Are we evolving?

[Sinful2B]

Hi Skaloop

Sorry, didn't notice your post until now.

We are merely altering how they evolve compared to how they would evolve if in the wild.
If any and all selective pressures were removed

I wonder about a changing evolutionary state that becomes more selective by human design, as in genome manipulation and the inevitable withdrawal from a natural evolutionary cycle.
It comes down to a question of extent within both fields.
Again, apologies for missing your post.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Debate? I'm not so sure. Certainly you were trying to debate, but that demands a listener, yes?

Haha, indeed. He'll sometimes respond to a point without sound like a crazed loon, so there may be hope yet...

Ok, so you are talking about biological evolution.

There is no other kind. Evolution only applies to populations of replicators, and thus far we have only found biological systems which replicate.

Now, if we assume that anything else in creation is able to change albeit over a much longer period of time, is that not also an evolution, because it will take on board, just like living matter does, characteristics of any interacting environment. Just because the method is different, does that not make the outcome any less different?

Yes. Change in a system is not evolution, but rather change in the allele frequency in a population of a replicating systems. Those three requirements must be fulfilled before it can be called evolution.
Dirt, for instance, does not replicate, and so does not evolve. Some argue that the universe itself is one individual in a population of universes, and that black holes are a means of replication: black holes create new universes with properties akin to those of the 'parent' universe. Thus, universes evolve. Indeed, there would be a selection pressure towards favouring those universes with more black holes.
I particularily like that idea, since it is more parsimonious than the 'many-worlds' hypothesis, and solves the teleological argument.

But I digress.

 

[Sinful2B]

But I digress.

No, not at all. I like where you are going. I may not eventually understand where you've got too, but at least I might be able to read the signposts along the way.

So, do stars evolve?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, not at all. I like where you are going. I may not eventually understand where you've got too, but at least I might be able to read the signposts along the way.

So, do stars evolve?

No. Populations of stars (i.e., globular clusters, galaxies, etc)? No. Stars do not replicate in a manner condusive to evolution. At the very best, they go nova, create a nebula, and this collapses into new stars. However, there is no mechanism by which the traits of the old star are conferred onto the new star (except by chaos theory, which isn't particularily useful).

Now, globular clusters and galaxies are populations of stars, and the frequency of various traits (stellar temperature, radius, mass, ratio of constituent atoms, etc) do vary with time. However, the important thing is that such traits are not inheritable. Thus, populations of stars do not have changes in allele frequency, which is the definition of evolution.

That said, universes may evolve: if a universe is created whenever a black hole forms, and if the traits of that universe are determined by the traits of the previous universe, then universes will evolve. Specifically, those universes whos 'offspring' do not have traits conducive to forming black holes, then no further universes will form, and thus that 'genetic' lineage will die out. On the other hand, if one universe is particularily apt at creating black holes, then its traits will proliferate throughout the population (the multiverse, I guess).

Of course, we have no way of knowing if universes are created by black holes, or if a universe's traits (universal constants, laws, etc) are determined by the pervious universe. Interesting theory, though.

 

[FishFace]

Biological evolution is what I believe you refer to.

Correct. If you don't mean specifically biological evolution, and the meaning is not clear from the context, "change" is more appropriate.

 

[Sinful2B]

However, there is no mechanism by which the traits of the old star are conferred onto the new star (except by chaos theory, which isn't particularily useful).

Although, post nova, the nature of the issue is governed by the nature of the nova, and therefore subsequently the nature of the original star, yes?

Of course, we have no way of knowing if universes are created by black holes, or if a universe's traits (universal constants, laws, etc) are determined by the pervious universe. Interesting theory, though.

Although a singularity has to come from somewhere, and the nature of that somewhere carries all the traits of it's origin, yes?

 

[Sinful2B]

I

f you don't mean specifically biological evolution, and the meaning is not clear from the context, "change" is more appropriate.

Agreed.
This is still a grey area though and worth some thrashing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Although, post nova, the nature of the issue is governed by the nature of the nova, and therefore subsequently the nature of the original star, yes?

No. The nature of the (post-nova) issue is driven by chaos theory and Brownian motion. That is, there is no correlation between the traits of a star with it's predecessor.

Although a singularity has to come from somewhere, and the nature of that somewhere carries all the traits of it's origin, yes?

That is the hypothesis, yes. However, there is no evidence to support it. It is mere conjecutre.

 

[Sinful2B]

Hi and welcome

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinful2B
Although, post nova, the nature of the issue is governed by the nature of the nova, and therefore subsequently the nature of the original star, yes?

No. The nature of the (post-nova) issue is driven by chaos theory and Brownian motion. That is, there is no correlation between the traits of a star with it's predecessor.

I am confused. You seem to be saying to different points here.
1 - A star goes nova or supernova. This dependant upon the type of star. The issue is clearly dependant upon those two, and yet you say "No".
Uh?
If chaos and brownian theory do not cover it, then get your thinking cap on. You're far more clever than I, so if the theory doesn't fit . . .etc. . . . etc.
2 - There is no KNOWN correlation to a predecessor. Tie for your thinking cap again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinful2B
Although a singularity has to come from somewhere, and the nature of that somewhere carries all the traits of it's origin, yes?

That is the hypothesis, yes. However, there is no evidence to support it. It is mere conjecutre.

Conjecture in that something has to come from somewhere. You sure?
It seems logical to me that if we can determine that a singularity can form in a sufficiently massive black hole, then the source of the singularity that enabled the creation of this universe has to be a sufficiently massive enough black hole, that would have been formed by gravitational collapse . . . etc . . . etc.
Presumably, if we have a workable theory that governs singularities, then why determine conjecture when the same phenomena represents the Big Bang?
Told you I was confused.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hi and welcome


I am confused. You seem to be saying to different points here.
1 - A star goes nova or supernova. This dependant upon the type of star. The issue is clearly dependant upon those two, and yet you say "No".

My point was that the traits of the 'parent' star don't get conferred to the 'offspring'. Massive stars don't necessarily make more massive stars, for instance. Whether it goes nova of supernova is irrelevant as to the make-up of the future star (though it may affect whether a star is made or not).

Uh?
If chaos and brownian theory do not cover it, then get your thinking cap on. You're far more clever than I, so if the theory doesn't fit . . .etc. . . . etc.
2 - There is no KNOWN correlation to a predecessor. Tie for your thinking cap again.

I figured that was a given. We have only been looking at stellar formation for a few hundred years maximum. We deduce the lifetime of stars by looking at a whole bunch of stars and assuming they're the sorta the same starm, but at different stages in their lifecycle. So yes, it's entirely possible we've got it all wrong.

Conjecture in that something has to come from somewhere. You sure?
It seems logical to me that if we can determine that a singularity can form in a sufficiently massive black hole, then the source of the singularity that enabled the creation of this universe has to be a sufficiently massive enough black hole, that would have been formed by gravitational collapse . . . etc . . . etc.
Presumably, if we have a workable theory that governs singularities, then why determine conjecture when the same phenomena represents the Big Bang?

Because it maybe complete bull. If our universe was formed from a black hole, then yes, it would have to be at least as heavy as our universe is now (at least, according to our laws of physics, which may turn out to be wrong). The fact of the matter is we don't know. That's why it's pure conjecture: it's not even a working hypothesis yet. The mathematics haven't been formulated, since our knoweldge about the laws of physics are woefully incomplete at this stage.

 

[Sinful2B]

Hi and welcome

Wiccan_Child - I shall take that amount of honesty as a compliment - I am indeed honoured - thankyou.

Massive stars don't necessarily make more massive stars,

Absolutely, yet if one looks at the whole workings of the universe, there definately seems to be interactions between events, and reactions that determine. I see no less an ability in star formation, and would assume that whatever we can witness at the microscopic level, then so should we also cosmologically.

Whether it goes nova or supernova is irrelevant as to the make-up of the future star

, but it is the relevence for which needs to be researched

that it may affect whether a star is made or not).

, and indeed the nature of that star. How can we assume that the instructions for life are the only instructions there are?

So yes, it's entirely possible we've got it all wrong.

I'm not so sure - without that wrongness, truth seldomly materializes. As they say, "if you can't bump something into something else and make it move, doesn't mean it hasn't been moved".

according to our laws of physics, which may turn out to be wrong)

I think the laws of physics are fine - it's where you apply them that may need to be considered.

our knoweldge about the laws of physics are woefully incomplete at this stage.

Maybe, but certainly the laws governing creation are not. If I were a physicist, I wouldn't be looking at how and why my laws of physics etc etc etc, but how the laws of creation can apply to my physics.
You know what I mean by that yes? In the same way as it used to be said that Bumble-bees cannot fly.
Thanks though - as always - first class.

 

[gamespotter10]

Hi Everyone

I'm not sure that I have the answer to this question, so I thought I'd throw it out to you all to chin-wag it into some kind of definitely agreed consensus.

Evolution is an all encompassing phenomina of the universe. Absolutely everything within it, is seen to evolve. Agreed?

Secondly, is it possible to remove something from the evolutionary effect, by placing it outside of evolution?

Thirdly, have we in fact, done that to ourselves?

And fourthly, by way of example, by keeping animals in zoos, etc, are we in fact preventing them from evolving?

I base all these thoughts on the fact that anything within evolution is connected to everything in evolution. Knock-on effects so to speak.

Ultimately, is humanity's intelligence and it's development therefore, the ultimate reason why eventually other life forms will evolve into something that our technology will just not be able to defeat, thereby creating the scenario that humanity will eventually render itself extinct by nature of it's inability to evolve?

So: Are we dooming ourselves to extinction by seperating ourselves from evolution, or will we manipulate evolution for our own gain, because we cannot evolve?

Have we already doomed ourselves to extinction?

ps - I hope you enjoy this one. I don't intend for it to be anti or pro anything. Just a neutral discussion of the possibilities of being outside of evolution.
Enjoy.

we are NOT evolving for the simple reason that society has taken natural selection out of the equation.

remember? mutation+natural selection+reproduction+time=evolution.

we've taken natural selection out of the equation.

 

[Gracchus]

we are NOT evolving for the simple reason that society has taken natural selection out of the equation.

remember? mutation+natural selection+reproduction+time=evolution.

we've taken natural selection out of the equation.

Nonsense. The composition of the gene pool is changing. There are more people than there have ever been and that means that there is more genetic variation in the human species than there has ever been. It may seem to you that natural selection is no longer operating, but when the next large extinction event happens you will see selection with a vengeance.

Global climate change, for instance, is going to cause crop failures, and the crash of fish populations, with resulting famine, plague, wars, and social collapse. When the great extinctions occur, natural selection goes into overdrive.

 

[Nitron]

we are NOT evolving for the simple reason that society has taken natural selection out of the equation.

remember? mutation+natural selection+reproduction+time=evolution.

we've taken natural selection out of the equation.

Why not? Some still have more chance of breeding than others.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Absolutely, yet if one looks at the whole workings of the universe, there definately seems to be interactions between events, and reactions that determine.

Oh, absolutely. Cause and effect is intrinsic to our universe, and one could predict what future stars will be with enough knowledge about the current star.

However, the traits of that star are not conferred. They are, for wnat of a better word, randomised. Big stars do not make big stars. Big stars just make more stars, of any configuration.
For sure, chaos theory states that the state of the old system determines the new system (quantum mechanics notwithstanding), but that is irrelevant: the traits are not.

16]I see no less an ability in star formation, and would assume that whatever we can witness at the microscopic level, then so should we also cosmologically.

But remember that spontaneous events and other quantum queerness have a profound effect on microscopic scales, and are neglible at macroscopic scales (especially in cosmology). And conversely, cosmology has it's own queerness: general (and special) relativity, something the quantum world emits since they don't travel at relativistic speeds.

, but it is the relevence for which needs to be researched , and indeed the nature of that star. How can we assume that the instructions for life are the only instructions there are?

We don't, because there are no instructions for life. There's just... life.

I'm not so sure - without that wrongness, truth seldomly materializes. As they say, "if you can't bump something into something else and make it move, doesn't mean it hasn't been moved".

I've never heard that expression before, but I'll meditate on it, I'm sure. Anyway, you are right: there's a reason my signature has a quote about falsifiability above quotes from my deities.

I think the laws of physics are fine - it's where you apply them that may need to be considered.

Not really. Our laws of physics may be entirely wrong models for the real laws of physics. It was not to long ago that the long-held Newtonian mechanics were summarily executed by quantum mechanics (and, later, general relativity).

Maybe, but certainly the laws governing creation are not. If I were a physicist, I wouldn't be looking at how and why my laws of physics etc etc etc, but how the laws of creation can apply to my physics.
You know what I mean by that yes? In the same way as it used to be said that Bumble-bees cannot fly.

The bumblebee example was one that showed our understanding of aerodynamics and fluid dynamics was woefully inadequate. Or, more to the point, our numerical evaluations were prone to rounding errors and the like. We've fixed that now .

 

[Wiccan_Child]

we are NOT evolving for the simple reason that society has taken natural selection out of the equation.

remember? mutation+natural selection+reproduction+time=evolution.

we've taken natural selection out of the equation.

Not quite. Natural selection is a phenomenon that emerges from evolution, just as evolution is emergent from population dynamics, or how kin selection emerges from natural selection.
Just because we don't have natural selection any more, doesn't mean we don't evolve: the allele frequencies in the human species are still changing.

 

[Sinful2B]

because there are no instructions for life. There's just... life.

So you would see life acting in much the same manner as star formation,, in that whatever gets produced and survives within it's environment, gets to exist for as long as it's environment allows?

 

[Edx]

Evolution is an all encompassing phenomina of the universe.

No, its biology. Evolution the word and the biological scientific theory are different things. Just because one uses the word evolution doesnt mean its talking about the scientific theory.

Absolutely everything within it, is seen to evolve. Agreed?

No.

Secondly, is it possible to remove something from the evolutionary effect, by placing it outside of evolution?

Huh?

And fourthly, by way of example, by keeping animals in zoos, etc, are we in fact preventing them from evolving?

Evolution is the consequence of mutation and natural selection.

So, if mutation no longer occurs and our children are just carbon genetic copies of each other, then no, we dont evolve. Also, if humans determine the reproduction of an animal in a zoo, its lineage is being artifically select. So no, evolution still occurs its just guided by humans and not natural anymore.

I base all these thoughts on the fact that anything within evolution is connected to everything in evolution. Knock-on effects so to speak.

Huh?

Ultimately, is humanity's intelligence and it's development therefore, the ultimate reason why eventually other life forms will evolve into something that our technology will just not be able to defeat, thereby creating the scenario that humanity will eventually render itself extinct by nature of it's inability to evolve?

Sounds like a film.

So: Are we dooming ourselves to extinction by seperating ourselves from evolution, or will we manipulate evolution for our own gain, because we cannot evolve?

We do evolve, just not naturally and very slowly since we all interbreed so much.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you would see life acting in much the same manner as star formation,, in that whatever gets produced and survives within it's environment, gets to exist for as long as it's environment allows?

Yup. That's the basis of natural selection as well.

 

[Sinful2B]

Hi and welcome

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinful2B
So you would see life acting in much the same manner as star formation,, in that whatever gets produced and survives within it's environment, gets to exist for as long as it's environment allows?

Yup. That's the basis of natural selection as well.

1 - So no one thing in the Universe is more disposed to existence than anything else, other than the extraneous influences under which it finds itself, however conducive or otherwise to existence they may be?

2 - Have you ever considered that that could equally apply to the Universe itself, in that the governing facts to the whole of existence as we see it, is governed by influences extraneous to existence itself?