Has evolution gone terribly wrong?

[OldWiseGuy]

Could you please explain why you conclude we are a "horrible biological anomoly?"

Let me rephrase your question properly in order to limit the question to evolution only.

"Could you please explain why you conclude that we have evolved into a horrible biological anomoly?"

Evolution doesn't claim to 'improve' a species in any way. This is the greatest single admission by science that might attract understanding and some sympathy for the theory, as it is certainly supported by the evidence.

Compared to other 'evolved' species that we are contemporaries with (this includes all plant species) humans are a tragedy upon the earth. How can any reasonable person doubt this.

We are the only species that is almost entirely free of 'instinctive' behaviors, instead using 'logic and reason' to destroy ourselves, others, and our environment, not just for survival but for other reasons that don't make any sense.

A good example is the current global economic crisis. We are unable to maintain an orderly economic system; a system we ourselves have constructed. How is that even possible? Choose any problem and the solution is close at hand (to some at least). Man is the only organism that refuses to solve his own problems, in the face of clear solutions. Of course this behavior can be relegated once again to evolution making yet another wrong turn. But at some point evolution should, hopefully, begin to produce more benefits for us as a species. Perhaps logic and reason is a poor fit for us and we should evolve more instinctual responses to problems.

 

[juvenissun]

Could you please explain why you conclude we are a "horrible biological anomoly?"

For example, the future life discovered a petrified mummy, what would be the implication to the human "species" in contrast to all species found before human? How do you name the boundary between the two?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

We are the only species that is almost entirely free of 'instinctive' behaviors,

LOL, that made me laugh. Wow, you really think we are free of instinctive behaviours? Blimey O'Riley...lol.

 

[Tomk80]

Let me rephrase your question properly in order to limit the question to evolution only.

"Could you please explain why you conclude that we have evolved into a horrible biological anomoly?"

Evolution doesn't claim to 'improve' a species in any way. This is the greatest single admission by science that might attract understanding and some sympathy for the theory, as it is certainly supported by the evidence.

Compared to other 'evolved' species that we are contemporaries with (this includes all plant species) humans are a tragedy upon the earth. How can any reasonable person doubt this.

We are the only species that is almost entirely free of 'instinctive' behaviors, instead using 'logic and reason' to destroy ourselves, others, and our environment, not just for survival but for other reasons that don't make any sense.

A good example is the current global economic crisis. We are unable to maintain an orderly economic system; a system we ourselves have constructed. How is that even possible? Choose any problem and the solution is close at hand (to some at least). Man is the only organism that refuses to solve his own problems, in the face of clear solutions. Of course this behavior can be relegated once again to evolution making yet another wrong turn. But at some point evolution should, hopefully, begin to produce more benefits for us as a species. Perhaps logic and reason is a poor fit for us and we should evolve more instinctual responses to problems.

Sorry, but you have a very poor grasp of how nature works. I mean, forget evolution for a moment, just nature. Most species react instinctively, and this reaction is not always for the best. Nature is a complex system, which individual organisms of a species have a hard time reacting to with foresight, if they react with any foresight at all.

When the lion is hungry, the lion kills a wildebeast, but the lion does not conserve part of the wildebeast if it is done eating. So the next time the lion is hungry and the wildebeast is not there, the lion dies. Species exist in an ecosystem in a balance, but this is a balance upheld through hunting of the prey and starvation of the hunter. Situations where this balance is disturbed, leading to the extinction of both the hunter and the prey, are common in nature's history.

By the way, I'd argue that the current crisis we are in, is in fact more so than not the result of instinctive behavior. I think pretending that stock trading is a mostly rational action is absolutely ludicrous. The way it fails is not so hard to understand. We have created a system out of many parts, that has become bigger than the sum of it's parts and is hard for us, reacting mostly on instinct and short-term thinking, to grasp. Hence, simple solutions that we would offer do not suffice.

 

[And-U-Say]

Everything has an end and a beginning. You can not have an end without a beginning nor a beginning without an end.

This word... "endgame".. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Split Rock]

Let me rephrase your question properly in order to limit the question to evolution only.

"Could you please explain why you conclude that we have evolved into a horrible biological anomoly?"

Evolution doesn't claim to 'improve' a species in any way. This is the greatest single admission by science that might attract understanding and some sympathy for the theory, as it is certainly supported by the evidence.

Compared to other 'evolved' species that we are contemporaries with (this includes all plant species) humans are a tragedy upon the earth. How can any reasonable person doubt this.

We are the only species that is almost entirely free of 'instinctive' behaviors, instead using 'logic and reason' to destroy ourselves, others, and our environment, not just for survival but for other reasons that don't make any sense.

A good example is the current global economic crisis. We are unable to maintain an orderly economic system; a system we ourselves have constructed. How is that even possible? Choose any problem and the solution is close at hand (to some at least). Man is the only organism that refuses to solve his own problems, in the face of clear solutions. Of course this behavior can be relegated once again to evolution making yet another wrong turn. But at some point evolution should, hopefully, begin to produce more benefits for us as a species. Perhaps logic and reason is a poor fit for us and we should evolve more instinctual responses to problems.

We do have some instincts (fight or flight for example), though you are correct that we rely on them less than the vast majority of species on the planet. A few remarks on your other comments:
1. We did not create a unified global economy... we fell into one. We now struggle to create and maintain some rules for it.
2. Humans tend to emphasize short term goals over long term goals. This tends to create problems for us in the long term, even if we benefit in the short term. This can lead to number 3.
3. The inevitable end to all species seems to be extinction. If you look at higher taxa that have become extinct (especially during mass extinctions), they tend to be specialists... ie the most narrowly adapted to a particular specific niche. Generalists tend to survive. Are we specialists or generalists?
4. Evolution is all about survival and reproduction... not about "benefits." Thus in evolutionary terms, we are very successful.

 

[SkyWriting]

We do have some instincts (fight or flight for example), though you are correct that we rely on them less than the vast majority of species on the planet.

I object. A universal truth must be universal.
My dog has no fight or flight instinct. She never fights and had to learn to run away on rare occasions.
But she only takes a few steps back at most.
I guess that's why she is my best-y dog ever. But neither one of us is exceptional in any other way. I blend in just as she does.

So the fight or flight example is baloney. If my dog doesn't have it then it must be missing from other species as well.

 

[Loudmouth]

My dog has no fight or flight instinct and neither do I.

How did you determine this?

I can almost guarantee that if I put you in a pen with a 2,500 lb. bull and it charged you that your adrenaline would shoot through the roof.

 

[Tomk80]

I object. A universal truth must be universal.
My dog has no fight or flight instinct. She never fights and had to learn to run away on rare occasions.
But she only takes a few steps back at most.
I guess that's why she is my best-y dog ever. But neither one of us is exceptional in any other way. I blend in just as she does.

So the fight or flight example is baloney. If my dog doesn't have it then it must be missing from other species as well.

Your dog has it. You do to. The fight or flight response doesn't mean that you will automatically start doing one or the other. It means that in certain situations you start preparing for the possibility of having to do that. See Fight-or-flight response - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SkyWriting]

Sorry, but you have a very poor grasp of how nature works. I mean, forget evolution for a moment, just nature. Most species react instinctively, and this reaction is not always for the best. Nature is a complex system, which individual organisms of a species have a hard time reacting to with foresight, if they react with any foresight at all.When the lion is hungry, the lion kills a wildebeast, but the lion does not conserve part of the wildebeast if it is done eating. So the next time the lion is hungry and the wildebeast is not there, the lion dies. Species exist in an ecosystem in a balance, but this is a balance upheld through hunting of the prey and starvation of the hunter. Situations where this balance is disturbed, leading to the extinction of both the hunter and the prey, are common in nature's history.

All outdated ideas.
Animals store food, think ahead, and do everything you say they don't do.

 

[Tomk80]

All outdated ideas.
Animals store food, think ahead, and do everything you say they don't do.

Sorry, but no. Not outdated ideas. Some animals instinctively store food, but there is no real foresight involved. But many animals do not, even if it would benefit them in the long run.

And organisms have caused their own extinctions by depleting resources they themselves need, this has been extensively documented.

Edited to add: While the ideas on animal behavior I put forward are not outdated, your ideas that humans only act rationally and not instinctively is outdated, especially with regard to economic decision making.

 

[SkyWriting]

How did you determine this?

I can almost guarantee that if I put you in a pen with a 2,500 lb. bull and it charged you that your adrenaline would shoot through the roof.

More likely than not, I wouldn't move. That would be my first instinct.
And I'd likely survive and the bull would walk away.
It takes effort to get them to charge.
If you don't provoke an animal, they usually leave you alone 99% of the time.
I'll take you wager. How much?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

We do have some instincts (fight or flight for example), though you are correct that we rely on them less than the vast majority of species on the planet.

I think almost everything we do is instinctive. Just because we are consciously aware of something doesn't stop it being instinctive. Using language is the most obvious example of instinctive behaviour, but everything from little girls endlessly giggling at anything and everything to males endlessly trying to boost their positions professionally and socially is instinctive. People are very rarely aware of the reasons they are driven to do things. It's just human programming in action. We don't actually do anywhere near as much logical thinking as we imagine. Most of it is daydreams and worrying and wish fulfilment based around our instictive desires and drives. It isn't independent thinking so much as a system to ensure our biological programming is carried out as effectively as possible. That is why we spend 95% of our time daydreaming about food or the opposite sex, or worrying about our children or going over recent conversations in our heads or imagining future conversations, or imagining winning the lottery and going on holidays in the sun with lots of wine, food and sex. Actually using our brain to think logically/scientifically takes much more effort, which is why we avoid it if possible. This is why people at school tend to find the arts easier than the sciences, and why maths is regarded as a subject for unusually geeky weirdos.

Anyway, tangential ramble over. Back to the thread.

 

[Loudmouth]

More likely than not, I wouldn't move.

You would move. I guarantee it. I would also guarantee that massive amounts of adrenaline would be coursing through your veins. Also, for some bulls they will charge with no provacation, so good luck with that.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sorry, but no. Not outdated ideas. Some animals instinctively store food, but there is no real foresight involved. But many animals do not, even if it would benefit them in the long run.

And organisms have caused their own extinctions by depleting resources they themselves need, this has been extensively documented.

Edited to add: While the ideas on animal behavior I put forward are not outdated, your ideas that humans only act rationally and not instinctively is outdated, especially with regard to economic decision making.

If your going to battle with things I didn't say, then you don't need my input.
Try not to get hurt.

 

[TheBear]

From an 'evolutionary' point of view, yes. You and others should consider my question more carefully.

Two questions -

What is the meaning of "evolutionary point of view"? Please explain.

What's so funny? (or, is that just a nervous tic?)

 

[Tomk80]

You would move. I guarantee it. I would also guarantee that massive amounts of adrenaline would be coursing through your veins. Also, for some bulls they will charge with no provacation, so good luck with that.

Well, move or be dead. A disfunctioning adrenaline system can of course be within the range of biological diversity. It is generally also quickly removed out of it.

 

[Tomk80]

If your going to battle with things I didn't say, then you don't need my input.
Try not to get hurt.

Where did I not respond to something you said. Your contention in a nutshell was that humans act rationally, not instinctively and that this causes us not to solve problems that are easily solved if we would only act rationally.

Another contention of yours was that we are the only species who doesn't solve their own problems.

Either I misunderstood you, or you made two contentions that have no bearing on reality. I'd be interested to know which of the two it is.

 

[florida2]

Condition of mankind? Our species is found all over the world, on the tallest mountains and in the deepest oceans. We can even be found in space(on occasion).

I'd say evolution has produced a highly "successful" organism. Nothings perfect, but hey, you don't get better than what we've accomplished(barring E.T. life)

By 'mankind' he means 'America'

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Two questions -

What is the meaning of "evolutionary point of view"? Please explain.

It is viewing mankind as an evolved species that is able to control it's destiny and is not doing a very good job, imo. However, as evidenced by many of the responses here we actually may be doing just fine. Evolution seems to have an ready answer for everything, and that we are ok. If any improvements are to occur they will have to take place in the evolutionary future (living in Wisconsin I could use more body hair, or even fur).

What's so funny? (or, is that just a nervous tic?)

That's my benevolent response to opinions that don't address my actual question. I just smile (sorry, I didn't mean to 'big grin').