Hacker News Reader

Comment by vacri | Hacker News Reader

Evolution is not sentient, and doesn't 'design' or 'plan' or 'program'. It's merely the name for a process, like 'the water cycle' or 'the bessemer process'. Evolution can result in things, like any process, but it doesn't design, and it's wrong to characterise it this way.

This being said, if you're looking to the behaviour of primitives, the male-heavy roles were not 'war', but 'hunt'. And no, we're not all driven by sex - some of us are driven heavily, others driven lightly, and others still are asexual. And even those who are heavily driven by sex find time for other things in their life.

Anyway, it's ironic that you ping me for 'writing them off' (I don't see where I do that, seriously), but then turn around and say that they're only doing what 'evolution planned for them' - particularly your stated role for what teenage girls should be doing.

View on HN

> Evolution is not sentient, and doesn't 'design' or 'plan' or 'program'.

Literally true but the effect is "as though" it designs or plans. See eg "Why evolution is true" or any evolution text book eg "Evolution" by Douglas Futuyma.

As for war versus hunting, the levels of violence in hunter-gatherer societies were astronomical with death rates from violence typically in the 30-50% range. So yes 'war' though not usually on a very large scale.

There were some exceptions. For example San people (formerly known as the Bushmen of the South African desert) had as weapons bows and arrows with slow-acting poisons. A full-on war would result in everyone getting killed (mutually assured destruction). So they tended to avoid doing that.

The effect isn't 'as though' it designs or plans at all, any more than clouds 'plan' to rain on the plains. Evolution is better described as 'survival of the fittest' than 'programmed to -foo-'. Keeping it phrased correctly also helps keep specious Intelligent Design arguments at bay - by talking about 'design' or 'programming', you're implying a sentient cause. And you don't actually need to say things like 'programmed by evolution' anyway. It's better to say 'resulting from evolution' or similar. Makes the same point, but keeps it correctly phrased.

'survival of the fittest' is also misleading because fittest doesn't mean how buff you are, but how successfully one fits into their current environment.

Being ripped doesn't save you from the plague, but it might help later against the zombies.

no, please stop spreading such misleading information, it is not survival of the fittest at all. go read about evolution please. You're right, evolution is not sentient, we're passed that, it is useful to think of it in that light when looking backwards at the process (as we can only really do anyway), we've all read the Blind Watchmaker and don't need this obvious point made over and over when it's been explained why we are doing so.

to be honest I can't follow what you're even trying to say. It's making no sense, and in general just inaccurate.

I'm not talking about individuals, but in general, and in that regard we are all sex driven. Of course evolution isn't sentient, but when you think about it, it's a reasonable way to think about it because the results are the same. It just depends which way you're looking at the process, looking forward, you cannot refer to evolution as a design process, but looking backwards you can. The design we see today is the result of the evolutionary process. It's tiresome having to explain all this.

hunting skills are much the same as war skills and man certainly hunted (I believe that's what I said) but we are also a very violent species.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com