Improving the design?

ScumLord

I know that evolution changes animals over time but does it improve basic things in all animals?

Like would your average modern animal brain be better (more efficient, more processing power in a smaller package) than the brain of your average animal a million years ago. have cells gotten better at building animals? In the same way computers these days are better than computers 20 years ago.

Is a lion better at it's job in every way when compared to a saber tooth or even a T-rex?

Is there any evidence of this?

If evolution is constantly improving the design rather than just changing it to suit the environment then wouldn't it be kind of inevitable that you'd end up with something like us at some stage?

nyarlothothep

ScumLord wrote: »

I know that evolution changes animals over time but does it improve basic things in all animals?

Like would your average modern animal brain be better (more efficient, more processing power in a smaller package) than the brain of your average animal a million years ago. have cells gotten better at building animals? In the same way computers these days are better than computers 20 years ago.

Is a lion better at it's job in every way when compared to a saber tooth or even a T-rex?

Is there any evidence of this?

If evolution is constantly improving the design rather than just changing it to suit the environment then wouldn't it be kind of inevitable that you'd end up with something like us at some stage?

As far as I know creatures evolve in order to be better adapted to their environment. The design is interlinked with the environment. Unless there is an environmental pressure for a species to evolve greater intelligence it probably won't happen. It just so happens that we evolved vastly greater intelligence to other animals but we aren't that well designed overall.

art

ScumLord wrote: »

I know that evolution changes animals over time but does it improve basic things in all animals?

Simple answer is no. If an animal is successful in it's niche, it has no need to "improve" what it does, even if there is potentially a better way to do it.

ScumLord

But there does seem to be an improvement in design and I think I phrased the question wrong.

have cells gotten better at building animals?

Vorsprung

The way I've always understood it (maybe wrongly, someone might correct me here) is that cells haven't gotten better, they've just got lucky. And if one of those lucky changes leads to an improvement, that gets selected over the generations and becomes a normal characteristic.

ScumLord

But by that logic coincidence or not they have gotten better at building animals.

I'm assuming cells have gotten better at these things as they've gone from simple living things to complex ones like us.

I suppose crocs would be a good animal to look at as there "more or less unchanged" as I've heard biologists on tv say over and over but they're not exactly the same. They found they''re niche a long time ago and haven't had to change.

But when you compare Mammals/birds to reptiles/insects, Mammals seem to be a much more advanced animal in every way. From brain size to how they can adapt to the environment.

DrIndy

This is an interesting discussion!

What about developing modern medicine? We are curing disease now and so those people who would be naturally selected against are living. Are we altering the genepool? Or can you say our intelligence and development if this technology is evolution?

tallaght01

DrIndy wrote: »

This is an interesting discussion!

What about developing modern medicine? We are curing disease now and so those people who would be naturally selected against are living. Are we altering the genepool? Or can you say our intelligence and development if this technology is evolution?

I had this exact discussion with a patient's dad in our neonatal unit today! The baby has a cardiac abnormality, and would have died without a lot of funky interventions from our end.

The kid's dad actually asked me did I think we were altering evolution. He was a teacher, whch I guess accounts for the inquiring mind despite his high stress situation.

I was saying that in years past, that baby wouldn't have lived long enough to pass on his genes. We had an interesting discussion on the whole issue. Then the pager went......

I reckon there's no point in us evolving if we can't use our evolutionary advantage to help the more vulnerable members of society. However, strict Darwinians might argue that my attitude is derimental to the development of the race.

LouOB

I totally agree that certain gene pools would not exist today without modern medicine.

All you have to do is either look at certain parts of the USA or go for a drive on any Dublin road and you will certainly come accross some people that would not of exisited in the kill or be killed early era of human development.
I maintain a certain opinion that people of this nature exist to provide reminders to those who know better and teach others of life lessons i.e. dont take drugs, do indicate when taking a turn, do get an education etc etc.

2Scoops

LouOB wrote: »

All you have to do is either look at certain parts of the USA or go for a drive on any Dublin road and you will certainly come accross some people that would not of exisited in the kill or be killed early era of human development.

Not sure what you're talking about. Unless large swathes of people in these areas have been saved by direct medical intervention? Or is it just that you feel superior to them? I think you'll find most people are very resilient.

LouOB wrote: »

I maintain a certain opinion that people of this nature exist to provide reminders to those who know better and teach others of life lessons i.e. dont take drugs, do indicate when taking a turn, do get an education etc etc.

Good for you. Nothing to do with evolution though.:rolleyes: