Science and Inquiry discussion
Issues in Science
>
Will technology replace evolution?
message 101:
by
Kenny
(last edited Apr 26, 2014 06:00PM)
(new)
Apr 26, 2014 05:46PM
Jonathan, we (or certainly I) don't care if you want to use a special definition limited to biology, go ahead. I've explained my position and I think Mel and others have as well. It's at odds with what you are saying. Let it go. I'm not going to agree with you, because you are wrong. As I said in my very first response to you, you are restricting your thinking about this topic. You are free to continue to do that, but don't expect others to agree.
reply
|
flag
Oh and if you want to get technical, the process of evolution has no more to do with biology than with technology, ideas, memes, language, or anything else.Evolution as Darwin said is "Descent with modification." Period, his example was biological, but he certainly didn't restrict it to that, nor did Dawkins in The Selfish Gene.
Evolution is probably one of the most fundamental scientific theories we have.
Okay, fine. Clearly there is more to Darwinian evolution, specifically with regards to the genetics and biochemistry, than "descent with modification." It is my personal opinion that you are underestimating this component, but let's give it a pass.But even if we broaden the scope of evolution entirely, so as to encompass galaxies, technology, languages, etc. Let us accept the broadest, most open-minded definition of evolution possible. Please explain how technology replaces evolution.
It is my opinion that it is logically indefensible. Whatever "highest" technology is proposed, it is still "evolving."
Laura wrote: "If you consider things from the standpoint of the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics (projected to the macro world), there are versions of reality where *all* of these possibilities—and more—exist."
True! However, the defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that is be testable, even falsifiable, based on evidence. As such, the Many Worlds interpretation is just that, and not a scientific theory, because it's _in principle_ untestable. So I for one see no reason to give it any more credence than I do Norse or Babylonian mythology. ;-)
In the - our! - macro world, we'll never experience any of those other possibilities than the one we do.
True! However, the defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that is be testable, even falsifiable, based on evidence. As such, the Many Worlds interpretation is just that, and not a scientific theory, because it's _in principle_ untestable. So I for one see no reason to give it any more credence than I do Norse or Babylonian mythology. ;-)
In the - our! - macro world, we'll never experience any of those other possibilities than the one we do.
Laura wrote: "Daniel wrote:
'2.) Since "everyone knows" that you must get an education, the cost keeps going up to match demand, while the value returned on a degree has declined or stagnated. E.g. You will still earn more with a bachelors, but would you earn 90% as much of that "education bump" with 25% of the cost if we had a better system of e.g technical training and retraining?'
I agree with you [Daniel] wholeheartedly about the need for better training—and retraining. A college degree isn't the only kind of education, however. We need to treat non-college education with much more respect than we do.
In my novel, The Reality Matrix Effect, the employment service in the alternate reality of 2021 assumes that people will change careers at least once during their lifetime and provides the necessary support system for that."
Laura, I agree with BOTH your points.
On the first point, I find it self-defeating that (here in Australia, as elsewhere in the world) our tertiary technical colleges have become "universities", which has had some bad effects:
1) that their curricula inevitably become more academic and consequently less practical;
2) that people who have acquired sufficient skills through other training paths (e.g. helping family members exercise their professional or trade skills) may be unable to have their competencies certified unless they spend valuable time and money to do so;
3) that those students with a more practical bent may be unable to receive adequate training because of struggles with the academic work.
On the second point, I remember that we were discussing "serial careers" and "lifetime learning" in Australia - about twenty years ago! However, the reality has clearly not matched the politicians' rhetoric. It's common knowledge that anybody over 50 struggles to find employment, particularly if they want to try a new field or have been unable to work for more than a year.
If you (or your protagonists) tackle these problems directly, I rather think I might find your novel illuminating ...
'2.) Since "everyone knows" that you must get an education, the cost keeps going up to match demand, while the value returned on a degree has declined or stagnated. E.g. You will still earn more with a bachelors, but would you earn 90% as much of that "education bump" with 25% of the cost if we had a better system of e.g technical training and retraining?'
I agree with you [Daniel] wholeheartedly about the need for better training—and retraining. A college degree isn't the only kind of education, however. We need to treat non-college education with much more respect than we do.
In my novel, The Reality Matrix Effect, the employment service in the alternate reality of 2021 assumes that people will change careers at least once during their lifetime and provides the necessary support system for that."
Laura, I agree with BOTH your points.
On the first point, I find it self-defeating that (here in Australia, as elsewhere in the world) our tertiary technical colleges have become "universities", which has had some bad effects:
1) that their curricula inevitably become more academic and consequently less practical;
2) that people who have acquired sufficient skills through other training paths (e.g. helping family members exercise their professional or trade skills) may be unable to have their competencies certified unless they spend valuable time and money to do so;
3) that those students with a more practical bent may be unable to receive adequate training because of struggles with the academic work.
On the second point, I remember that we were discussing "serial careers" and "lifetime learning" in Australia - about twenty years ago! However, the reality has clearly not matched the politicians' rhetoric. It's common knowledge that anybody over 50 struggles to find employment, particularly if they want to try a new field or have been unable to work for more than a year.
If you (or your protagonists) tackle these problems directly, I rather think I might find your novel illuminating ...
Ryan wrote: " I feel it to be a little outrageous you can call someone else's interpretations wrong, when you yourself articulate what can only be described as science fiction. My copy of the selfish gene and extended phenotype are not present currently so I can't refresh myself entirely on the topic, but a meme (as I know it) is cultural alteration to our existence as an evolutionary being. i.e. people who do not have children for religious purposes. Memes evolve also, yes, but not necessarily for the better. Eradicating modification from the list of things that can synonymous with a meme. "Well, you go ahead and believe what you want. I was addressing the original question, which is btw speculation, with a very plausible scenario that I've thought about, researched and studied considerably.
You seem to have something of a burr under your saddle with Dawkins but that's not even really the point. My only reason for bringing it up was to illustrate that evolution applies much more broadly than to only biology, in fact it includes the full environment as well as the example we know -- Earth biological life.
Dawkins began the exploration of What's next with his final chapter of The Selfish Gene, this discussion and many others in many venues continue it. There may in fact be a much bigger picture that we simply don't understand yet, which is the point of my 'Butterflies' speculation.
I have read the book btw (Selfish Gene) many years ago when it was first released it was an eye-opener. I've re-read it a couple of times since as well as MANY OTHERS and many other articles on the topic. I have
recently studied the whole meme concept in detail and
my career has focused on information, computers, and their capabilities. Prior to that I studied psychology
but dropped out in my final semester for a variety of reasons.
So, don't get all high and mighty on me. Science IS an exploration of the future, a practical a proven one through the virtue of the scientific method.
Don't base YOUR own understanding on a single book either, particularly if it makes idiotic claims like '..genetics are far too complicated to replicate and understand entirely' that is just pure stupidity. Like saying we'll never need more that 2k of computer memory. It's dumb to make such predictions. We have Craig Venter who is creating artificial life (so he says) and there was a recent paper detailing the creation of a complete chromosome inserted into bacteria and propagated. AI research is getting ever
closer to duplicating the capacity of the human mind as well as its functioning and on and on and on.
You know very little about me, so I suggest you stick to the facts instead of making assumptions about me or what I know.
I am debating nothing btw, you seem to think you are for some reason. I took exception to the limitation of the evolutionary process to biology and explained why as well as giving examples and reasoning to back up my speculation.
If you want to rest on your laurels and say we've already learned everything we can then feel free to do so. I prefer to look to the future and what
we have yet to learn.
I am trying to state a very simple point. The question in the title is "Will technology replace evolution?" I have answered "No."In a previous post, Kenny wrote "Evolution is probably one of the most fundamental scientific theories we have."
In another post, Kenny also wrote that I am wrong.
So I am understanding now that Kenny is suggesting that "Technology" can replace "one of the most fundamental scientific theories we have."
That is unfeasible without a solid explanation or example. As one has not appeared, and I have supplied consistent explanations to the negative, I think it is justifiable to state that "No, technology will not replace evolution."
It's appeared. You just didn't get it....or refused to. You seem to just want to argue and I'm having none of it. I've said everything that needs to be said, Not worth any more of my time. But I'll plead with you once more......open your mind, lose your bias, and LEARN!
It would appear that technology drives evolution. Things do not evolve in a vacuum. If you take people out of the equation and people's words and other imaginary devices we have created to explain what we do not understand and look at the animal kingdom as such it should be pretty easy to see that there are all kinds of machines besides those that are man made. While it is easy to discuss whether the planet is alive or just covered with life without coming to a conclusion one can not escape the reality of the sun as a giant furnace (which is a machine) and its rays of energy which constantly change the genetic structure of the life on the planet. Some green plant leaves supposedly got the habit of photosynthesis by absorbing the photosynthesis process from bacteria that was living in the leaves. Any lab that produced organic living nano machines capable of doing what cyanobacteria does would certainly call their products machines. Putting these same "machines" into a plant body which changes it genetic structure should show that technology does not have to be man made to exist or that we are the only ones interested in enhancing our existence by changing our genetic structure with implants. Man made technology has been extracting large quantities of materials from the earth, changing these materials quite dramatically and then returning these changed materials back into the earth. Every step of the way these materials change the genetic structure of the basic plant and micro-biological world they come into contact with. Most people believe they are impervious to these chemically induced changes but for the rest of the worlds life that is unable to avoid these liberated substances and are constantly drinking it, bathing in it, breathing it, eating it, they are changing. Perhaps as planet eaters our sole purpose to provide micro life with these pre-digested substances so they may evolve to the next level, much in the same way we have used oil from past generations to change our world.
Robert wrote: "It would appear that technology drives evolution. Things do not evolve in a vacuum. If you take people out of the equation and people's words and other imaginary devices we have created to explain ..."I think you touch on something key here: words and ideas.
But, I have to disagree with a lot of phrasing. The word technology comes from the same root as "technique," from the Greek for "craft." Looking at the world as machines and technology is purely human-centric; it is the very opposite of "tak[ing] people out of the equation, and people's words and other imaginary devices [as well]." It is seeing the universe through the lens of "craft," and even if you do not then go on to subscribe to e.g. Intelligent Design, "craft" then colors your perceptions.
Robert wrote: "one can not escape the reality of the sun as a giant furnace (which is a machine) and its rays of energy which constantly change the genetic structure of the life on the planet. Some green plant leaves supposedly got the habit of photosynthesis by absorbing the photosynthesis process from bacteria that was living in the leaves."
This is something of an example. True, the sun is "like" a giant furnace, but I surely can "escape the reality" that it is such a thing. This may sound like splitting hairs. But: the metaphor is not the thing, the map is not the territory! Radiation from the Sun (as well as from nuclear decay in the rocks all around us), as well as thermodynamic randomness, and numerous natural chemical carcinogens always change the genetic structure. You can see how the machine metaphor starts to disintegrate: it (kinda, sort of, maybe, kinda) fits the Sun, but can you extend it to thermodynamical randomness? Quantum randomness leading to fission?
Also, an aside: plants did not swallow cyanobacteria(-like) organisms to make chloroplasts. The idea is that a bacteria swallowed another bacteria, possibly as part of predation; it was not able to consume it, and the two continued on as a chimera. Over time they co-evolved so that the chloroplast became merely an organelle. Same goes for mitochondria. Sorry, I just want to make it crystal clear that there were not a lot of plants lying about doing some other process, with tan leaves, and then one cell on one leaf on one plant just happened to absorb a cyanobacteria and then this affected the seeds, etc. etc. etc.
Robert wrote: "Every step of the way these materials change the genetic structure of the basic plant and micro-biological world they come into contact with. Most people believe they are impervious to these chemically induced changes but for the rest of the worlds life that is unable to avoid these liberated substances and are constantly drinking it, bathing in it, breathing it, eating it, they are changing. Perhaps as planet eaters our sole purpose to provide micro life with these pre-digested substances so they may evolve to the next level, much in the same way we have used oil from past generations to change our world."
I've leave aside the comments about "evolving toward" something like a "next level" (what does that mean...?) You do make a very valid point, in general however. We humans are constantly liberating huge amounts of materials: we change the pH of rivers and lakes, dig up minerals and leave massive piles of trailings, dump fertilizers into vast areas, have created a plethora of organic chemicals (mostly plastics and plastic additives) that literally did not exist on the planet before humans, etc. etc. etc. We are doing a massive science experiment and do not even have an "expected result." I do not see that stopping any time soon... hopefully the result is a happy one.
So when people tweak a natural "thing" it is man made even when the original idea was not "invented" by people? People put fish netting along the shore, fill it with natural fish (so far) and call it a man made fish farm.
People also put massive amounts of plastic into the ground and water some of which ultimately gets swept out to sea and caught up in the ocean gyres where it is ground into tiny bits and deposited no one knows where.
Besides calling this bad luck I don't think the massive quantity of tiny bits of plastic that are being injected into the food chain via this "natural recycling thing" are a good for us.
Personally I fell that the current life on the planet that exists within the zone we like to exist in is like the "disposable" skins for a cell phone. There is plenty more life existing outside of our zone that is ready to take the place of humans and anything we consider common to our way of life and that life would be the equivalent to the cell phone itself. Using carefully crafted words that do not explain the entire range of consequences of our actions is not good science to me.
Robert wrote: "So when people tweak a natural "thing" it is man made even when the original idea was not "invented" by people? People put fish netting along the shore, fill it with natural fish (so far) and cal..."
No... I think we may be talking past each other, somewhat.
If someone modifies something, then that thing is no longer entirely "natural." This gets into all sorts of territory I'm not sure I want to go into (and that I did not read from your original post.) E.g. is fish "natural" if raised in a fish farm? What about if it lives wild in the ocean in a food chain contaminated by plastics? Is one molecule of plastic in the fish enough? 10^10 molecules? Again, a whole lot of gray area, and not really what I, at least, was talking about; or what I understood you to be talking about.
Where we may really be disagreeing is over questions like: "What is technology?" and, "When can you claim it is 'driving evolution'?" I was trying to carve those down to something narrower than (I misconstrued?) claiming that chloroplasts and the Sun are both technologies, or at least equivalent to technologies.
I was arguing something along the lines of "technology" implies agency (human agency, it is usually assumed) and that viewing natural process and objects through the lens of "craft" and agency is a "Bad Idea" because it includes ideas that don't belong (e.g. purpose) and excludes ideas that do (structure happens, regardless of what "use" it may eventually be put to.)
To take advantage of your example: An engineered nanite that performs something like photosynthesis may eventually exist; but it won't have evolved in the sense we usually mean. It will have been constructed (or, separately, evolved in the lab.) It it "gets loose" and replaces all plants, it still won't have evolved. Once that nanite is subject to selection pressures, is able to replicate, and passes down replication instructions, including any variations in those instructions, then is can be said to evolving. This is because evolution is a mathematical/information theory result of a setup where there are selection pressures, replication, inherited replication instructions, and variation and inheritance of variation.
But.... sigh. Now I am just replicating the argument between Kenny and Ryan and others, above.
We both seem to be in hearty agreement that we are polluting our environment to no known end result, which in and of itself is a bit scary. Beyond that I did not really understand your cell phone analogy. I think you were saying that if we kill ourselves and the ecosystem that is most closely tied to us, life will continue on like humans were a bad case of indigestion...?
"I think you were saying that if we kill ourselves and the ecosystem that is most closely tied to us, life will continue on like humans were a bad case of indigestion...?" You got that right. I think life is layered like an onion. If you want a more negative picture than you could picture humans and other multicelluar life forms as "flowers" or bugs on the leaves of plants, a less negative approach would be to think of ourselves as leaves because they at least are on the plant from birth to death of the entire organism. I like the layered idea better with non essential connections that can be cut at any time.
Undersea there are methane based systems and different kinds of hydrothermal vent communities which are very different from us but still the shrimp end up looking like the kind of shrimp we eat. When people start marketing bacterial potions along with wood chips that you can eat instead of regular food will that be called a natural food or a commercial invention as it is grown in vats for mass consumption?
No one agrees with this view but I will state it anyway. There are bacteria that humans refer to as Extremophiles because they live in extreme conditions. Just because humans are writing the rules means that we can say that an organism that can thrive under a wide variety of conditions is "extreme" while humans live in a very narrow niche that is in itself an extreme situation. People like to think that because the triple point of water is included in this zone that it is a very complex zone but actually this only narrows the zone dimensions that we call home. Intelligent design is another one of those words where humans are writing the "rules" for how to define things as it should have been called creationist design. One thing technology has done is that it makes playing with words sometimes akin to playing with fire.
You two make a very good point with regards to how "technology" is defined, whereas the discussion was previously focused only on "evolution." It is true that technology should not be applied solely to humans; but at the same time, one of the more defining features of our species (c. 2014CE--I realize it could become increasingly common and hence less defining)is our advanced technology--few species generally are understood to be capable of using technology, namely apes and crows with their usage of twigs to scoop out prey, etc.If one expands the definition to include a unicellular organism utilizing smaller unicellular organism, e.g. the mitochondrion, then that certainly complicates things. (Perhaps just to be difficult, I would point out that this application of "technology" still falls under "evolution," however.)
The thing is, from how I see it, the more expansively "evolution" is defined to be, whether a process or theory, the more difficult it becomes to replace. A narrowed definition of "Darwinian evolution" versus the general "evolution" is actually easier to defeat, i.e. for "technology" to replace.
Regardless of how expansive or not evolution is, "technology" would have to be expanded to that point in order to be capable of replacing it. If "evolution" becomes so expansive to be a simple theory of change, then "technology" has to meet it to replace it. The thing is, technology is typically not defined in such a way. It is generally an "application of knowledge," e.g. a wristwatch, an acid bath, an electric light bulb (or the more primitive lamp, or candle), a twig used to pull up bugs, etc. It can drive change across time, but it is not that process of change over time (anecdotally, no where have I come across this usage), nor is it the general theory of change. That would be, generally, "evolution."
So in terms of the above reasoning, I do not see how it is possible. Again, hypothetically, if such a theory is rigorous, it should be submitted at once to a respectable journal. Can the theory of gravitation be so easily replaced? Or electromagnetism? The same is true for evolution.
Apologies if this derails your interesting discussion.
I am trying to find a good definition of technology and I can not find anything that makes any sense when you try to apply it over a period of time. Would some care to put up a definition for technology that doesn't fall apart after it has run more than a sentence or two?
A simple explanation might be a living entity using the environment to interact with the environment where anything outside of the living entity's body is the environment.
Robert wrote: "Would some care to put up a definition for technology that doesn't fall apart after it has run more than a sentence or two?"Well... I'd start with an existing definition. Wikipedia gives an (exhaustive) definition of the word at the start of the article on technology:
[The] making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a pre-existing solution to a problem, achieve a goal, handle an applied input/output relation or perform a specific function. It can also refer to the collection of such tools, including machinery, modifications, arrangements and procedures. Technologies significantly affect human as well as other animal species' ability to control and adapt to their natural environments.
Dictionary.com gives a more or less similar definition, with a slight expansion around,
4. the sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization.
Somewhere in there is your definition; I find those to be satisfying. I'm guessing you already looked at a definition to start, so this might be adding nothing. It might be helpful to know what issue you're finiding.
I'll just add: beware trying to get a definition that covers every possible case, interpretation, meaning, use, implication, misinterpretation, exception, and so forth... I had a philosophy teacher once who, to make this point about something similar (I think "justice" or somesuch), simply asked us to come up with a suitable definition of "tree."
Good luck!
Jonathan wrote: "The thing is, from how I see it, the more expansively "evolution" is defined to be, whether a process or theory, the more difficult it becomes to replace. ... I do not see how it is possible. ... Can the theory of gravitation be so easily replaced? Or electromagnetism? The same is true for evolution."I think we are in agreement here. Buried in my (too many) paragraphs above is the the comment that, "evolution is a mathematical/information theory result of a setup where there are selection pressures, replication, inherited replication instructions, and variation and inheritance of variation." I realize that, for some people, this is only one definition. But for me, it is the only workable definition; anything else is, in my mind, attempting to say that "evolution" should only mean some subset of evolution like "natural selection" (which is *not* evolution!) Or, perhaps worse, that the same processes should be called something else if it is not being applied to spiders, people, and slimemolds; like calling it gravity on Earth and "mravity" just because it is on the moon.
A combined response would look something like:
"Evolution" is a mathematical/information theory result of a setup where there are selection pressures, replication, inherited replication instructions, and variation and inheritance of that variation. As such, I do not see how it is possible to 'replace' it. Can the theory of gravitation be so easily replaced? Or electromagnetism? The same is true for evolution.
I think the feeling that many have is that technology will alter the path of evolution, taking us somewhere "unnatural" / "man-made" / etc. I think this feeling then pushes people to conclude that we will be "controlling evolution," "replacing evolution," or that evolution will just have stopped. This, of course, misses the fact that evolution can keep right on going, even as we much with our genome, add implants, eat completely synthetic diets, and so forth. They are not mutually exclusive processes.
Here is my problem. I am going to say that using technology includes a society adopting stone axes, using fire to cook and possibly modify the physical characteristics of other materials, using bags to transport what food was gathered, anything simple where you picked up a stick, a rock, a piece of vine or stripped the bark off a tree. The question is did this simple activity change the physical build of our bodies, body hair, gait, teeth, mouth, tongue, etc.?
Robert wrote: "Here is my problem. I am going to say that using technology includes a society adopting stone axes, using fire to cook and possibly modify the physical characteristics of other materials, using bag..."Well, evolution is BOTH random genetic change AND environment. So if something technology-wise in connection with a random genetic change (e.g. more flexible fingers to nap flint with or ....) results in a greater chance of survival....
....and have you noticed how teenager's brains no longer work? This is a direct result of Facebook! :)
Kenny wrote: "Ryan wrote: "Darwinian evolution (I relate it crudely to survival of the fittest)in humans has essentially stopped. We no longer physically evolve to survive. Evolution still occurs, but it just ma..."YES that's exactly what I have been thinking (but not articulate enough to express.) Although I might not say evolution has stopped, I would certainly say Natural Selection, for humans and most domestic animals, has been trumped by a. selective breeding and b. compensating, by medical, social, or technical means, for qualities that would in "nature" tend toward the unsuccessful reproduction of that gene carrier. (Does that make sense?)
To avoid offending anyone, let's take fluffy little useless dogs as an example. How long would Fifi last on the African savannah or in the gator and coyote infested woods in Florida? They would probably go extinct in a couple of weeks. Yet here in Florida and most of the civilised world, they not only proliferate but have managed to wrest control of the lives of many human beings. Our own fault, of course, for selectively breeding for doe-eyed, helpless-looking, highly manipulative individuals.
Are we doing the same with regard to human beings? Many folks in my family are embarrassingly myopic. 100,000 years ago would we have survived to adulthood, lacking the ability to spot blackberries and edible mushrooms unless they were right under our noses, or to determine whether that was a delicious deer approaching or a hungry saber-toothed tiger? Now we have glasses, lasik surgery, and jobs staring at computer screens 2 feet from our faces. Problem solved, and we can make as many little near-sighted younguns as we want.
Same is true for many genetic traits including (sorry) stupidity, for which some governments seem to actively select by encouraging those lacking in survival skills to sit home and watch Jerry Springer and reproduce.
To get off my tangent and return to the question, technology can certainly influence evolution. Although the time span to which I'm referring is a mere heartbeat on the scale of evolution. My long range prediction (just for fun): a large-scale crisis occurs on earth (probably brought on by human action), causing another big extinction, but not the total destruction of life. Possibly even a few people left, and probably a few fussy little dogs too...and evolution influenced by natural selection and the survival of the fittest takes over again.
Laura wrote: "Nancy wrote: "...A system which results in, as you put it, those who depend on some program for survival to make the rational decision to remain dependent on it (thus in many cases becoming a paras..."Since I went out of town, the sparks have been flying on this thread, I see!
How did we get started on the welfare system, anyway? I guess the point I was trying to make (which is a far cry from the topic of the thread) is that government "systems" is perhaps doing a disservice to humanity and the planet in the long run by working in conflict with the laws of nature to the extent that they encourage the proliferation of the most helpless at the expense of the survival of the fittest. And I am not talking about the "survival" of the individual, but that that of the genes.
Robert wrote: "Here is my problem. I am going to say that using technology includes a society adopting stone axes, using fire to cook and possibly modify the physical characteristics of other materials... The question is did this simple activity change the physical build of our bodies, body hair, gait, teeth, mouth, tongue, etc.?"I would argue an emphatic, "Yes."
But this doesn't have to be limited to technology. Let say an animal develops a larger claw that helps it dig up e.g. roots more easily. This may lead to a cascade of changes that ultimately make the animal a burrower, or cause it to become a omnivore an eat insect larvae instead of just roots. So in this case, a "feature" (larger claw) leads to an increase in a behavior, which ultimately shifts the diet of the animal (herbivore to omnivore); along the way, a host of other changes would have to occur (e.g. immune system changes.)
But that isn't called anything special. It is just "evolution."
If you're saying, "Well, that isn't technology," then what about beavers? They alter their environment in dramatic ways; they can alter entire local ecosystems, literally submerging land.
Still no?
What about ravens and a few other birds, who solve novel 'puzzles' and demonstrate ad hoc behaviors as part of e.g. mating rituals?
No?
What about the various primate groups that show tool use? The Japanese Macaque that passes down food washing, the chimps that pass down (various) methods for breaking nuts open?
So, two questions:
1.) Where in this progress does "technology" start/stop?
2.) Whether or not you can reasonably draw that line: Does it matter? Is technology special -vs other behaviors- in how it feeds back into evolution? If so, what makes technology special? If so, how does technology alter the e.g. chimps (or whatever species is 'above the cutoff' for 'having technology' from question 1)? Because if it is technology, then it should have an effect in all species that have technology.
I'm not saying you can't reasonably address these questions. And I'm not just making a "line drawing" argument (i.e. you can't tell me precisely where the technology line is, so you're wrong.) My point is more that you may not find it fruitful going down the path of showing technology contributes to evolution because it alters selection criteria/increases energy supply/etc. After all, mere behavior has all these same effects.
Yes Daniel and that is exactly what I mean by evolution being much bigger that just biology. Right now we only see it primarily in biology, but we are beginning to see its effects in other areas which can be more or less distinct from biology - social interaction, information, knowledge, computer technology - particularly with respect to neural networks and artificial intelligence. All exhibit evolutionary traits. It's my contention that our technology may in fact 'branch off' from our own evolutionary branch into one of their own (and we i.e. out human 'essence') may or may not be a part of that new evolutionary branch.
Oohkay, I looooove this discussion. Just a few things for right now--Jonathan--I AM referring to species evolution (definition 1), although definition 2 would apply by default, being a general term that can refer to anything. It is rather illogical to limit it to genetic material at this point, considering we are made out of chemicals, and genes themselves are so easily altered via "inorganic" sources. All of the criteria for LIFE revolves around similarity to the human body. Can you really blame me for taking that with a grain of salt?
Understand I am saying this REGARDLESS of what the current official definition is. You know as well as I do it will change eventually. Our categorizations are based on our findings. Therefore, our categorizations, will only stay the same if we cease FINDING. Hopefully we don't stop THAT.
However, I can accept (for now) the idea that evolution is something that, as far as we can see, only happens to Things Like Us. Things with genes. Sure, just because it happens to us doesn't mean it happens the same way everywhere.
However, the more we understand our own evolution, the more we will both try and succeed at manipulating it. Isn't our own manipulation a replacement in itself? When we change the entire process, we have replaced it, and that is only a matter of time, considering our present attempts. Again, the use of non-genetic material for GENETIC evolution will be ALL too easy, considering what we have already WITNESSED with radioactive elements ALONE. You know as well as I do that is only the proverbial tip of the iceberg. And yet, arguably, again, it is only a realization, because the manipulation simply stems from the same control-freak instincts that got us here thus far.
Yes, I was using definition 1.
One more thing:
"The definition of evolution you are using is not Darwinian evolution, i.e. the scientific version of evolution. Hence, all bets are off, and we are in the realm of fiction, not science."
I would like to think you were not attempting to cheap shot me into a pigeonhole right here. It is a common, if shitty, tactic after all, both on and off the interwebz. It is also dangerously similar to strawmanning it. It is an attempt to discredit the other party by setting up an extreme either-or. Let's call it a corn doll ;)
Assuming you were NOT doing that, and just stating what you thought--please, I beg to differ! "All bets" are NOT off had I simply been using the general definition. You are basically saying we are in the realm of fiction the moment we step out of the field of biology. That is extremely black and white, as well as a sweeping generalization. ALL bets? Really?
Incidentally, the universe does have a way of doing that ;)
As to the definition of technology, I think it's being covered very well here. And underscoring its direct role, if not PARTNERSHIP, with evolution, (although, yes, arguably, it's just another part of the evolutionary process.) As to the question of replacing, YES, I am in fact wondering if technology will eventually get, well far enough beyond axes and pots, TO do such a thing. I do believe the best predictors of the future are the past and present, so that is why I think the answer is yes. At least on this planet; understand I do not mean this scenario to apply outside of Earth. We've already moved far enough beyond axes to exert quite a heavy hand upon the entire ecological balance. Other species will evolve in kind, of course, but that was still done by us and our tools. That is something no caveman's billyclub could have done. It is not unreasonable to think this, um, DYNAMIC will increase as technology evolves further (using definition 2 this time!)
PS: Daniel, the comment about beavers: THANK YOU!
Daniel, I am generally in agreement with your combined statement.I don't have too much time tonight, so forgive the brevity.
Mel, that's fine if you meant the narrowed Darwinian sense, and perhaps I misunderstood you. But as I wrote above, I am perfectly okay rejecting the notion that technology can replace evolution, whether in the biological sense or the general sense. As previously stated, the narrowed Darwinian or biological sense is easier to replace than the general sense. But technology cannot replace either.
There is a clause here which you mentioned, and that is this; if we change the definitions of "technology" and/or "evolution" in the future, that is to say if their etymologies and meanings themselves "evolve." But I personally have little interest in discussing that here, for the possibilities are endless (maybe "technology" will mean today's definition of "evolution" and "evolution" will mean today's definition of "technology"), and that would be disagreeing with the dictionary to some degree.
Kenny, I agree with you, evolution (in the general sense) is larger than biology. This actually makes it harder for technology to replace evolution than in the narrowed Darwinian sense, not easier.
Based on a skimmed reading, I reiterate my earlier point, and Daniel's statement; "evolution" is a theory and "technology" as it is commonly used today is not. Like the theories of gravitation, electromagnetism, etc., evolution cannot be replaced without a stronger general theory. Hence, it will not--and probably cannot--happen, based on modern science. If anyone can prove it is possible, then show us, and submit it to an academic journal. You will win a Nobel or similar prize if you can.
Mel, to comment briefly on your message #132; if "technology" continues advancing ad infinitum, well beyond modern human capabilities, then it has never left the "evolutionary" process, and never will. Regardless if the technology is biological with genetics or not, it will still be "evolving" in the general sense. That is why it cannot replace "evolution."Only if it freezes at some point (as you put it, it "eventually get[s]" to such a state and stops advancing will it stop "evolving." But to replace "evolution" entirely would directly imply that all changes have stopped, i.e. that it has ended biological and other life. That is why I wrote earlier that biological life must be completely sterilized by technology for "technology to replace [Darwinian] evolution." That is the sole case I see being possible.
And via the issue of abiogenesis, even that might not end Darwinian evolution from restarting.
Re: the "stoppage" of human evolution in modern times, please do a literature search. It has not stopped. I gave a very simple example in my reply to Ryan previously, although I think it is very probable that we (in general) are using the terms in different ways again for this specific subtopic.
Trying to get a grip on all this.I think, at this point in the discussion, there are obviously two camps of thought.
1.) 'Technology' can or will replace 'evolution', eventually, if it has not started to already.
2.) 'Technology' *cannot* replace 'evolution.' Full stop.
I suggest that at least a part of the problem is the various uses these words are being put to. We've already had something of a go at defining technology. *If* everyone generally accepts that definition of technology (primarily taken right from the opening sentences of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology ) I suggest we stick to that.
Then, we need to generally agree on what evolution means. Some people seem to be saying that 'evolution' only applies to biological systems, and it is something else for non-biological systems. Jonathan and I, for instance, appear to be agreed on a definition that is 'evolution' is an abstract process that occurs under certain conditions, and your choice of e.g. chemistry or reproduction method doesn't affect that abstract process. If we cannot come to an agreement on this, then we are just talking about two different things, and we're never going to be able to agree.
So, post #123 contains one definition. I think Jonathan agrees with this, but I leave it to him to speak his own mind. Can someone (Mel?) post another definition (not a disagreement with the current definitions, but a swing at succinctly defining your usage of the word, from scratch!)
Somewhat separate from these two camps are comments like Kenny's in #130. This seems to agree with the usage of 'evolution' in the fundamental/abstract sense, but seems to interpret the thread/question in light of of whether "the Singularity" happens and our machines fly off into space to begin lives (and evolutionary lines) of their own.
Finally, I realize this defining I am asking for has been done, in part at least; but it is threaded through the comments, in responses to responses to responses to responses.
Why? On speculative questions/topics like this there is rarely agreement. No need to force it and try to reach some consensus. Sorry if that sounds negative, but it's just not going to happen. Maybe I'm jaded but I've been involved in too many discussions like this from various sides to think that we can all agree or that people will change their minds.For the record, I think you are right there are several divergent opinions/posts/thoughts and they are probably all right. :)
Daniel, I am generally in agreement with your viewpoints, although I might change the particular phrasing or focus here or there. For example, I had earlier discussed "evolution" more as a process than as a theory, but I think your wording has provided greater clarification.Part of the problem seems to me that a portion of the participants in this discussion think that "evolution" has been effectively neutralized with regards to humans in or around 2014 CE. This view is more popular among the same participants who feel that technology can surpass evolution, since anecdotally, evolution has already been suspended in one instance (with regards to humans as the example), so it is possible in general.
I posit that this view (with regards to the suspension of human evolution) is not supportable and misunderstands the current scientific usage of the word "evolution." Evolution is ongoing in the human species today and will be for the foreseeable future, and this can be explained in multiple ways. If this point were to be agreed upon, it would make the larger discussion easier.
When I said 'evolution' in the original question, I was referring to the current process known to occur in Earthly species. Specifically that of humans, despite one species affects another's evolution on a regular basis. I kind of assumed this was the working definition. Whoops. I keep bringing "inorganic" up because the role of inorganic materials is seen constantly. In addition, the snail (scaly-foot gastropod) with the iron (sulphide) scales (and shell!) blurs the lines further with the chemical formulas of his scales. Seriously, they're part fool's gold! Apparently he has evolved to have actual rocks for scales to protect his foot. Yes, I know we all have iron in us, and our blood turns brown if we don't have enough :) And that's kinda my point. Separate issue from the definition, though--see above :)
Kenny, on one hand, I agree completely about agreement being rare, and no need to force it. and I actually enjoy discussing with lots and lots of different viewpoints because it keeps things interesting. Also, in the long run, the need for everyone to agree implicitly makes DISAGREEMENT an excuse for war and other ugly things.
However, I do get the need to define the terms being discussed, as you don't wanna discover 5 hours in you've been talking about two different things. I had, again, just ASS-umed we were all referring the the Earthly Evolution that Has Already Been Noticed In Us And Other Earthly Species.
Could say more, but not right now.....
PS: I do also like discussing What The Definitions Are, though. Everyone adds to it, and that helps us think, and is anti-domineering. Iron sharpening iron and all that :) I also gotta say I like how my topic question done spread like herpes :) Which reminds me: another good example of "organic or not" lines being blurred is....a virus! Those things are WEIRD when you look at what they are "made of."
gotta go for now....
Mel, I think your message #139 resolves the disagreement between us.No, the common understanding/usage of the term "evolution" is hardly specific to humans, and generally is not used in that sense. Only a very anthropocentric biologist would think only of humans when using the term.
So I agree with you that technology will probably branch and exceed human evolution, and I think you agree that the technology will still be advancing under the greater domain of evolution.
Jonathan wrote: "Mel, I think your message #139 resolves the disagreement between us.No, the common understanding/usage of the term "evolution" is hardly specific to humans, and generally is not used in that sens..."
Since the technology in question is that of humans, it follows that the evolution in question will be anthropocentric, at least initially. No?
PS not to be catty but I only mentioned other species about 800 times. HOWEVER, Yes, in the scenario being discussed, the 'central' evolution on the planet in question will be THAT OF THE SPECIES WITH THE MOST ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ON THE PLANET IN QUESTION. It only follows that that would be the logical setup within such a question. Caps are for emphasis, because I don't feel like punching in the friggin italics codes again. Not shouting. Thank u!
Re: message 142. That seems logical within the strict usage of human-initiated technology and human evolution; but other species also use various technologies, although we generally do consider ourselves to be the most technologically advanced species (known to human science). Also, it is not necessarily a given that there are no other civilizations beyond the Earth that have different technology sets; that is an assumption. I was generally thinking in a non-Earth-specific way throughout.With regards to evolution, human evolution is a very, very narrow slice of the pie, and "evolution" in biology generally means the overall process, theory, or system. So again it is possible, as I did, to easily discount the "human" portion, which obviously lead to much confusion when we were discussing it.
The species with the most advanced technology may not be the most "evolved." Yes, there is a strong argument to say technology demonstrates evolutionary superiority, but that is also an anthropocentric viewpoint. It is also possible to argue that humans are not the most important species on Earth, and that opens up all sorts of different viewpoints. But to say humans are the most evolved is actually a very contentious point in biology.
And to be honest, I probably did not read your comments as carefully as I should have, since I was trying to figure out how to better illustrate my point, which to me was a very simple and hard-to-misunderstand one.
"human evolution is a very, very narrow slice of the pie"Our current piece of the pie is not much more than a crumb. The oxygen we are breathing is not a free gift. If the going gets tough and the cyanobacteria need to conserve energy they can change gears and just recycle water and co2 instead of recycling oxygen.
Jonathan wrote: "Re: message 142. That seems logical within the strict usage of human-initiated technology and human evolution; but other species also use various technologies, although we generally do consider our..."I am saying the species with the biggest toys (beaver dams are lovely, but they are not a hydrogen bomb) will exert the heaviest hand upon the ENTIRE scope. NOT that the one with the biggest toys is the most highly evolved.
I am taking a SLIGHT focus on human evolution, because if we are the origin of such a change, then it is our OWN animal instincts driving it, and thus our evolution is what it is most likely to SERVE. Hence, as the culprit species, our evolution stands to be the most directly hit. Since the same is what is driving the ambition.
Similar to the fact that liver cancer easily spreads to the rest of the body, but it cashes the LIVER first. Therefore you focus on the damn liver area before it spreads. Right?
We are NOT the most important species. I never said we were. Most TECHNOLOGICALLY influential, though, it seems. Unfortunately.
I do not assume humans are the most highly evolved on Earth, by a long shot. HP Lovecraft has a way of drumming that assumption right out of your head, lol. (yes I am well aware he was psychotic, thank you, and moving on)
I am SURE there are species outside of Earth that are more technologically advanced than us. I was referring only to evolution we have thus far observed. Here. Because it may work very differently elsewhere. We kinda have to cross that bridge when we get to it--even for Earthly evolution. Meaning, until we actually witness an effect on Earth's evolution via extraterrestrial technology, we are forced to assume that the heaviest technological hand on observable evolutionary processes is....ours.
And of course it is also (if ya REALLY wanna go there) an assumption that we are the most technologically "heavy" species on EARTH, haha. BUT, likewise, until we actually FIND Cthuhlu and/or the mass produced motor vehicles the dolphins have stashed away, we really have no choice but to assume that as far as we can see, we are the most technologically influential, (upon the already-observed ecosystem, since extraterrestrial ANYTHING is sheer speculation, due to the sheer number of possible layouts alone)-- and that said human influence will affect the entire pie. The same influence, by default, will prioritize/focus upon our own evolution, since, again, it is being DRIVEN by our primal ambitions. The influence itself will focus on humans, you understand? Because it is exerted by humans, it WILL focus on them, after a fashion.
One pie slice affects the whole pie. The piece of origin will still set itself apart, simply by being the piece of origin.
Robert wrote: ""human evolution is a very, very narrow slice of the pie"Our current piece of the pie is not much more than a crumb. The oxygen we are breathing is not a free gift. If the going gets tough and the..."
Damn skippy.
Wait a sec. How COULD this question apply outside of Earth? Earth is the only planet we have been able to actively observe the relevant phenomena upon. Of course you could count the microbes on the mars rock, but sadly, that wouldn't be enough to beat Earth as Most Data Yielded to Us On Evolution And Technology. Which would make it the only area relevant to this question. We have no other frame of reference on evolution and technology besides Earth.
With the assumption that it's possible there are biological lifeforms beyond the Earth, and that although their genetics may not be the exact same form as ours due to different evolutionary histories and environments, they are still influenced by the basic rules of evolution. Similar to how gravity on another planet may be different on another planet, the fundamental rules of gravitation are the same.If there is life beyond Earth, it's reasonable to assume some portion has technology.
Yes, this is extrapolation, not observation. But it is a reasonable one, just like the interpolation required for evolution without observing a complete fossil record.
To assume that evolution and technology only apply to Earth would again be very anthropocentric. Fundamental scientific theories such as gravitation, electromagnetism, and evolution tend to have more universal application.
From your #146, I think you already agree with what I wrote in #149, actually. The only difference is in the application or scope. I am quite willing to assume evolution applies to other worlds, although we may not have observed them yet. The fundamentals must likely be the same, based on current understandings, even if the specifics differ.So regardless of whether the focus is only on Earth or the universe, the principle remains the same--technology advancing still falls under "evolution's" processes, although it may not be biological or follow Mendelian genetics, etc.
Yes, I do agree with #149. I do NOT assume these things don't EXIST outside of Earth. I was saying that, having zero examples of either outside of Earth, I did not see how the terms, when mentioned in the present question, would apply outside of Earth, when discussing the present question. We have no examples to cite outside of Earthly ones, so I ASS-umed we would be discussing evolution and technology within an Earthly scope. What would we cite if we weren't beyond (GASP) fiction stories? ;)Yes, evolution and technology would be the same phenomena elsewhere. But since they COULD (indeed, mathematical probability says they WOULD) behave quite differently (like the handy gravity example)--we would have all kinds of new and different things to cite in such a discussion as this. Currently, though, we have nothing. Data-wise. That's all I meant.
That's awesome the way they can save the finches. I wish they could do something similar about the Emerald Ash Borer. I've lost every mature ash tree in my woods. It's like the Chestnut Blight all over again. The cure to that is something that gene mapping has given new life to, thankfully. Chestnuts once comprised 20%-25% of the trees in the Appalachian mountains. When the blight broke out in the early 1900's, an imported fungus in NYC, it spread at a rate of 50 miles per year with close to a 100% death rate. Not only was a great source of wood lost, but the chestnuts were a staple of the diets of all the animals. And now they've come up with a way to bring it back. As a woodworker, I'm tickled, although I won't be alive to see the project bear much fruit.
http://www.apsnet.org/publications/ap...
Jim and Kenny's links just made my day. (Kenny's was an old one but I missed it before.) we are supposed to be stewards of the Earth (I think that's in the Bible somewhere) and its good news to hear some folks are doing a great job.
The U.K. Approves First Studies of New Gene Editing on Human Embryoshttp://time.com/4200695/new-gene-edit...
While I'm sure many people will go nuts over the headline & this particular study, I found it more interesting that "In the U.S., because IVF clinics aren’t regulated, any private IVF clinic could theoretically start to employ CRISPR and promise parents-to-be their own customized baby."
It probably won't happen soon, but it will happen, no matter what laws are in place. Those with a lot of money will make sure it does. Some will be desperate for any child, but others will want a designer one.
In the US we have already genetically modified human embryos in the PreCRISPR days. See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/sci...
Science and Inquiry
Books mentioned in this topic
The Reality Matrix Effect (other topics)The Reality Matrix Effect (other topics)
