A different kind of evolution thread

[mdk]

Except it's nearly impossible to deal with a person's argument simply by dealing with the "main point".

Then leave.

It doesn't leave us anywhere, the very definition of evolution is change and in this context perpetual change, our universe/environment is reorganizing constantly and life as the most sophisticated form of known creation is uniquely gifted at changing with it. Having said this I don't know if it is possible to achieve optimal efficiency in any one genetic design, can all the bases be covered in a system dictated by uncertainty?

Well, I don't think generic "optimal efficiency in one design" is the result we've seen.... Strictly by that definition, the pinnacle of evolution is either the cactus or kelp, but not us. Typically though you look at things like how well the life form operates within its environment, and what separates people from the pack there is that we can and do modify the environment to maximize our own advantages.

[Dudel]

Well, I don't think generic "optimal efficiency in one design" is the result we've seen.... Strictly by that definition, the pinnacle of evolution is either the cactus or kelp, but not us. Typically though you look at things like how well the life form operates within its environment, and what separates people from the pack there is that we can and do modify the environment to maximize our own advantages.

Which would make single celled organisms the actual peek of evolution, and everything else little more than a consequence of these little guys diversifying. Something I could really get behind. I'm not arrogant enough to think that human existence is the epitome of things just because we're capable of thought.

Think on it: Even within the human body, there are billions of cells, all of which have evolved (very particularly) to do a job... and do it well.

The same goes for viruses, as these are (in the loosest of terms) the predator of the cellular level.

[Pas]

Well, I don't think generic "optimal efficiency in one design" is the result we've seen.... Strictly by that definition, the pinnacle of evolution is either the cactus or kelp, but not us. Typically though you look at things like how well the life form operates within its environment, and what separates people from the pack there is that we can and do modify the environment to maximize our own advantages.

mdk has seen a flaw in my explaination so I'll reevaluate and say optimal efficiency in any circumstance combined in one design, the ultimate form if you will, which to our knowledge does not exist.

I find it interesting that you have defined one of the distinctions between Homo Sapian Sapian's and other animals as control over the environment. When or if (I say when) we eventually control our own design (possibly through transgenics) will we still be Homo Sapian Sapian's? Will that be the distinction between our current form and that future form, just as there is a distinction between Homo Sapians and Homo Sapian Sapians?

[Infinitus]

If there is something that could be defined as the peek of evolution, it would be something that could survive long enough to reproduce in all circumstances, which is essentially impossible. There really isn't an apex of evolution, although anything that is not currently threatened could be considered successful.

Evolution does not really have a direction, it is simply a process. There is no 'goal' at all, except perhaps simply passing on genes. Even dying is not significant if you can just reproduce first.