The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Life Sciences
  3. Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution
  4. Is it maladaptive, in evolutionary terms, to pay too much heed to the past?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Is it maladaptive, in evolutionary terms, to pay too much heed to the past?

  • 7 Replies
  • 4492 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lukaradulovic (OP)

  • First timers
  • *
  • 9
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Is it maladaptive, in evolutionary terms, to pay too much heed to the past?
« on: 13/01/2012 05:05:36 »
evolution says that everything adapts. i agree. but, if you imagine us as a single man walking in one direction (that direction representing time), we are only able to perceive what we left behind(the past), not what's in front of us (the future). So the man (we) walking there is basically walking backwards. I think that shows that people who don't treat the past with all it's due respect is actually better adapted for life (more evolved) than a person who values the past much. Based on that it is logical fact that it is better to look where you are going then not doing that. You could get hurt, and we as a species, are hurting at the moment.
« Last Edit: 13/01/2012 23:36:00 by chris »
Logged
 



Offline CliffordK

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 6408
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 15 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: evolutionary flaw
« Reply #1 on: 13/01/2012 06:03:19 »
Hmmm...
Interesting.

Evolution has a few parts. 
Perhaps you could think of random mutations as trying new things in the future.
And...  That Nature can be very unforgiving of past mistakes. 
Of course, there is nothing other than statistics to prevent evolution from trying the same mutation more than once.

People, of course, turn nature updside-down.  So, for example, if a species is adapted to having 2 offspring a year.  Over hunting can cause that to be far below replacement value.
Logged
 

Offline Mazurka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 510
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: evolutionary flaw
« Reply #2 on: 13/01/2012 12:38:46 »
Darwinian evolution is blind, so cannot see forward or backwards. (although there are a couple of interesting examples of species such as bats returning to the ground to forrage on islands where there are no/ few predators / compettition.) 

Changes (through random mutation etc.) can be of "benefit" "disbenefit" or "neutral".  Beneficial changes are more likely to make the individual "fitter" and more likely to succeed in passing the changes on to future generations.  Equally, a change that is not beneficial or neutral  can still be passed on, but is less likely to be and over time, the beneficial changes in a population will tend to be reinforced (by increasing the chances of survival) whereas the "negative" changes will tend to die out.

(This of course is a massive over simplification)


Logged
 

Offline lukaradulovic (OP)

  • First timers
  • *
  • 9
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: evolutionary flaw
« Reply #3 on: 13/01/2012 16:49:49 »
Quote from: Mazurka on 13/01/2012 12:38:46
Darwinian evolution is blind, so cannot see forward or backwards. (although there are a couple of interesting examples of species such as bats returning to the ground to forrage on islands where there are no/ few predators / compettition.) 

Changes (through random mutation etc.) can be of "benefit" "disbenefit" or "neutral".  Beneficial changes are more likely to make the individual "fitter" and more likely to succeed in passing the changes on to future generations.  Equally, a change that is not beneficial or neutral  can still be passed on, but is less likely to be and over time, the beneficial changes in a population will tend to be reinforced (by increasing the chances of survival) whereas the "negative" changes will tend to die out.

(This of course is a massive over simplification)

ok, but i understand the principals you explained here. So, as far as i understood you, you (and i) agree that we should try to focus on the future more than the past, to initialize this kind of evolutionary process in ourselves on purpose, resulting in an eventual turning around of "the backwards walking man"? Right? Sorry, English is my second language, there might be some mistakes. Tnx for giving this thought some of your time.  :)
Logged
 

Offline lukaradulovic (OP)

  • First timers
  • *
  • 9
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: evolutionary flaw
« Reply #4 on: 13/01/2012 17:03:22 »
Quote from: CliffordK on 13/01/2012 06:03:19
Hmmm...
Interesting.

Evolution has a few parts. 
Perhaps you could think of random mutations as trying new things in the future.
And...  That Nature can be very unforgiving of past mistakes. 
Of course, there is nothing other than statistics to prevent evolution from trying the same mutation more than once.

People, of course, turn nature updside-down.  So, for example, if a species is adapted to having 2 offspring a year.  Over hunting can cause that to be far below replacement value.

agreed. the only thing i was saying is that we give the past far more credit than it deserves, especially when you add the factor of lies and distortion, both of which we nurture. we definitely need to focus on the future more.
Logged
 



Offline cheryl j

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1478
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
Re: evolutionary flaw
« Reply #5 on: 13/01/2012 20:15:30 »
The only way you can see trends, though, is by looking at the past and present, and waiting to see what happens next. If you have an abnormal lab result, for example, a doctor will often ask you to have it repeated, to see if the numbers are on their way up or on their way down. You can't always understand what is going on from a single value.
Logged
 

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 963
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
Re: Is it maladaptive, in evolutionary terms, to pay too much heed to the past?
« Reply #6 on: 20/01/2012 13:24:03 »
Since you are mixing up two completely different things (biological evolution and human behavior) I will do the same in my argument below:

I disagree that mankind is walking backwards in the direction of time.
This may have been correct in the past, but certainly is not correct any longer.

Nowadays we can look in the blurry future. For example: we make predictions (looking in the blurry future) → we build experiments (our glasses) → we get results (sharper vision of the future that may confirm or debunk our predictions)

And then there's this special branch of science where we start meddling with our biological evolution. Once we can genetically engineer humans to become smarter, there might be a revolution coming.

As an analogy to the Artificial Intelligence research, where the Holy Grail is a Seed AI (an AI capable of improving itself, and then this improved version can improve itself again, and so on and so on), this might happen with human evolution once we fully master genetic engineering.

These branches of research are being practiced now, so that's why I don't agree with your opening statement that we're only looking backwards.

But still, sometimes we do have to look back, just to avoid making the same mistakes as our predecessors...
Logged
Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Most poems rhyme,
but this one doesn't
 

Online Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21970
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 510 times
    • View Profile
Re: Is it maladaptive, in evolutionary terms, to pay too much heed to the past?
« Reply #7 on: 20/01/2012 18:41:27 »
Yes, by definition of "too much" and "maladaptive" it is "maladaptive" to do "too much" of anything.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

Has "levitation" been used in the past to create flying machines?

Started by erickejahBoard Technology

Replies: 14
Views: 8164
Last post 22/01/2009 23:22:38
by erickejah
explain the terms flowage folding, shear folding, flexural folding.

Started by g1patnaikBoard Geology, Palaeontology & Archaeology

Replies: 2
Views: 6224
Last post 14/10/2010 07:40:42
by Ophiolite
Why is the energy of rigid rotator the sum of two energy terms?

Started by pushkarBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 5
Views: 4715
Last post 05/04/2010 09:31:37
by Soul Surfer
Why are "common" terms for chemicals often used instead of the chemical name?

Started by The ScientistBoard Chemistry

Replies: 1
Views: 9594
Last post 03/07/2010 20:56:00
by ebichu63
Did Multiple vaccine doses result in 145,000 child deaths in past 20 Years?

Started by profoundBoard Physiology & Medicine

Replies: 9
Views: 5366
Last post 06/02/2013 19:54:07
by CliffordK
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.188 seconds with 54 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.