Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, February 03, 2018, 11:38 (2486 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Exactly my point. Highly complex humans have made tremendous improvements, none of which were required for survivability. We are more complex than necessary. Raup reminded us survivability was related mainly to bad luck, not Darwin's competition between species.

dhw: Your point is exactly the opposite of mine! According to you, all our advances in medicine, in methods of acquiring food, in protecting ourselves against the climate and against our enemies have nothing to do with survivability. We are not talking about the causes of extinction, but about survivability being what you call a “minor evolutionary issue” and “of no issue to the Homo branch”.

DAVID: I'm discussing survivability as it relates to the overall process of evolution, not individual survival which the point you are attempting to make. Back to Raup's point of bad luck. Competition for resources is a point to consider, but does it cause mutations that advance evolution. I strongly doubt it, as it represents more bad luck.

Without individual organisms there is no life and no overall process of evolution! It is absurd to talk of survivability without talking about the survival of the organisms themselves! Raup’s “bad luck” explains extinctions, it does not explain the innovations that advance evolution. Competition for resources is one factor that may force change, but as Margulis made clear, cooperation is equally important as organisms try to improve their chances of surviving and/or their living conditions.

DAVID: I'm discussing survivability at a different thought level than yours. It is a minor evolutionary driving force, but a daily individual human concern.

dhw: It is and always was a daily individual concern for all species, and it is the absolute priority for all. […]

DAVID: You are still discussing survival at the individual level, and I'm not. I'm knocking down 'survival of the fitest' as a concept supporting Darwin. It doesn't, but sounds good on the surface. What survives lives to evolve, but what survives doesn't tell us what drives evolution. See the difference?

We are not talking about the tautology of survival of the fittest, but yes, we are talking about what drives evolution. According to you, survivability is a “minor evolutionary issue” and “of no issue to the Homo branch”. And yet you keep telling us that prior to 30,000 years ago, every development both human and non-human was motivated solely by the quest for survival, and you even ask why sapiens hung around for 270,000 years without advancing beyond survivability. Knocking Darwin does not get you out of the logical hole you have dug for yourself. If survival was the only motive behind evolutionary advances until 30,000 years ago, survivability (which includes improving chances of survival) could not have been a minor issue or a non-issue.