9/28/03
SOME THOUGHTS ON EVOLUTION - PROVIDED IT'S REAL
6 PAGES

I've been reading a book called "How the Mind Works" by an MIT professor named Steven Pinker. And the title is pretty self-explanatory. Pinker takes a scientific look at… how the mind works. But he used EVERY science there is. Psychology, biology, chemistry, mathematics... The whole first chapter was Pinker discussing "the computational theory of mind" which basically explains - in great confusing depth - how the mind works like a computer, yet how it is different from a computer as we know it. It was a very excruciating chapter to get through, but I finally did it.

In the next chapter, he starts talking about evolution. And this is where I really started to get fascinated. Not only that, I read through it like I was reading a Stephen King novel. It was actually pretty easy reading that for the most part I didn't feel was over my head. And seriously, fascinating stuff. As I have told Lauren, when I'm reading this, even though I don't really believe in evolution, I am reading it under the understanding that it is, in fact a real thing and taking in the rest of the concepts as such. And the thing is, if evolution really is real, it just blows my mind. Not evolution itself, but just the way it works. It's not the way most people think it works.

Pinker really put some things out there that I was like, "Huh, I never thought about it that way, but that really makes sense…" again, provided evolution is in fact real. The first one that really made my head spin was the popular misconception that evolution progresses toward some kind of end result. We all know the basics of natural selection and adaptation. In a particular environment, an organism needs something for survival, and so it adapts to the environment and evolves to incorporate the new organs it needs in that environment. If knowing how to fly will aid the organism, it develops wings. But that's not how it really works. You'll often hear people who refute evolution say, (and I'm included in this list), "How does an animal who can't see suddenly realize that it needs sight and evolve eyes?" What Pinker says is that, evolution doesn't happen with GOALS in mind. The animal DOESN'T realize that it needs sight. It just so happens that a minute mutation happens that causes a couple of cells to be sensitive to light. Purely by chance. But suddenly that organism has an advantage. It can sense predators more easily than organisms who don't have that light sensitivity. So it survives more easily. It didn't develop that sensitivity to light out of its NEED. It was basically just really lucky that it happened, and as such, took advantage of it for survival. And then as a result, it lived long enough to pass that trait onto its offspring.

Another idea I found interesting was the erroneous concept that many people have that evolution is like a ladder, each mutation leading to more advanced or "higher" more complex organisms. But Pinker is saying that you can't think of it like that. You can't think that certain species are "more evolved" than others. He says not to think of it as a LADDER, but as a BUSH, and every organism that is alive today is one of the tips of the branches. Anything that is extinct is one of the inner branches. Everything alive, on the outside of the bush are all EQUALLY EVOLVED because in essence, they have all they need to still be alive. Complexity doesn't happen for its own sake. An organism can exist in its exact same form for billions of years. If it can still survive in its environment in its current form, it has no reason to evolve. So it is evolved to exactly the amount of complexity it needs for its given environment. Of course, it all goes back again to, evolution doesn't happen for a reason or for a goal. It just happens. So in theory, you'd think that an organism would have evolved anyway simply because things change by chance. How could an amoeba still look the same now as 10 billion years ago. If evolution happens by chance, you'd think that there would be different looking amoebas today than a billion years ago. Of course, maybe there were different looking amoebas, but the way they evolved was actually destructive to them and they died out. More likely, what has happened, is that there WERE amoebas that receive mutated genes and became more complex, and they survived as well, but also, there were amoebas who NEVER passed on mutated genes to their offspring, but they too continued to exist in their current form because they are still able to survive in the exact same form as they did a billion years ago.

I'm sorry, this topic just makes me talk in circles. Hopefully you can sort out my rambling. Another thing I found interesting to think about was the whole idea of looking for extraterrestrials in the universe. Specifically, the search for "intelligent life." According to Pinker, it's really just human arrogance to thing that there would be intelligent life anywhere but here. We automatically assume that intelligence is an end result of evolution. That WE are the ultimate goal of evolution, the highest form, and that all evolution is ultimately leading to intelligence. But again, evolution doesn't have a goal in mind. If an organism can get by simply by being faster or stronger or having an elongated snout, then it has no need for intelligence. And in an environment where speed, strength or an elongated snout give an organism a better chance for survival, an organism who through evolution is on its way to developing intelligence will probably be killed off before it reaches that end. Because in fact, intelligence is sometimes more trouble than it's worth. It forces the head to be bigger to contain the enlarged brain. As a result, it makes birth harder, so the head actually has to start out smaller, as a result, the brain has to start out much smaller. And that means that an organism has to spend years growing its intelligence. Less is based on instinct. An intelligent being has to spend the first however many years of life being taken care of by its parents. I mean think of it. Over half our lives are spent either as children or raising children. All because it takes that long for our oversized brains to come into their evolutionary function. If the end product of real intelligence isn't reach fairly quickly, those organisms aren't going to be able to defend themselves against predators and are going to die out before they truly reach the intelligence stage.

So many organisms in the midst of evolution that would eventually lead to intelligence probably get picked off by faster stronger, more INSTINCTUAL organisms. So to think that there MUST be other forms of intelligent life out there is just pure arrogance. Because Why? Why MUST other planets have evolved intelligence?

As Pinker says it, evolution happens one step at a time. Duh. But really, think about it. If it would behoove an organism to grow legs, it can't just automatically grow legs. First, by chance, it's flippers accidentally become more solid, allowing it to kind of push itself along on the beach. Then the next generation maybe accidentally develops a little bump on the fin. And then the next generation accidentally develops a little joint. Bit by bit, the legs form, but then again, maybe the legs won't ever form. Maybe they'll just use their new jointed fin with a nub to dig in the dirt for sandworms. But if they do form legs, in the end the legs may be substandard. Maybe they also formed little bumps on the bottom of their feet that aided them in digging, but now that they're walking, it actually makes it harder for them to walk because they've got this extra pressure point which throws their balance off. If evolution was a goal oriented process, the decision making power could have thought a few generations ahead and made sure that those bumps didn't form. But since evolution and natural selection happen only by chance and the resulting generations either benefit or not from the changes, it ends up being that certain organs operated less well than if somebody had plotted it out.

But also, as Pinker puts it, evolution can only solve one problem at a time. Like if somebody were using a hose to put out several fires. He sees one patch of fire over here, so he goes to put out that fire. Then he notices one over there, on the far side of a tree. Then he notices one back the other way. Eventually he has wrapped the hose around the tree preventing him from any kind of mobility. So instead he starts pivoting the hose rather than walking. If he had had overview of the whole situation, he could have planned his steps and ultimately made a more effective firefighting organism. But like evolution, it only saw what it needed to do NEXT. Not five steps down the road. Which can be crippling, but as Pinker put it, can also force the process to come up with ingenious solutions that linear engineering would never have accomplished. Maybe now, this firefight can actually CLIMB the tree because the hose wrapped around the tree has formed footholds. This allows him to now attack the fire from above, something that he would not have been able to do had the hose NOT wrapped itself around the tree. Something that wouldn't have happened if he had actually planned out a linear route to the goal of putting out the fire. I admit, I'm stretching here, but you can see what I'm saying.

I remember reading an article in Time a few years back that said that human beings as a species would probably never evolve again. Provided we live long enough that evolution would even be a factor of course. But basically what the article said was that because of technology, we've made evolution obsolete. If the weather gets cold, we won't evolve longer body hair or insulation. Instead, we'll invent heaters and put on jackets. Things like that. We let technology do the work for us, and as such, we have no REASON to evolve. This made complete sense to me back then. But having read Pinker's description, I'd have to say that those assertions are completely bogus. Again, functioning under the assumption that evolution is true in the first place.

Because as Pinker said, evolution has no goals in mind. It just happens by chance. Ergo, it has no REASON to anything. The evolutionary decision-maker doesn't realize, "Hey it's kind of cold, so I'd better make sure the genes of my offspring have longer thicker hair." By ACCIDENT, maybe some of those offspring DO have longer thicker hair, and as a result of that accident, they are more likely to survive the winter and pass those long thick hair genes onto their offspring. But even if the organism didn't have a REASON to evolve long thick hair, it still might. If the longer thicker hair didn't INHIBIT it's survival, then several thousand generations later, you'd still see some organisms with short hair and some with long thick hair.

In fact, Pinker talks about "random genetic drift" which basically says that it's POSSIBLE that "When the number of individuals in a generation is small enough, an advantageous trait can vanish if its bearers are unlucky, and a disadvantageous or neutral trait can take over if its bearers are lucky." I think of things like an appendix. There was no REASON for us to form an appendix. Some people might say that it had a function earlier in evolution and now is just a vestigal organ. But suppose the appendix NEVER had a useful function in survival. It just happened to form and the organisms who had one still got by just fine even with this extra tissue. As a result, the appendix is still there. It formed by evolution and natural selection, but not because something REALIZED that it NEEDED it. Maybe someday, this tissue will form into something else that WILL be useful. On the other hand, maybe at one point, a branch of homo sapiens developed really big ears that allowed them to hear things miles away. It helped them in hunting and escaping saber toothed tigers. But those homo sapiens still died even with the advantageous trait of big ears because there was a forest fire or a particularly cold winter that killed them all.

But anyway, back to what I was saying. The Time article said that because of technology not giving us a REASON to evolve, that means we probably won't. Well, it seems to me, based on what I'm reading from Pinker, that technology would seem to make it EASIER for us to evolve. We don't have to worry about one of our evolutionary leaps preventing us from surviving. If certain people start growing larger than average bumps on the front of their heads, it's not going to prevent them from hunting, or make them easier targets for predators. Those people will still have food provided to them. They will remain just as warm in winter as somebody without the bump. There is nothing that is going cause that person to die before passing along its genes to the next generation. After several generations, maybe that bump will provide extra room for the frontal lobe of the brain, and eventually will allow humans to evolve ESP.

Because the person who originally developed that bump didn't NEED ESP, but the bump happened by chance anyway. And the technology actually HELPED him acquire that bump because he was able to compensate for any drawbacks the bump caused WITH the technology. So his genes were allowed to continue on to another generation.

So ten million years from now, if we haven't allowed technology to destroy us - and again, provided evolution and natural selection are real - who's to say that there won't be humans who have developed wings, or fur, or ESP, or something we haven't even considered?

One thing I wonder too, is how selective breeding would take a hand in this. Because I think, as a species, humans don't engage in selective breeding as much as other species. First of all, we are one of the only species who has sex for reasons other than reproduction. A lion's sole purpose in having sex is purely and simply to have offspring. So a female lion is going to make sure that the male who has sex with her is going to be the strongest one around. She's not going to let the frail, weak lopsided lion inseminate her because that would make her children frail, weak and lopsided. She's going to make sure she waits for the king of lions to come around and take advantage of her. So it would stand to reason (based on my limited knowledge of lion mating) that there are certain male lions who NEVER have sex. The weak and frail and lopsided among them will never get the chance to spread their seed because the females just aren't going to give them the chance. So their genes are ultimately going to die out.

But with humans it's different. No matter how ugly or deformed a person is, for the most part they can still find a mate. Usually it tends to be with somebody as ugly or deformed as they are. Unlike lions, an ugly deformed woman isn't going to wait around for Tom Cruise to come along and impregnate her. She wants sex more for intimacy and pleasure than for offspring. So she's going to take what she can get. And through her intimacy with another ugly deformed person, reproduction DOES eventually happen and the ugly deformed genes get passed down another generation. So unlike with lions, a gene pool isn't going to be saturated with ONE handsome man's genes. For the most part EVERY gene is going to have the chance to live another generation.

I don't know if this would accelerate evolution. It would seem to me that it would allow for more DIVERSE evolution. Maybe it would SLOW IT DOWN. Because you'd think if one lion impregnates 10 lionesses, and passes down a trait for say, a longer tail. Then, that longer tail is going to replicate 10 times. In at least one of those ten times, maybe the longer tail will add ANOTHER trait to itself, say, a cleft at the end. Then that lion with the long cleft tail goes and impregnates 10 more lionesses. Now there are 10 lions with long cleft tails and maybe in just one of those the cleft is deeper. And the process continues until eventually, you have strong lions with TWO long tails, giving them added agility to aid them in fighting and running.

However if that first lion with the long tail had only had sex with ONE lioness, it's likely that the cleft at the end of the tail would never come about in the next generation. After all, the odds were 1:10 against it happening. Those other 9 lionesses would have had children with longer claws, or a shaggier mane, or a leaner body - maybe all evolutionary "advancements" - but the two-long-tails end result would never come about. Or at least it would take longer to come about based on sheer odds and probability. Several thousand generations later, maybe you'd have more diverse lion sub-species. You'd have some lions with long cleft tails, some with manes that cover their entire body, and some that are so slender they can outrun a cheetah. The evolution end product would be more diverse, but each individual end result would take LONGER to get to.

Like with humans. I don't think technology is going to affect our evolution so much as the society and the morals we've placed upon out behaviors will. Monogamy I think is going to affect evolution more than anything. That and sex for pleasure. And I still don't think it will stop evolution altogether, merely slow it down and cause it to be more diverse in the long run. And technology ultimately is going to aid evolution by allowing those diverse mutations to happen without the offspring being at a disadvantage. Technology if anything, levels the evolutionary playing field, giving all involved an equal chance of surviving long enough to procreate.

I really have no point in the random serious of ideas I'm addressing here, merely the many tangled thoughts that this subject evokes. But the one thing that I keep saying here, is that all these postulates and theories I'm addressing are all well and good… provided evolution and natural selection are real. They are truly fascinating concepts. Provided evolution is real. So I guess, I'm at the point with evolution that a lot of atheists and agnostics are with God. They can agree that the whole idea of morality and the various stories of the various religions are great, but if nobody can provide some reason to them why they should believe in GOD in the first place, it's all meaningless. For me, I can accept all the doctrine and theory in the world, but I first need to know how scientists KNOW that evolution and natural selection exist. Beyond that, I need to know HOW it happens in the first place. What spontaneously causes these genes to mutate to form (however gradually) these new organs. After reading this book, I know this is the most cliché argument against evolution, but seriously, it doesn't make sense to me how eyes evolved. How can a cell or group of cells - even by chance - just suddenly start being sensitive to light?

I used to say, "How does an organism that doesn't know it needs to see suddenly develop sight?" I get it now that it's not based on need but on chance. But still, how by chance do things like this, so improbably happen? How could an asexual organism start forming organs that would require two parents. How would insemination even gradually start working? How does blood or intestines or taste buds accidentally form? So many of these concepts sound so much like a good story but ultimately just don't add up. Much the same way I'm sure many people view the Bible.

But for me, right now, as I understand the world around me (which is minimal and I accept that), the idea of God is just way easier to buy into than spontaneous-chance creation and evolution. And maybe Pinker will go on to explain this part of it, but I don't think he's going to. At one point he writes about natural selection saying, "The urge [to evolve] - and more important, the power to achieve its ambitions - is a bit of magic that is left unexplained." But it's this "power to achieve its ambitions" that is the crux of the matter for me. If you can't tell me how natural selection is empowered, how can I accept any of it? I need to know WHY it happens. You've already told me that it doesn't happen out of NEED, but out of CHANCE. Well, I need to know why these chances happen or else the whole thing is just a nice story and a fun topic to bullshit with people when you want to expand you brain and feel smarter than you are for a few hours.