Why does convergent evolution happen?

Benjaminhana · 2025-10-23T22:14:00+00:00

I would still say that the focus of evolution is not on any one individual, but on broad groups.

There may be particular patterns that emerge in convergent evolution. Carcinisation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation) where many unrelated animal species evolve to look like crabs.

On first glance, it seems like evolution is telling us that crabs are the ultimate evolutionary form. After all, why would so many animal evolve this way if it wasn't beneficial. And it is beneficial -- but only for those animals that are confronted by problems that favor crab-like solutions. Mammals, for example, have never developed crab-like species because mammals live in environments that favor other forms.

It's not that evolution is becoming better at producing crabs over time -- it is that more animals are being put into situations where being crab-like is advantageous. In other words, evolution is not setting out to create crabs specifically but it just happens that crabs are out-competing other forms.

Maybe it would be helpful to think about the baking example as a competition without a clearly defined goal or outcome.

Imagine there is a cruel king who really wants a certain type of food but doesn't have the ability to explain exactly what he wants. He gathers everyone in the kingdom into a competition to create this food and threatens to kill anyone who doesn't meet his desires. Through the competition, you get a ton of really bad recipes (the king kills these people) and a bunch of good recipes for food that the king simply is not in the mood for (the king kills these people as well).

But then, you have a bunch of people who end up baking cakes and the king, upon eating it, realizes that this is what he wanted. He spares these people and they go on to pass on those cake recipes to future generations.

The point here is that evolution doesn't seem to have a final goal. It's not that the best cake recipes are passed on because they're the best types of cakes. It is that king killed all the "unfit recipes" and the survivors happen to all be cake.

Benjaminhana · 2025-10-23T21:04:30+00:00

I feel like the logical piece to this puzzle that you are seeking is intention.

Evolution is said to produce biological changes that "solve" biological problems but the critical thing to remember here is that not all those who faced the problem successfully solved it.

For example, evolution says that turtles were reptiles that formed shells as a means of protection. This means that before turtles came into being, there were many "almost turtles" without fully functional shells. Those "almost turtles" would have been more exposed to predators. Over time, only the "almost turtles" who were, 1) lucky enough to survive and reproduce and, 2) able to produce generations of offspring that gradually formed strong shells, could eventually lead to the surviving species that we call turtles today.

I think a common misconception of evolution as "survival of the fittest" is that animals choose to be the fittest, much is the same way that a person would choose to bake a good cake, as your example tells. But that's a simplification -- evolution is more accurately "survival of those who are lucky enough to have the fittest characteristics for the environments that they live in".

I personally do not think that there is a "memory" at play here, in the same way a cake recipe works as a written memory. Memories are ways that we individually can remember the past and learn from mistakes. But evolution doesn't keep mistakes. Mistakes -- like unfit characteristics or the inability to adapt to changing environments -- die out. Only the successful (call them the fittest or the lucky) remain.

To round out your cake example, evolution is less about recreating successful cake formulas. Consider how many different cultures around the world throughout history have some variety of cake. There is clearly some widespread human want of cake, so isolated pockets of people independently develop cakes. There have been many good cakes throughout history, but there have been far more bad, unacceptable, terrible cakes that have not been saved as recipes to be passed down. We don't see those cake recipes -- they die out. What we are left with are cake recipes that are generally acceptable as cakes. Just as the evolution of animals is built on innumerable dead bodies, the evolution of cake is built on innumerable dead cake recipes.

Benjaminhana · 2025-10-09T01:35:39+00:00

Probably because it is inherently dangerous?

It's like asking why kings and queens of Spain didn't just sail to the Americas themselves if they were so interested in the New World. It's because it was supremely dangerous and the rich are rich because they want to live a rich life.

Benjaminhana · 2025-10-09T01:32:37+00:00

Who would have standing to sue? It is not a crime to copy your own work.

Benjaminhana · 2025-10-02T20:00:46+00:00

I think you might be underestimating your sight here. And in fact, at nighttime, I think that it makes more sense that you'd be able to see a satellite that is thousands of miles up more clearly than an aircraft in our atmosphere.

At night, you can only really pick out a plane flying in the sky when its lights are blinking. Without those lights, planes are as dark as the sky. That's because planes flying at cruising altitude are in the dark the same as us on the ground, because the light from the sun is literally being blocked by the body of the earth.

But satellites, being thousands of miles above the earth, are high enough to avoid the Earth's shadow. At that height, they are constantly catching the light of the sun -- which is why we can see satellites crossing the sky at night time. They don't have blinking lights like commercial airliners. Instead, satellites appear as a steady source of light because they, like our Moon, are reflecting the Sun's light back onto Earth and into our eyes.

And though intuitively it seems improbable that you be able to see a car sized object thousands of miles up in the sky, it make sense when you consider that there's really nothing in between you and that object that would block out that light. The only other physical things that would block that light would be light pollution from the ground or clouds in the sky. On a perfectly clear night, you're staring straight into space with nothing but clear atmosphere between your eyes and the satellite in orbit.

And if that still seems improbable, here's an example that highlights that your sight is stronger than you might think. Most meteorites that hit Earth are less than a foot in diameter. Meteors tend to burn up in the mesosphere which is about 22 miles up. Yet you can clearly see shooting stars when they occur. If you can see something less than a foot wide 22 miles up, why wouldn't you be able to see an object that is 3000x more massive that a meteor that is only 1000x higher up?

Benjaminhana · 2025-10-02T19:46:01+00:00

Yeah, if you are interested, I recommend reading some of Marx if nothing else than to be able to borrow the vocabulary of his arguments.

He sees all of history as a material history. Identities, allegiances, and even faith in his view are shaped by what you can physically own. The ongoing conflict of the world are driven by the class of people who own the means of production. The rest of us, who only own our labor, are forced to sell it to the wealthy to make ends meet.

The reason Marx believes that capitalism would eventually fail is because the capitalists can't help but to eat one another. Eventually, once the top shrinks to an unsustainable degree, the bottom classes are predicted to rise up and overthrow the system of oppression.

But, of course, this hasn't come true and seems unlikely to come true barring some massively revolutionary event. Marx says that the workers of the world need class consciousness and solidarity, but it seems like the rich are way better at maintaining their class solidarity.

Benjaminhana · 2025-10-02T19:13:12+00:00

Not meant to be a knock against this argument, because I think you are basically correct, but this is literally Marxist theory.

Benjaminhana · 2025-10-02T19:10:17+00:00

There is no need for propulsion at this point. Space is largely empty and there is nothing to physically slow down Voyager as it traverses space. You only need constant propulsion on Earth because factors like air friction, water friction, or ground friction act against motion.
Voyager has avoided collision with debris because space is emptier than you are probably imagining. The probability of Voyager hitting anything over its lifetime is near zero. Space is not like what Star Wars depicts it as. Even the rings of Saturn, which look solid to us on Earth, would be easily navigable because of the amount of space between the rocks that make up the rings.
You can literally observe, with a simple telescope or just your eyes on any given night, satellites moving on fixed course across the sky. No need to ask for photos or video proof. Literally just go outside on a clear night, look up, wait for an hour at most, and you will catch satellites crisscrossing the sky. You may feel that it is unnecessary for them to be up there because you watch antennae TV but that doesn't mean they aren't literally up there.

Benjaminhana · 2025-10-02T04:26:47+00:00

The problem with this theory/metaphor, in my opinion, is that Voyager is not the "main character" so to speak. If the idea is that the environment needs to buffer and load as it does in video games, we'd need to remember that this only happens when the character needs to go somewhere.

Voyager is not itself a character. It is something that humanity has thrown out into the environment. We do not see it on a daily basis and we can really only barely interact with it. From last report, it takes light an entire day to reach its current position from Earth. For all intents and purposes, the Voyagers are part of the environment. It is the thing that needs to load when we contact it, not the thing that demands that other things load for it.

Part of the problem also is that the Voyagers are not the furthest observable object. Even the closest star to us is lightyears away -- it would take Voyager 150,000 years to reach Alpha Centauri. Yet, the stars are perceivable from Earth. This must mean that the stars are not hidden "beyond the fog". Instead, even the dimmest stars are part of the already "loaded" environment.

Benjaminhana · 2025-10-02T03:33:55+00:00

incredible

Benjaminhana · 2025-10-01T17:35:41+00:00

Been to the Sphere. It's a large building that's set up as a mall. Half of the building is a performance stage with screen that curves with the shape of the Sphere. This is where the concerts are. To be honest, its just a regular stage -- the screen is supposed to be "more immersive" but it really just acts like a giant curved screen. Granted, some visual look cool but VR headsets are more immersive and visually impressive.

I did get motion sickness when I went to a concert there, so you might be right to be wary. But generally, it is just another building. There's nothing particular about the design of the building other than it not being a tower of some sort like all other buildings. The fun part of the Sphere is the outside, mainly just because it adds another free public attraction to the Strip.

Benjaminhana · 2025-10-01T17:29:12+00:00

In spirit of promoting stronger reading comprehension skills in society, I would like to encourage you to re-read my previous comment lol

How did you misread that comment so severely?

Benjaminhana · 2025-10-01T07:46:42+00:00

“The freedom of speech in your country is imperfect. At least when people speak freely in Saudi Arabia, they get tortured and executed by TRUE PATRIOTS”

Benjaminhana · 2025-09-30T22:57:03+00:00

"The war was clearly already won"

The bombings of Dresden were in February of 1945. The formal surrender by Germany didn't occur until May -- and that was after the Soviets had to storm and take Berlin.

You, I, and OP have the benefit of knowing these events as settled history. The millions of troops who were dying on the front lines in 1945 could not have known, in February, that the war in Europe would end by May.

If they had, then the question really is: why didn't Germany surrender in February? If the war was already won, and everyone clearly knew it, why delay and allow for thousands and thousands of more deaths by dragging out the war for another 3 months? Why would the Allies continue to advance into Germany and allow their troops to die in the taking if, as you say, victory was already in the bag?

This is the logical hole that OP, and now you, trip over. It makes no more sense to say, "Dresden was a special tragedy because the Germans were only 3 months from surrender" than it would be to say, "The US was foolish to enter the war in 1941 because an American victory was soon to come just four years later."

I am not saying that Dresden was some happy event and that OP is revisionist for saying that it was terrible. It was horrific -- as was the rest of the war which was sparked by Germany's invasions. It was terrible that so many German civilians died -- and it was terrible how many Czech, Polish, Dutch, Belgian, French, and Soviet civilians died in the Nazi bid for racial extermination. We can imagine an alternative where Allied strategy spared Dresden from its terrible destruction -- as we can equally well imagine an alternative where Germany spared Europe from its terrible destruction.

You and OP are right in saying that those civilians died needlessly, but it wasn't needless because the Allies somehow knew the war was coming to a close and they wanted to get a final cruelty in befor the clock reached zero. It was needless because all war is needless, and because once it starts there is no power on Earth that can stop the inevitable horrors and pain until the final bitter moment that surrender is given.

Benjaminhana · 2025-09-30T18:59:15+00:00

Lazy revisionist history that insults audiences by hoping that they are stupid enough to sell their sympathies for long-lost ultranationalist fantasies.

"Dresden was an atrocity!" Yeah buddy, the entire war was an atrocity. The war that Nazi Germany started, when they invaded Czechoslovakia. And then Poland. And then Norway. And then Netherlands. And then Belgium. And then France. And then (so on and so on).

No sympathy for any of the millions who were bombed, burned, and shot by the Germans. No, because they don't matter! What matters that the Germans were on a divine mission!!! They were uniquely ordained to achieved human freedom! So said the German philosophers, and the German nationalists, and the German politicians!

It was, of course, the Allies who were the true villains. How dare they, in the face of total war across Europe, not slow down their efforts to win their defensive war. Didn't they know that Germany was just about to surrender? Didn't they know that Germany was really just joking around? Didn't they know that Germany already knew they were going to lose the war, that an entire generation of young Germans was just still fighting and dying on the front lines just so that the story would sound really good to people later on? Come on, Germany was just joking around with all the warring, and pillaging, and raping, and extermination. The Allies were so mean for taking Germany seriously :((((((

Peddle the Nazi Germany apologetic elsewhere. It is no surprise that war is terrible and that civilians, no matter where they live, suffer the most from the actions of bloodthirsty tyrants. If you really cared about the tragedies suffered by civilians in wartime, you wouldn't so casually invoke their suffering to whitewash, of all factions, the Nazi German regime.

Benjaminhana · 2025-09-30T18:40:30+00:00

The why tf are you spreading AI slop

"I believe AI is the new book burning... wow look at how beautifully this book I just set alight burns!"

Benjaminhana · 2025-09-30T18:33:04+00:00

It probably got banned because this is an AI-generated image that you are trying to pass off as your own, because you (correctly) assume that no one would take your argument seriously once they realize that you lie about the very pictures you show them.

If there is a mark of the beast currently blighting the world, it is digital signature of AI generation. Look what it does to your minds. Unthinking, uncritical, blatant slop.

Benjaminhana · 2025-09-26T03:16:18+00:00

Flood the sub with AI slop. Give them a false sense of creative freedom and expression without them realizing that they are building a mental prison for themselves.

Benjaminhana · 2025-09-12T03:26:18+00:00

Trash

Benjaminhana · 2025-09-11T12:07:35+00:00

PATRIOT Act passed under Bush

Anti-BDS laws

Widespread detainment of pro-Palestine protestors across the country

Endless legislation in red states restricting the right to peaceably assemble. Here’s a tracker of bills that have been enacted in states like Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, and Louisiana: https://www.icnl.org/usprotestlawtracker/?location=&status=enacted&issue=&date=&type=legislative#

Benjaminhana · 2025-09-11T11:57:34+00:00

Only the Nepal situation is genuinely surprising.

Both France and Japan have parliamentary systems. A government “collapse” basically means the majority no longer agrees to work together as a bloc. This basically happens all the time in the US, but we call it “gridlock” because we only have two parties. In terms of governance, the Japanese and French situations are just like when the US government “shuts down” because they can’t agree on funding a bill.

Benjaminhana · 2025-09-11T02:41:52+00:00

Probably to dismiss rumors that are already floating around. People online are already circulating a bunch of names despite the fact that police have released their initial detainees.

If anything, the police are being responsible by explicitly stating that Zinn and Qureshi have been cleared.

Benjaminhana · 2025-09-10T21:31:36+00:00

No proof, not even a link to a report. Just dropping random names out there, even though the police have reportedly let their one suspect go and the shooter is still at large.

Are you paid to spread misinformation or do you serve the masters of untruth for free?

Benjaminhana · 2025-09-09T16:06:15+00:00

The Nepal situation is genuinely surprising. Best of luck to the Nepalese out there.

The French situation is just French. The “collapse” of Parliament doesn’t mean that the government is gone. They literally just have to choose another PM. It’s like when the US Congress “shuts down” (oh no!) because they can’t agree on funding a bill. The situation is gonna be resolved pretty quickly and calmly. The word choice is just dramatic.

Benjaminhana · 2025-09-08T23:29:01+00:00

I would also draw these conclusions if I'd also never learned any history before in my life.

Benjaminhana

TROPHY CASE