04/not-as-evolved... http://spacetimechronicles.blogspot.com/2009/03/are-we-pinnacle-of-evolution.html http://spacetimechronicles.blogspot.com/2009/03/are-we-pinna...
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - trhway 12y ago
      >You have fallen for the false assumption that evolution is teleological it isn't false, it is true - the evolution leads to exponentially more complex systems. There is a very simple mathematical reason for that - evolution changes are small continuous deltas and a delta-changes to a more complex system cover more volume in the parameter space. Very rough - an organism with 2 times more types of cells, limbs, other morphological and behavioral features, etc.. will produce 2 times more of survivable variations. >humans are the farthest along that teleological path. mammals are farthest down the complexity path and humans just a bit further as it seems that we have a bit more complex brain. Your Harward link is wrong on at least 2 metrics of biological systems both of which shows clear [exponential] increase as result of evolution - complexity and entropy increase integrated over given biological system's life-path in the space-time (that ability to maximize entropy beyond what can be achieved by following local gradient is the main differentiator between live and regular matter)

petewailes 12y ago

Natural selection doesn't work how you think it does. It's about fitness for making to the point where you have reproduced. Dying after that point doesn't come into it much, except in that surviving after is a result of other properties that are also good.

eevilspock 12y ago
Nothing I said contradicts your description of natural selection, that "fitness for making to the point where you have reproduced." But you are missing my point that the rate of evolution produced by natural selection is dependent on the turnover of the population. The parents need to die to make room for more fit offspring once the carrying capacity of the eco-system has been reached. If you still disagree, can you follow the link and point out flaws in the logic there?