Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mutex70 t1_j539gk8 wrote

Reply to comment by PoppersOfCorn in Does it bother you that you won't be alive when we discover aliens & start to colonise other worlds by [deleted]

Correct, but that has nothing to do with "the needs of our environments"

1

PoppersOfCorn t1_j539qhd wrote

Actually, yes, it does.. how do you think we developed different human traits catering to the need of the regions they first emerged?

1

Mutex70 t1_j53umtl wrote

Evolution prefers traits that allow the species to better survive in the environment. There is no "need of the environment" involved.

What is it you think the environment "needs" in order for a species to evolve.

I suspect you meant to say humans have evolved to be better adapted to our environment. If so, your phrasing is very non-standard and confusing.

1

PoppersOfCorn t1_j53vjer wrote

The "needs of the environment" is why we we develop the traits that make that survival easier.

For instance, people who have lived at high altitudes for generations tend to have larger spleens and looped capillaries because that is what was needed to live easier in that environment

1

Mutex70 t1_j53wyc2 wrote

The environment doesn't need anything. That's not how that word is used.

Just like a person does not go to the store for "the needs of the store", a species does not evolve for "the needs of the environment".

Additionally, a species doesn't evolve due to specific environmental "needs" (whatever that means). It evolved when a mutation provides a higher chance of offspring that survive. That can have nothing to do with "need".

1

PoppersOfCorn t1_j53xaop wrote

Our needs..

We will have evolved to the needs of our environments

Im not saying the environments needs..

1

Mutex70 t1_j555k0n wrote

>We will have evolved to the needs of our environments

This literally means the environment needs something, and we evolve to meet it.

The sentence "Hank provides for the needs of his children" means Hank's children have needs, not Hank himself. Same thing here.

It may not be what you meant, but it is what you wrote.

Additionally, "need" is a vague term which does not capture the driving force behind evolution.

Imagine a species that has all its needs met. There is more than enough food for the current population, no predators, but the species is limited to one offspring every 10 years, and typically have 30 years when they can produce offspring.

A mutation occurs, and this new member of the species can have offspring every 5 years. In this case, even though all of the "needs" of the species are being met, that mutation will likely out-compete the trait of having offspring every 10 years. The species will evolve, even though all its "needs" were being met.

1