Comment by 2-718-281-828 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2-718-281-828 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I like that line of thinking. But I still fail at giving a good explanation of that concept. Maybe it's intuitive for me due to having learned about cellular automata during my youth. I know I'm entering esoteric and new age territory but something tells me this can even be applied to phenomena like quantum entanglement. My idea is that if there is an information receivable and possibly even emittable by a biological system then that system will through evolutionary pressure begin to incorporate this transmission in a way that improves fitness. Telepathy maybe even. That's also why I don't "believe" anymore in this compartmentalization of the human body into separate organs. Tissue can isolate an organ to some extent but even then there will be hormonal or mechanic exchange. Example would be relevance of belly breathing for intestinal function. At the extreme we reach this sense of connectedness between all or most or some living beings. It just appears to me that this would make sense.

The rule of thumb in evolutionary biology is if it has a cost and lasts through evolutionary time, it is beneficial. Because otherwise a similar organism that doesn't waste that time/energy on the useless thing/behavior will outcompete. Here's some odd and obvious examples.

Religion has a cost (lots of resources and time are spent on them) and they have lasted through time, therefore it is evolutionarily beneficial.

A small percentage of the population is psychopaths, this has an obvious cost to communities, but the pattern has lasted through time, therefore has a benefit. Likely it's for war/fighting/hunting.

Growing light sensitive cells has a cost in energy and materials, and has lasted through time, therefore it must have a benefit (sight).

This strongly suggests that SOMETHING is listening to that plant make noise and it either directly or indirectly benefits the plant.

Only applies to genetic traits though. If psychopathy, for example, turned out to be epigenetic, environmental, or entirely psychological, it would potentially defy that pattern.

It doesn't only apply to genetic traits, it also applies to memes which also evolve and would cover your concerns.

By a trait being "beneficial" you mean that it prolongs the existence of some gene specifically, right? My understanding of evolution is that traits aren't necessarily beneficial to those who posses it in the colloquial sense. For example, animals that perish due to reproduction.

Also, isn't saying a trait exists so it must be beneficial a bit of an over simplification? Couldn't a relatively useless trait hypothetically exist due to genes that are also related to some other relatively useful trait? It seems like a stretch to say any lasting trait must be beneficial, unless you can isolate it from other traits on the genetic level or otherwise through analysis. Traits can also cease being beneficial as we can see from the countless species that have gone extinct.

Sorry if this seems like I'm ranting, but I just need more convincing that this rule of thumb makes sense, and would appreciate being pointed in the right direction if I'm off-base.

Yes, beneficial refers to those genes continuing on into the future.

The operative descriptive word describing those "useless traits" is cost. If nothing else, they have a cost of the energy and resources required to produce the relevant cells or whatever. Another organism that does not waste that energy and resources will out-compete the one building the useless trait. Natural selection will make it go away.

Though that might just be the case for most things, I don't think it would be fair to say that for all things. Two traits could develop in conjunction with another, and trait 1 gives an advantage, while trait 2 is a disadvantage. The most in-your-face example I think is the stereotype of nerds and glasses. In short, a good enough trait could get you laid and fed even though you have a crappy trait that came with it.

edit: alternatively, a bad enough trait could completely derail the development of a good train. Maybe dolphins born with 200iq brains develop some other kind of bad trait as a result of the same mutation that doesn't allow for the 200iq trait to permeate.

The characteristic one for this in humans is sickle cell anemia. It really sucks for the people who have it but it sucks less than malaria, so it’s persisted in the gene pool… in regions with endemic malaria.

The poor eyesight you're referring to comes with age, generally after the primary ages of procreation. That's why, on an evolutionary timescale, there wasn't much benefit to weeding out the need for glasses. Maybe into the future we will see that. Conditions which cause poor eyesight from birth get weeded out.

That assumes that natural selection is a perfect process, and that we are at some "end" of it. In truth, the cost of generating useless noise could be small enough that it just doesn't matter and it hangs around. Maybe it will disappear in a few more billion years.

Any organism we see today may very well have unnecessary traits that evolution is in the process of removing.

You put that assumption in, not me.

Unempathic people can make hard decisions; Such as choosing between spending a hospital budget on fuel for the generators, building upkeep, restocking, and employee wages –v.s. the life of one child. A lot of people can't make such a decision.

I wouldn't want such people unchecked though.

there's a line of thinking that it's strange how many of our leaders are psychopaths. But for all we know, it's strange how few of our leaders are psychopaths relative to other cultures throughout history.

> A small percentage of the population is psychopaths, this has an obvious cost to communities, but the pattern has lasted through time, therefore has a benefit.

It has a benefit to individuals. A benefit to the community is not necessary.

> Likely it's for war/fighting/hunting.

This is a non sequitur.

Nothing is all cost and no benefit, and nothing is all benefit and no cost either. You don't see people arguing that vulnerability to cuckoos is beneficial to the birds they parasitize. The benefit is real (you don't need to bother recognizing your offspring, because recognizing your nest is sufficient) but the cost is so much larger (your children all die) that it's obvious the birds would be better off with the ability to recognize their own young (and/or eggs). They don't have that ability... yet.

I mostly agree with your point however IMO the psychopath thing is not a great example because it could be explained as the incomplete or nonexistent development of something that is complex that is beneficial. I think the error is that we can’t necessarily know what the cost was. And the benefit doesnt necessarily have to be that big relative to the cost. I mean I’m replying to you and that me costs something, and what’s the benefit?

While the sounds don’t make themselves, they could be a side effect of something else… instabilities in the structural tissue, the plant straining to increase the movement internal fluids… who knows?

That said, I personally think there is communication between plants, or that at the very least it’s something like trying to mimic predator insect sounds. But could be that the vibrations themselves help move fluids around (as opposed to being a byproduct of something else that does)

This isn't "my point," this is how the field of evolutionary biologists look at traits. If what I said was false it would mean there's no such thing as natural selection. We may not understand how a trait is beneficial, and we may be incorrect about why a trait is beneficial, but if it has a cost and lasts through evolutionary time then by definition it has a benefit.

>it could be explained as the incomplete or nonexistent development of something that is complex that is beneficial.

If it has a cost but doesn't have a benefit right now, it's going to get weeded out via natural selection in favor of variants of the organism that are not wasting the time and resources on that trait.

The argument is flawed. You defend. "if it has a cost and lasts through evolutionary time, it is beneficial."

But to conclude your conclusion, you must also show that:

- emitting noise has cost (fairly believable)

- and that something listening to it is the only way to make it beneficial, which is far from obvious. (Could just be a way to dissipate energy, or to send signal within the plant, or to get rid of some chemicals, or many other beneficial things that doesn't involve something listening)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com