h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

amazing entry.... opened many new ideas in my head,
i know its not the point or the purpose of this entry but, it suggests that creationism (a product of religion) also evolved into existence. Evolution vs Creationism is one of the hottest discussions i have with people, living in the netherlands religion amongst youth is rare, so i usually take the side of creationism, (altho im not an absolute proponent of it), bringing the ideas of this post into the discussion will really clear things up..
thanks ste. keep writing entries

Surely if you are a proponent of creationism, then you cannot possibly argue that believing in it has evolutionary advantages.

The older I get the wierder they are.

B

A *wierdo i may be but im not a creationist.

the article explains how religion, even organised religion, is an evolutionary advantage, As creationism is product of religion it stands to reason that it is *indirectly* and non specifically also an evolutionary advantage....

pacmac

"the article explains how religion, even organised religion, is an evolutionary advantage, As creationism is product of religion it stands to reason that it is *indirectly* and non specifically also an evolutionary advantage."

Absolutely not.

Just because something is a feature of an evolved organism, it does NOT follow that that feature offers an evolutionary advantage. In fact, it is possible that features which offer a demonstrable DISadvantage can survive in organisms - all it requires is that other advantages outweigh the disadvantage, or (and this is the kicker) that the organism is lucky enough not to have competition.

Consider - humans breathe and swallow down different tubes, but these tubes cross. There is no good reason for them to do so. One of the main features of this system is that it makes it possible for us to choke to death - a pretty clear disadvantage. BUT - not many people choke to death. And many that do, do so after they have had kids anyway, so evolutionarily it's irrelevant. If a significant proportion of any organism's population choked to death before reaching breeding age, that organism would go extinct in short order. So the whole "airway crossing foodway" thing is a disadvantage, but not a species-destroying one. It is the fundamental flaw in the apparent "design" of humans that proves they evolved, rather than being "intelligently designed".

Now think of creationism - it's a definite disadvantage to the survival of Christianity, because it makes Christians look like blinkered reality-denying morons. But (at the moment at least) it's NOT a religion-destroying disadvantage, because MOST Christians are not so benightedly stupid as to believe Creationism. MOST Christians are sensible, nice people who just happen to have an imaginary friend, which is not fatally ridiculous in the way that believing in Creationism is to one's credibility. Creationism is the fundamental flaw in the apparent "design" of Christianity which proves that it evolved, rather than being intelligently designed.

SoRB

Hi SoRB

I think you're right about features per se of evolved organisms not necessarily offering an evolutionary advantage. I think your example of humans' tubes does not necessarily demonstrate this however. You say that there is no good reason for humans' breathing and swallowing tubes to cross, and that this leads to the clear disadvantage that we can choke to death, but that we have retained this trait because the likelihood of choking to death is small and not likely to have much impact on the number of individuals reaching breeding age. Therefore the disadvantageous arrangement is not evolutionarily selected out. However, I think there probably are good reasons to use the 'tube' arrangement we (and I think the vast majority of larger organisms) have. Probably the main point in its favour is that reducing the number of apertures in the outer surface of an organism reduces the possibility of infection. Any tube+orifice arrangement requires space within the organism, bodily resources to keep it functioning and defended from pathogens, some kind of muscular closure device at its external end etc. Also, there seems to be an implication here that it is only due to good fortune that more humans don't choke to death as a result of our breathing/feeding tube arrangement, but it is also almost certain that the precise 'tube' arrangement we have is much better than numerous other minutely different variations which may well have arisen by spontaneous mutation in the past. (I don't mean any major differences, just things like the aperture of the tube, the exact functioning of muscular action on it and so). So it is not just good luck that we as a species have 'settled' for this design; it's been optimised over millions of years.

Regarding your description of creationism as a definite disadvantage to the survival of Christianity, I think you overestimate the drawbacks of this belief. In itself, belief that we (and all other creatures) were created by our 'invisible friend' makes no difference to our likelihood of reproducing. I don't see how it has any major survival drawbacks at all. It is clearly wrong, but this is of no significance to the vast majority of our species. In some ways I think it probably conveys survival advantages in fact. As part of the 'package' of stories/myths which constitute Christianity, it is part of a system which binds people together into a super-familial group, and gives them a sense of belonging. This apart from anything else, in the short term probably helps reduce the likelihood of groups going to war with each other. On top of this, people who perceive themselves as belonging to an extended group seem to have a survival advantage in terms of life-span.

None of this makes it any more true, but just because a belief is irrational or erroneous doesn't make it a survival disadvantage.

"However, I think there probably are good reasons to use the 'tube' arrangement we (and I think the vast majority of larger organisms) have."

Nope. It's an accident, as is every other feature we have - five toes, twelve ribs, it's all an accident.

"Probably the main point in its favour is that reducing the number of apertures in the outer surface of an organism"

Counting the apertures on my face, I make three.

Counting the number of things I need to do through my face, I make two - breathing and eating. (Talking came MUCH later). So already, even with our suboptimal "design", we're over-supplied with orifices. Thus, your argument falls down.

"Regarding your description of creationism as a definite disadvantage to the survival of Christianity, I think you overestimate the drawbacks of this belief."

Perhaps. I can only hope that as the female of our species become progressively better educated, they more and more choose to breed only with the better educated males of our species, such that eventually creationism will die out. A possibly vain hope, but a man can dream.

"I don't see how it has any major survival drawbacks at all. It is clearly wrong, but this is of no significance to the vast majority of our species."

One hopes that a man stating loudly and publicly "I am stupid" would preclude him from successfully breeding. This is likely to be more and more the case as time goes as, one hopes. Therefore creationism, and religion in general, is, I hope, doomed.

SoRB

Hi SoRB

Saying it's an accident doesn't mean there aren't good reasons for it existing.That's exactly how natural selection works. Over the course of evolutionary history many alternative designs will have come into existence and been proved less effective, and consequently died out. I remember a David Attenborough programme in which he looked at the fossil of a creature from x million years ago which had seven pairs of legs, a mouth on a neck at one end and what appeared to be a breathing tube on a completely separate tube at the opposite end. Various insects can breathe through their anuses, knees etc. A 'design's' coming into existence is accidental, but its continued existence isn't. If it weren't successful, it would be replaced by something better. This doesn't mean that it is *the best possible* design, just that it is *good enough*. It serves its purpose, and meets a balance point for the organism between costs and benefits.

Koalas have two thumbs on each paw. It is rare, but not unusual for humans to be born with six fingers (or sometimes more). The reason the majority of us don't have these things is that they don't convey any significant benefit. The costs outweigh the benefits. Presumably, for their environment, it is beneficial for koalas to have two thumbs. It occurred originally by accident, but was retained because the individuals who had this mutation had some, slight advantage.

>> Counting the apertures on my face, I make three.

My face may be a little over-populated with apertures: I make seven, if you count each nostril separately. (If you count pairs as one, then it's four of course, but this in itself demonstrates the extra value of stereoscopic hearing, sight etc, that we can afford to have two orifices devoted to one sense).

The functions these serve, off the top of my head (as it were) are: hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting, eating, vocal communication, breathing and vomiting (there is no reason a creature could not evolve a separate tube+orifice for speaking or for emetic purposes, other than, as I've said, the need to optimise costs/benefits. Some animals - horses for example - cannot vomit, and will die as a result of not being able to, in circumstances in which another creature - us, for example - would vomit). Our arrangement of orifices is optimised to a significant extent, with our noses and mouths serving several purposes. Speech obviously did evolve much later than the physical aperture we use to do it, but speech also depends on numerous other physical properties (vocal cords, lips, tongues, even the design of our palates). Mouths probably evolved initially as feeding apertures, but rapidly gained other functions; even much more primitive creatures than ourselves emit noises from their mouths.

The reason we clean our teeth twice a day is because our mouths are constantly invaded by bacteria; the same reason our saliva is acidic, and that our nostrils are lined with hair and protected with mucus, and the same reason our ears produce wax, and our rectums end in a muscular sphincter: the need to reduce the possible avenues for pathogens to invade. Think how quickly cuts become infected without the benefit of antibacterial creams etc, particularly in warmer, wetter climates. A simple infection can quite easily prove very serious or even fatal to the organism. Natural selection selects the most effective, least costly means of achieving something (i.e. the survival and reproduction of the species), and this very often means various parts of the body are involved in more than one function.

>> I can only hope that as the female of our species become progressively better educated, they more and more choose to breed only with the better educated males

Very optimistic I think. There is no objective standard of education by which the females of our species measure the men they choose to reproduce with. Men (and women) who favour creationism over evolutionary theory are not so stupid that they cannot figure out the mechanics of reproduction. Indeed, it is a fundamental tenet of many religions that it is a specific duty to have as many children as possible, and of course to bring them up in the faith. It offers no inherent survival or reproductive advantage to a woman to choose a man who believes evolutionary theory over creationism, and indeed if she was brought up believing in creationism herself she is more likely to choose a sympathetic mate. It also appears women have an inbuilt predeliction to be more religious than men to begin with.

I would like to agree with you that religion generally is doomed. I don't see much evidence to show that it is though.

Hi G8ch and SoRB,

So far im must say G8ch is correct in the evolutionary debates here. Every feature in an organism must provide some form of benefit to an organism or it would indeed have been weeded out, no matter how insignificant. ( that is to exclude those vestigial features who through time will go but as of yet are still on the way out )

As for religion and faith, we all agree that it did and does in some contexts create a survival advantage through collective goals and a sense of belonging etc. however i think you both underestimate the value that even in today's society religion ( in all its glorious lunacy ) still provides. If i had to sum up in a phrase the greatest benefit and survival advantage that religion provides in modern british society i would say < moral guidance >
Without some form or moral guidance society will not function and now that religion is becoming less and less wide spread society is indeed decaying. 1 other modern form of moral guidance is nationalism or patriotism which are working well for the US at the moment.
without any source of guidance people themselves become disfunctional human beings. I will add however there are better source of guidance other than religion out there but none as wide spread and none as effective as religion has been so far.

"So far im must say G8ch is correct in the evolutionary debates here."

Correct? And you are qualified to make that determination how?

"Every feature in an organism must provide some form of benefit to an organism or it would indeed have been weeded out, no matter how insignificant."

Demonstrably factually incorrect and evidence that the writer fundamentally doesn't understand how natural selection works. I won't take this further.

As for "society decaying" the only decay I see in society lately is that brought about by religion.

As for people becoming dysfunctional without guidance, you speak for yourself.

SoRB

<"Every feature in an organism must provide some form of benefit to an organism or it would indeed have been weeded out, no matter how insignificant."

Demonstrably factually incorrect and evidence that the writer fundamentally doesn't understand how natural selection works. I won't take this further.>

Oh, go on, at least give them a little clue to the most obvious pain in the...side of alot human beings.

It's not worth the effort.

I used to think it was, but I'm rapidly changing my mind. I'm much more on the page of just saying "read a frickin' BOOK, why don't you? And preferably one written within the last millenium by someone who doesn't have an imaginary friend...". What more is it worth saying?

SoRB

dot dot dot...ah, sod it!

Alfster has left the bulding.

Q: What is the evolutionary advantage to blood being red?

Ste

I think the reason blood is red is that it carries iron, which it uses for transporting oxygen from the lungs around the body. I would guess that if there were any costly disadvantage(s) of blood being red, creatures would have evolved some method of disguising it, but presumably there isn't. Maybe even it is an advantage as it makes it easier to see (than if it were colourless, for example).

Do you know if this is correct?

> "So far im must say G8ch is correct in the evolutionary debates here."
Correct? And you are qualified to make that determination how? <
( this was my own opinion, i thought G8ch made better arguments, i should have phrased it differently perhaps )

>"Every feature in an organism must provide some form of benefit to an organism or it would indeed have been weeded out, no matter how insignificant."<
(admitedly incorrect, i shouldn't have added this bit, it was an inaccurate and unnecessary statement)

>As for people becoming dysfunctional without guidance, you speak for yourself.<
( yes i do speak for myself, i think it applies to society too though )

Pac.

to SoRB, sorry if i offended u, i am not widley read in this field but it does interest me and i am in the learning process, please be patient with people like me, this is a forum afterall, and u may be expected to explain your thoughts

Pac.

im interested if G8ch is correct in his red blood thoughts too.

"I think the reason blood is red is that it carries iron"

This is indeed correct. However, it does not answer the question.

The question, you will recall, was "what is the evolutionary ADVANTAGE of blood being red?".

"I would guess that if there were any costly disadvantage(s) of blood being red, creatures would have evolved some method of disguising it"

No, no, hang on, you are changing the terms. We're not asking if there are any DISadvantages. We're asking if there are any positive ADVANTAGES to blood being red, rather than any other colour. There is a rather specific point to the question, which you seem to have missed.

"Maybe even it is an advantage as it makes it easier to see (than if it were colourless, for example)"

Not sure if that counts as an evolutionary advantage...

"Do you know if this is correct?"

I think the point Ste was trying to make was this: blood is red because, as you correctly pointed out, its chemistry is based on the oxidation of iron. Now... that chemistry is quite complex and beautiful, and the result of natural selection. The COLOUR that results is entirely incidental to its function in the organism. It's an accident. It has no evolutionary significance, beyond the fact that having your blood red instead of, say, green, doesn't DISadvantage you.

Question to anyone who knows better than me: are there any extant organisms on earth whose blood chemistry is NOT based on iron, and therefore have different coloured blood?



SoRB

Yeah, just because a living thing has a certain property doesn't necessarily mean natural selection put it there. Blood is red because of the chemistry - not because red is somehow advantageous. Whales have finger bones in their flippers because their ancestors did, not because finger bones confer some survival benefit. Take-home: natural selection is but one way by which stuff evolves.


"Question to anyone who knows better than me: are there any extant organisms on earth whose blood chemistry is NOT based on iron, and therefore have different coloured blood?"

I think some lizards and some insects have green blood. The oxygen-carrying molecule has magnesium at the centre I think. I'll do some googlin'.

Ste

Ah, sea-based invertebrates (crabs, lobsters, etc) commonly have blue blood, with copper at the centre of the oxygen-carrying molecule called Haemocyanin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemocyanin


I may have been thinking about chlorophyll in leaves with magnesium...

I see the point about the colour of blood now; that it bears so little significance on the survival of the creature that natural selection doesn't affect it ( an accidental colour ).
Im thinking however that every feature must have some marginal advantage/disadvatage to it ( even the colour of blood ) The more critical the advantage/disadvantage of the feature the faster natural selection will adhere to it.
If, as in this case it is a feature with almost no advantage/disadvantage then natural selection be drawn out over a much longer period of time.
For this reason i think that although there are certain features that may seem to be accidental or to serve no purpose they infact do provide some marginal form of advantage/disadvantage and are simply in the process of coming or going.

I realise although i stand by what i just posted, it doesn't directly answer the questions > "what is the evolutionary ADVANTAGE of blood being red?". <

Every feature (the red colour of blood for example) is essentially subject to a cost/benefit analysis to determine wether it stays or goes.

In this case the cost of an organism changing the colour of its blood is more costly than the potential advantage changing it could give.

It is not that blood has some evolutionary advantage rather that having another colour blood (ALL other colours) has a distinct evolutionary disadvantage.

In order to compensate for the red colour that iron gives our blood an organism would have to produce some other substance and add that to blood. (a biologically costly process)

The evolutionary advantage of blood being red therefore is that red blooded organisms do not have to incurr the costs involved with all the other colours of blood.


? what do you think ? its possible