View Full Version : a glitch in the theory of evolution?

05-19-2007, 02:39 PM
the basic premise of of evolution says that survival is the driving force of life. this belief is reaffirmed when we see animals in the wild appearing to be on the alert for any danger. however, human city dwellers are just as agile and seemingly alert in dodging traffic and negotiating superhighways, yet carry on all the darting and twisting required with relative unconcern. not to mention the numberless neuroligical adjustments whose lightning action keeps us from falling down when walking or running, from choking when we eat, and from being concussed when we play ball games.

isnt it reasonable to think that animals negotiate the hazards of life with the same care-free attitude that we do? if this be so, would't reasoning suggest that something other than survival is compensating man and natures millions of years of "survival"? (of course man hasnt been around for millions of years-- more like hundreds of thousands, but the point still stands.)

so, what is this compensation? Is evolution's basic premise wrong? or is this line of reasoning a whole lot of babbling on my part?

05-19-2007, 03:04 PM
Great post. I think we flatter ouselves that we know almost everything about evolution (trying not to stretch that assumption). As you say, humans havn't been around that long compared to geological time periods. The will to live is sometimes described like you might even calibrate this force but yet it is there. People pass on for the lack of it. Now I have to find my copy of "Origen of Species". q1

05-19-2007, 03:05 PM
Evolution works through selection. Due to random mutation, there is a certain diversity in every species. What follows now is that certain animals/plants have a slight advantage over their fellows due to this mutation and thus are more likely to live long enough to be able to reproduce and pass their favorable genes on. And that's basically it.

I'm not really sure why you think that the ability to be "care free" has any effect on this? Plants don't care about anything because they don't have a nervous system to enable them to attain something as consciousness. Yet Evolution works for them in the same way as it does for all other living beings.

05-19-2007, 03:50 PM
You never heard of the experiments done by some southern university agricultural prof. where he just had to walk into the room where the plant was growing and think negative or destructive thoughts about the living thing and somehow responses were registering. And how about trees of the same type, say sycamore, would be attacked by a parasite or insect and some kind of tree feramone would transmit to others downwind and the trees would start producing an immune response. It is not logical to assume that mammals are doing all this great evolving while the floral world stands still. quasimodo1

05-19-2007, 04:20 PM
Uhm, wasn't that exactly what I was saying?

"Yet Evolution works for them [plants] in the same way as it does for all other living beings."

And no, actually I've never heard of trees receiving and reacting to "negative vibes". But that isn't the point, anyway. I was just saying that (to my knowledge) plants don't have a central nervous system like mammals, for example, and therefore aren't able to process thought in the way that we do. If they actually have some kind of consciousness is more of a philosophical question that isn't important in this case.

05-19-2007, 05:25 PM
Our brain has evolved to secure our survival. That's what, basically, seperates us from other animals. We are able to think abstractly. We don't dodge traffic without concern for our lives, because we lack a survival instinct. Our abstract thinking has developed cognitive dissonance. Smokers know that cigarettes can kill them, but yet they smoke. This creates a conflict in their brain and they relieve this by thinking up incidences that suggest that this is not true for all. Humans are egotistical: individuals believe that general truths do not apply to them. Suicide can even be thought of as a form of natural selection. A person who believes that they are worthless, can not be useful for progression, and they remove themselves as not to burden mankind.

There may be glitches in the theory of evolution, but I do not believe this to be on of them.

05-19-2007, 10:01 PM
The point is a babbling as you suggest - Survival does not means stress. It means survival. Animals do relax in nature (they play, they sleep, they feel pleasure. In fact, they save their energy a lot) and We are not so relaxed in our city as you suggest.