Evolution Question... please enlighten me!

[_truth dancer]

Hey Canucklehead,

I certainly don't know everything there is to know about evolution, and I don't consider myself "brilliant" on the subject, but perhaps the evolutionarily instilled drive isn't purely for "offspring" but more for sex itself. In that case, offspring would just be the evolutionarily favoured byproduct of the sex drive.

Another possibility to consider is that people who choose not to have children still have a drive for offspring, but decide to overrule it in order to pursue other goals. Kind of like how we can ignore our food cravings because we choose to pursue other fitness goals instead.

Yes, I do think the desire is more about sex than offspring and I use the word "desire" loosely. I do not think life actually consciously desires reproduction at all but I do think there is something pretty primal in all of life that moves life that keeps it going.

I do like the selfish gene idea but understand there are issues, still, I get a sense there is some essence at the core of existence that is creative, (not in the, there must be a Creator sense, or the artistic sense, but in the sense that the universe continually develops, brings forth something new, or unfolds).

But back to the point, I think the pleasure of sex evolved because it benefited reproduction.

Today, however sex and reproduction are no longer linked so in this new world, whom of our species will survive the best?

It seems like the DNA of those who do not want children will be eliminated.

But I don't really know... obviously!

[_dartagnan]

The way I see it, virtually ever life form reproduces, and with the exception of humans it seems completely instinctual, (a result of evolution).

What actually goes on in the brain of a dog when it is trying to hump your leg or a pillow? Does its genes really maniplate him into tring to reproduce, or does it simply operate on the impulse of pleasure? Calling it instinct, I think, just muddies the water a bit. That doesn't tell us enough.

But because of consciousness/self awareness humans have been able to separate the pleasure of sex from the result of the pleasurable act, and have chosen in many cases not to reproduce.

Yes, and this seems to undermine the common belief that humans are simply robots who are manipulated by our genes to reproduce ourselves via sex. This is what I was taking issue with.

The DNA of those who do not reproduce will end, while only those who have offspring will continue, hence it appears to me that the survival of the fittest in the human today and in the future, equates to those who consciously desire children, or who are uneducated and/or live apart from modern life.

Interesting point. But this has always been the case in history. The rich tend to have fewer children than the poor. The educated tend to have fewer children than the less educated. The employed tend to have fewer children than the unemployed. The atheists tend to have fewer children than the religious.

Speaking of which, as Europe becomes more and more secularized, we see astonishing trends in the decreasing birth rates. The worlds birth rate is more than twice its death rate. Yet, seventeen secular countries are actually getting smaller because their birth rates don't keep pace with death rates, and a half dozen more are barely keeping pace, remaining stagnate. Many of these countries are growing or are keeping pace, only because of the tens of millions of Muslims who have migrated throughout the continent.

England for example, has a birth rate of 10.6 and a death rate of 10.1. Muslims represent something like 5% of the country and are breeding like rabbits. The same is true for other countries like Denmark and the Netherlands which are barely replenishing their own population.

The way I see it, life forms of a particular species who survive are the ones best able to adapt to their environment and today in our current world, it may be that the adaptation for humans is one of desiring children or remaining less educated.

If true, then what does that say about educated/wealthy/atheistic humans and their ability to survive?

But back to the point, I think the pleasure of sex evolved because it benefited reproduction.

Then why hasn't the act of giving birth evolved into a pleasurable activity?

Today, however sex and reproduction are no longer linked so in this new world, whom of our species will survive the best?

It seems like the DNA of those who do not want children will be eliminated.

But I don't really know... obviously!

Well, you're right.

[_floatingboy]

It's only recently that the choice between having children and having sex became a option.

I did think of the beginning of the movie Idiocracy when I was typing this.


Phaedrus

yeah, that movie, while not mike judge's best effort, is scarily prophetic. definitely worth watching. my favorite part has to be the evolution of the name "fudruckers" as the centuries pass...

[_dartagnan]

OMG, I just saw that clip and I haven't laughed so hard in weeks.

[_Some Schmo]

Hey TD… a few things:

- First off, the length of time that humans have been in control of the reproductive process compared to the time the species has existed is like a pebble on a mountain. The results of our choices today likely won’t bear out in evolutionary terms for several millennia. That’s a lot of time for social influences to change how we act and the choices we make. But I do think you're right; our conscious minds will, in time, influence how we evolve.
- Instincts and impulses, although seemingly related, aren’t genetically tied together to their outcomes. We, as thinking individuals, can make the connections, but in terms of evolution, it’s never about, “I engage in this behavior because it will result in x.” Evolution is described as a “bottom-up design.” Certain members of the species are born a certain way, act a certain way, and if it happens to contribute to the species’ survival, it’s passed on. Clearly, feeling good about and having sex contributes to the survival of the species. Simply because we may now consciously think, “I don’t want children” doesn’t mean we’re going to think, “I should stop liking sex.” They’re two completely separate things, genetically speaking.
- I suspect that what we think about sex is merely our conscious mind interpreting the impulses we have wired into us. It’s not like we consciously think, “I like sex. It feels good. Therefore, I shall seek more” and our bodies respond to it. Obviously, it’s the other way around, and our brain is articulating (and making assumptions which are most definitely subject to error about) what the body is telling it. I do think it’s reasonable for us to assume that sex feels good because we come from millions of generations of organisms that liked sex enough to have it, and that’s led to the idea that each species naturally encourages that behavior because that is what is most likely going to propagate the species that are still around. Why else would animals do it?
- It’s also important to remember that not everyone does enjoy sex. That’s genetic variation for you. Those people are less likely to reproduce, which only strengthens the aggregate desire to have sex in future generations.

Just a few random thoughts I had reading this thread.

[_dartagnan]

I agree, except for this...

I suspect that what we think about sex is merely our conscious mind interpreting the impulses we have wired into us. It’s not like we consciously think, “I like sex. It feels good. Therefore, I shall seek more” and our bodies respond to it.

Actually, that is precisely how it happens in most cases. The only kind of sexual attraction humans are familiar with is the conscious kind. It isn't as if a male blind from birth could someday rub up against a woman and get aroused because his body just has that sexual attraction "wired" into him. He has to be conscious of what it is, along with an expectation of the pleasure that would come from it.

Obviously, it’s the other way around, and our brain is articulating (and making assumptions which are most definitely subject to error about) what the body is telling it.

I've seen no evidence for this. Whether on the prowl at clubs or masturbating alone at home, sexual gratification is a conscious act. It is usually premeditated and as TD correctly pointed out, humans have figured out that the brain is the most powerful sexual organ there is. Some of the best orgasms out there involve one person acting alone. Whether we're talking about wet dreams or the unintended boner, it is the conscious mind that sparks sexual impulses, not vice versa.

[_Tarski]

Science does tell us why.

We know that humans procreate because the process of procreation feels just to damn good. That makes perfect sense.

Wow! You are thinking backwards. You must answer the question "why does sex feels good?" If patting our heads was central for getting our genes passed on, then that would feel really damn good.

Why is sugar sweet? Hint: Calories. Evolution.
"Sweetness" isn't intrinsic to sugar.

Here is another one. Do you avoid painful things because pain hurts? No, that explains nothing- it just replaces one word for another.

[_Danna]

Hey Dartagnon,

Dawkins regrets ever coming up with his robot analogy as people usually misinterpret it to mean that genes are somehow actually directing evolution. Also he got wrapped around his own axle with the term 'selfish', his intention was simply to limit the effects of a gene to its own frequency in the genepool of the next generation. Of course he acknowledges by-products and fellow travellers like non-coding DNA. As both Dawkins and Gould agree, evolution has no direction at all. You pretty neatly summed it up earlier - traits that improve their own reproduction will be better represented in the next generation.

Dawkins and Gould agreed on central elements, of evolution but disagreed on the relative importance of random events on evolution, and the impact of culture and cultural evolution on human behaviour. Punctuated evolution is an observation that history shows long periods of stability, followed by short (in geo terms, so millions of years can = a short period of geological time) periods of rapid diversification. Which probably represented a stable environment followed by drastic or rapid environmental changes. No other evolutionary mechanisms needed to be postulated, and 'punctuated evolution' is not a mechanism of itself.

I recommend a really small, easy to read book Dawkins vs Gould for an overview of their long-running debate.

[_EAllusion]

Genes interact to produce a variety of phenotypic effects. A lot of phenotype (what organisms are like) are the genes "toolkit" for surviving and propagating themselves. These tools aren't perfect or not subject to failure, mind you. They all have various risk-reward profiles. As the Dude pointed out, we have a fancy-pants brain capable of weighing and acting on a very complex array of drives because that is, on the whole, helpful for surviving and propagating in the environmental contexts in which it evolved. One of the side effects of this, however, is that those brains on occasion prioritize things other than doing things that lead to reproduction. Go figure.

That said, sometimes not having children is the wise decision. It is quite common among mammals for species to avoid reproduction in times where it appears the resources aren't there to sustain the offspring. Not "wanting" to reproduce isn't that uncommon.

[_EAllusion]

Dawkins and Gould agreed on central elements, of evolution but disagreed on the relative importance of random events on evolution, and the impact of culture and cultural evolution on human behaviour. Punctuated evolution is an observation that history shows long periods of stability, followed by short (in geo terms, so millions of years can = a short period of geological time) periods of rapid diversification. Which probably represented a stable environment followed by drastic or rapid environmental changes.

What puctuated equilibria principally involved was the hypothesis of small populations of species in local geographies diversifying then migrating outward and outcompeting the the species they evolved from in the general area. Since migration and population shifts due to competition can take place in geological blinks, it would look like an almost instaneous change in the fossil record most everywhere. One day there's species A, the next species B. However, you would expect to find more gradual changes from A to B in some small, local geographies. Gould's and Eldridge's paper made predictions about finding this pattern in the fossil record which were confirmed. It need not involve a rapid environmental change. Gould and Eldridge also talked about evolution happening at discontinuous rates rather than at a static, gradual rate, so people often get these concepts confused.