Is there intelligence behind the process of evolution?

#1 Edited by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

This question came to me as I was replying to someone's post in my other thread, I was going to post it but then I thought I didn't want to pose it to just one guy or have it lost in a sea of post, so I made it into a thread. How did evolution know to make sex pleasurable if evolution is just a process. Also not just sex, how did it know to give us eyes ears lungs to breath a tongue to taste, trees evolved to produce oxegen for living things to breath, I know it's an evolutionary process but it's a process that appears to have some intelligence behind it. This is probably a stupid question or to smart a question for anyone to answer but here we go, does the process of evolution have intelligence???

#2 Edited by lostrib (37798 posts) -

Evolution is a scientific theory...

Look up Evolution on wikipedia at least, so you can stop asking these ridiculous questions

#3 Posted by Master_Live (14861 posts) -

You seem to have so many questions about Evolution, it would be beneficial to you to read a book on it. It is truly a fascinating concept, I could send you my book if you so desire.

#4 Edited by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

@lostrib: ok does the process of evolution have intelligence?

Is that better, again only someone of minimal intelligence would call that a stupid question I bet there are many great minds that would say it's a good question, or at least a reasonable question.

#5 Edited by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

@Master_Live: so do you think it's a fair question that the process of evolution seems to have intelligence behind it or is it a stupid question?

#6 Posted by wis3boi (31472 posts) -

@Master_Live said:

You seem to have so many questions about Evolution, it would be beneficial to you to read a book on it. It is truly a fascinating concept, I could send you my book if you so desire.

I'd say a basic elementary school science lesson is a good start

#7 Posted by 4myAmuzumament (1750 posts) -

Intelligence is relative.

#8 Posted by lostrib (37798 posts) -

@ariabed: do you know how evolution works?

#9 Edited by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

@wis3boi: that's right typical of most people on here, they can't handle a smart question so they post something negative, and ridiculing.

I'm used to it now so it doesn't bother me I guess my questions are better placed with greater minds than those that are on a gaming site.

Now the theory of evolution doesn't explain how it knew to evolve a tree to absorb co2 to produce oxegen.

#10 Posted by lostrib (37798 posts) -

@ariabed: when did you ask a smart question?

#12 Posted by SolidSnake35 (58110 posts) -

Do you think evolution is a person or something? Does gravity know how to make things fall? Might the law of excluded middle one day change its mind and accept third parties?

#13 Posted by Master_Live (14861 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@lostrib: when I asked your mum why she bothered having you.

Come on Ariabed, that isn't nice.

#14 Edited by lostrib (37798 posts) -

@ariabed: lol, someone's mad

#15 Posted by Master_Live (14861 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@Master_Live: so do you think it's a fair question that the process of evolution seems to have intelligence behind it or is it a stupid question?

I think it would be a fair question for a person that hasn't been initiated on the concept evolution.

#16 Posted by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

@SolidSnake35: no its just the process has an intelligence to it, since the process of evolution has produce intelligent beings. Gravity is a force it is not something that evolved from something useless into something intelligent.

#20 Posted by Master_Live (14861 posts) -

#22 Edited by SolidSnake35 (58110 posts) -
@ariabed said:

@SolidSnake35: no its just the process has an intelligence to it, since the process of evolution has produce intelligent beings. Gravity is a force it is not something that evolved from something useless into something intelligent.

Evolution brought about intelligence, yes. Does it follow that evolution is itself intelligent? No. Does it follow that something intelligent is behind evolution? No.

#23 Posted by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

@lostrib: the theory of evolution doesn't explain how sex is so pleasurable to ensure the continuation of life does it? Nah it's just by chance that sex is a pleasurable thing we are just lucky it wasn't painful or unpleasant.

#24 Edited by SolidSnake35 (58110 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@lostrib: the theory of evolution doesn't explain how sex is so pleasurable to ensure the continuation of life does it? Nah it's just by chance that sex is a pleasurable thing we are just lucky it wasn't painful or unpleasant.

Yes, we are lucky. In another world, the female orgasm was to blame for the apocalypse. Unfortunately you're not around in that world to point out its flaws.

#25 Posted by lostrib (37798 posts) -

@ariabed: seriously, do you know how evolution works?

#26 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13102 posts) -

You seem to be under the impression that genetic mutation is always beneficial. This isn't the case. Most mutations are either benign or harmful. A very few mutations are beneficial. Obviously, it's those with the beneficial mutation that are going to have a greater advantage in the environment, and thus are more likely to reproduce.

Mutation and evolution aren't the same thing. Evolution is the result of beneficial mutations, not the cause. The fact that harmful mutations lose out to beneficial ones shouldn't be at all surprising.

So when looking at the evolutionary past of any organism, you're only seeing beneficial mutation+beneficial mutation+beneficial mutation+beneficial mutation... you aren't seeing all the countless harmful mutations that occurred and died off because they weren't successful enough in the environment to reproduce, or they worked themselves into a niche that disappeared.

#27 Posted by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

@SolidSnake35: "Evolution brought about intelligence, yes. Does it follow that evolution is itself intelligent? No. Does it follow that something intelligent is behind evolution? No"

You seem pretty sure about that, are you 100% on that opinion?

#28 Edited by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

@lostrib: is that all you can say lostrib change the record, if everyone was like you this would be a very boring discussion.

#29 Posted by lostrib (37798 posts) -

@ariabed: well you've never answered, or shown any form of understanding.

#30 Edited by SolidSnake35 (58110 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@SolidSnake35: "Evolution brought about intelligence, yes. Does it follow that evolution is itself intelligent? No. Does it follow that something intelligent is behind evolution? No"

You seem pretty sure about that, are you 100% on that opinion?

Yes, I am. Though I am concerned that you misunderstand the meaning of 'does not follow'. If you think intelligence is behind evolution, you need a reason for thinking that. Evolution appearing intelligent or having brought about intelligence is not sufficient.

#31 Edited by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

@SolidSnake35: well one of the things that got me thinking that maybe there was some intelligence to the process is that sex is a pleasurable activity men an women actively seek out to have sex, how did the process of evolution know to make sex a pleasurable act so we would be encouraged to have sex and reproduce.

#32 Edited by SolidSnake35 (58110 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@SolidSnake35: well one of the things that got me thinking that maybe there was some intelligence to the process is that sex is a pleasurable activity men an women actively seek out to have sex, how did the process of evolution know to make sex a pleasurable act so we would be encouraged to have sex and reproduce.

It didn't know anything. I don't know the details either, but sex was pleasurable and life flourished because things enjoyed having it away with each other. Like I said, what's the alternative here? If sex caused both organisms extreme pain and resulted in death, you wouldn't be around to complain. It's like saying: The earth is a giant sphere. I like giant spheres. Therefore the earth knew how to please me. It's just nonsense.

#33 Posted by lostrib (37798 posts) -

@ariabed: it doesn't know anything, it's not an intelligent being

#34 Edited by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit: well thank you for your post it's a breath of fresh air compared to being told my question is stupid but it's a public forum so people can say what they like I guess.

So yeh the useful helpful mutations out live the useless ones, is it by chance that the useful mutations come along? Or is it that the useless mutations are seen as that, useless, and more useful mutations are introduced? I'm not sure how it works

#35 Posted by lostrib (37798 posts) -

@ariabed: then Google it or look on wikipedia

#36 Posted by lamprey263 (24236 posts) -

@ariabed: let us work on your understanding of evolution before you start asking questions

haha, 4:13

#37 Posted by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

@SolidSnake35: "It didn't know anything. I don't know the details either, but sex was pleasurable and life flourished because things enjoyed having it away with each other. Like I said, what's the alternative here? If sex caused both organisms extreme pain and resulted in death, you wouldn't be around to complain. It's like saying: The earth is a giant sphere. I like giant spheres. Therefore the earth knew how to please me. It's just nonsense"

"The earth is a giant sphere. I like giant spheres. Therefore the earth knew how to please me. It's just nonsense"

That is nonsense!! The earth being round to please your love of round things is not important to the continuation of life, you can't compare that ridiculous analogy to sex being pleasurable to ensure the continuation of life. At the end of the day it is only logical to make sex pleasurable to ensure the continuation of life,

#38 Edited by br0kenrabbit (13102 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@br0kenrabbit: well thank you for your post it's a breath of fresh air compared to being told my question is stupid but it's a public forum so people can say what they like I guess.

So yeh the useful helpful mutations out live the useless ones, is it by chance that the useful mutations come along? Or is it that the useless mutations are seen as that, useless, and more useful mutations are introduced? I'm not sure how it works

It's random, complete chance whether any given mutation will be beneficial, harmful or benign.

As for the act of mutation itself, some of it is random, some of it isn't. Even the nonrandom mutations can go any of the three ways (beneficial, harmful or benign), but DNA replication introduces some mutation by design. Most of these mutations have no effect on gene expression, but every once in a while...

#39 Posted by SolidSnake35 (58110 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@SolidSnake35: "It didn't know anything. I don't know the details either, but sex was pleasurable and life flourished because things enjoyed having it away with each other. Like I said, what's the alternative here? If sex caused both organisms extreme pain and resulted in death, you wouldn't be around to complain. It's like saying: The earth is a giant sphere. I like giant spheres. Therefore the earth knew how to please me. It's just nonsense"

"The earth is a giant sphere. I like giant spheres. Therefore the earth knew how to please me. It's just nonsense"

That is nonsense!! The earth being round to please your love of round things is not important to the continuation of life, you can't compare that ridiculous analogy to sex being pleasurable to ensure the continuation of life. At the end of the day it is only logical to make sex pleasurable to ensure the continuation of life,

Both make assumptions about happy coincidences.

#40 Edited by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

@lostrib: @ariabed: then Google it or look on wikipedia

Reply

No it's a public forum I can ask my stupid questions if I like?

#41 Edited by chaoscougar1 (36824 posts) -

Evolution is a process, not a thing
It cannot have intelligence or design

#42 Edited by lostrib (37798 posts) -

@ariabed: but if your interested and you don't understand, then go look it up

#43 Edited by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

@SolidSnake35: one assumption is a bit more important than the other, the fact that you admit that the only other alternative would be horrible painful sex which would result in no one wanting to have it, leaves the only logical alternative extremely pleasurable sex, and I think something applied that logic something intelligent. Now you may find my way of thinking stupid, you follow science blindly and you have no questions of your own, you only accept what your taught. You shouldn't ridicule people just having questions.

#44 Edited by indzman (18225 posts) -

TC please stop making evolution threads already =P

#45 Posted by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

@indzman: ok!! no doubt thegerg will be all over this one when he wakes up, I don't care I will just ignore him.

#46 Edited by playmynutz (6076 posts) -

You are a computer and god is a rock deal with it or deal with it without noticing

#47 Posted by indzman (18225 posts) -

@ariabed said:

@indzman: ok!! no doubt thegerg will be all over this one when he wakes up, I don't care I will just ignore him.

I'm just kidding lol.

*runs away before thegerg comes*

#48 Posted by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

@br0kenrabbit: do you believe it was by chance that sex is pleasurable even though it is the only logical way sex could be if reproduction was to be plentiful?

#49 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13102 posts) -
@ariabed said:

@br0kenrabbit: do you believe it was by chance that sex is pleasurable even though it is the only logical way sex could be if reproduction was to be plentiful?

I think you're taking liberties with the term 'pleasure'.

Do insects get pleasure from sex? Well, they WANT to do it, when the time is right, but if you're picturing little tongues hanging out and high-fives (or whatever insects do) you've got it wrong.

Is eating pleasurable? Sure, it can be. But it needn't necessarily be so. I'm sure we've all been so hungry we've ate something we'd rather not, even if just one of those gross multi-grain bars. But even though you weren't getting pleasure from the experience, you were still driven to do so because you were hungry.

So, one can say sex itself evolved, at least in the higher life forms, to become pleasurable rather than just raw drive, with the mechanism for this evolution of sex being the more sex you have, the more offspring. So those who found sex pleasurable would seek it out whenever they could and have many offspring, whereas those who were simply driven to have sex by environmental triggers would produce less offspring.

#50 Edited by Ariabed (1123 posts) -

@lostrib: hey lostrib I know we don't get on we prob never will but even knowing that I wanted to apologise for my comment earlier, I know it didn't bother you anyway but I still apologise.