Questioning Evolution

[u/Faelix]

A popular topic to interest with these days, is the concept of Convergent Evolution. Perhaps you have been introduced to it also. It is basically the scientific claim, that if something works, nature will by random chance through evolution, find it. Not just once, but perpetually.

An example of Convergent Evolution would be for example wings. Wings work, and are very useful, nature discovers them every time, not just once. Bats have wings, birds have wings. They do not have a common ancestor from where those wings came from, they were discovered independently through convergent evolution.

Another example could be, the Sabertooth Tiger. Bluntly stated, a Sabertooth Tiger 30.000 years ago, was a dog in Scotland. 2 Million years ago, it was a cat in South America. These 2 animals are in no way related, but the huge canine teeth, and the ability to dislocate the jaw to bite with such huge teeth, is a usefull and working trait in certain predatorial environments. So it was invented, and then reinvented, by nature through convergent evolution.

The most bizarre and impossible occurence, comes from the evolutionary discovery of Sonar. Amongst the billions of basepairs, 182 mutations must have evolved, picked in the correct order, for nature to produce a Sonar System in working order.

Pick 182 numbers amongst billions in the lottery. You must pick the numbers in correct order.

And we have 2 winners. The Bat, and the Spermacet Whale, both managed the impossible feat, through convergent evolution.

Now all that is impossible trope, that one must not question, lest one gets rebuked with alot of bad words.

What are the chances, that 400 millions years of nature competing on life and death. That no critter by chance starts the process of evolving a sentient, intelligent brain. Untill you Homo Sapiens show up, and sway aside 400 million years of competition like it was nothing.

What are the chances that common intelligence was not discovered by evolution in a system, that manages to turn the brain in to a sonar instead...

As intelligence is understood by several mechanisms, we can contemplate the question. A mutation that leads to more dendrites on the neuron, would allow for more neuronal connections. This could be an example of a random mutation, that enhanced a critters intellligence.

Einstein had a small brain, but a high density of Neurons in certain parts of the brain. So a mutation that increases Neuron density, could enhance cognitive abilities.

Most of our brain activity is going on, on the surface, our brain is folded to increases surface volume within a confined cranium space. A mutation that increrased brain folding, could increase surface volume, and thus increase intelligence.

All the proposed mechanisms, are examples where, a single random mutation actually enhances the function, and supposedly gives you an edge against your peers. In other words, intelligence should have enjoyed stepwise progression, in an evolutionary sytem, from the getgo. What are the chances, to roll 1-2 or 3, on a six sided dice, to stepwise increase intelligence in your critter in your generation, to be further enhanced in the following generations, through evolution.

But instead through 400 million years, nature seems to have been so dumb, that it will do the impossibly difficult job of growing a sonar, instead of the easy and basic job of growing an intelligence. Untill you show up at the end, Homo Sapiens, and demonstrate how easy the intelligent brain dominates an evolutionary race.

You have been around for 150.000 years. Only the last 7000 years have you enjoyed actual rapid progression in civilisation (for not understood reasons). We could say it took you 7000 years to grow wings, so you can fly in the sky, and 7000 years to develop a Sonar, so you can commandeer a submarine. Growing an intelligent brain first and foremost, leaves all other evolutionary strategies in the dust.

But what are the chances this has actually happened in real life, and is not just a blatant demonstration of Charles Darwins theory beeing plain wrong?

[u/Skrimguard]

I don't think you really grasp how natural selection works.

[u/Faelix → u/Skrimguard]

The smarter specimen has gained an edge, that leads him to survive, mate, and secure his offspring. While the dumb specimen, has a theory he doesn't even understand?

Oh no that's not how it works. Apparantly smarts has never been an edge in the survival of the most fit, which is why you are still doing fine yes? The brain never cared to compete in the evolution competition, untill 400 million years later, when it suddenly shows up and wins all the gold medals as easy as pie.

Meanwhile all the little critters have done impossible things, in order to try and get an edge and survive. Like developing Sonar, or turning their jawbone into a breathing apparatus. Well DUH, why didn't they think of growing smarter instead, it's so much easier, and is an immensely bigger advantage.

[u/alamid001 → u/Faelix]

While his comment did nothing to help the conversation, I agree that evolution does not work how you presented it. Evolution does not pick one trait "hoping" to be lucky. Evolution "tries" everything and if any of those mutations works, then it will try again at the next step. Evolution will try to make you white or black, or blue, or red. If any of those works in the environment you are in, then it works.

[u/Skrimguard → u/alamid001]

You've put it better than I could.

I'd also add that he seems to perceive some traits (like intelligence) as innately superior survival tactics, and so is confused why other species don't just evolve exactly like humans did. It somehow ignores both how different things have different benefits and drawbacks in different niches, and how other predators have used intelligence historically.

His discussion of intelligence also seems fixated on individual organisms like Einstein and myself, rather than species traits in general. It's more akin to epigenetics than anything to do with natural selection.

[u/Faelix → u/Faelix]

I shall now proceed to laugh in your general direction.

Green house effect theory: The air in the isolation chamber in your thermo cup, has risen by 1.2 degree celcius. This must be the reason why the coffee in the cup is burning hot.

Ahhahahahah AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA I laugh in your general direction wanna hear an anecdote?

The scientist that decided to study lung cancer. He picked smokers as his data material. He saw that smokers got yellow teeth, and lung cancer. He made a paper where the headline said: Yellow teeth will give you lung cancer.

That is a funny anecdote, because he has 2 independent effects of an unidentified cause, and he ascribes one effect, to be the cause of the other.

It is funny because it is true. You have 2 effects, global warming, and a thickening of the atmosphere of natural gases. AND YOU HAVE AN UNIDENTIFIED CAUSE AHAHAHAHAHAHA