Does evolution mean progress and does it always destroy the past?

Question

Ignore judgemental issues like good and bad, please.

++ progress in this case is not to be seen in a judgemental way. it is only meant as in the train progresses from point a to b. destroy in this case might be compared to the sea destroying our coastline. not good and bad. just an observable fact.

++ goodness, all i am getting is a elementary recitation of evolutionary theory 101, the survey course. thanks anyway, i learned that 40 years ago.

++ i guess i had hoped a social anthropolists or something along that line would address my question not genetic fundamentalists.

++ BAD LIBERAL is right about one thing. He has no idea. Obviously lacks reading skills necessary to succeed. Born loser.

Answer 1

Evolution doesn't destroy the past at all.

Any mutation, whether it get magnified by the processes of natural selection or not, occurs in a single individual. All the rest of the species continue as they were.

If that mutation provides enough reproductive or survival advantages, it continues in increasing numbers. If it is a dominant mutation, an increasingly greater percentage of the population will manifest it. But the predecessor genes will continue in the gene pool. If/when conditions change so that the mutation is no longer advantageous relative to the predecessor genes or other mutations, then it will recede in numbers and others will become more common.

Evolution is adaptation, not destruction. That's why there are still apes and monkeys and bonoboes.

Answer 2

No. "Progress" is in part an illusion caused by looking at evolutionary trees from a human point of view.

Evolution takes a species and its descendents in whatever direction natural selection determines provides the "best adaptation to a particular niche.

The most "evolved" organisms are those that have travelled furthest from their ancestors. Sometimes the direction is toward increased complexity, sometimes decreased, and usually a combination.

The tendency to see more complex organisms as evolutionary time progresses from the simplest organisms is because there is a limitation to how simple an organism can get and still reproduce itself.

Answer 3

i spose you could look at evolution as progressing. but i learnt about it at school. evolution means to change features of your body etc to be able to survive in a new environment etc. its an interesting subject.

to get to the destroying the past bit... i have no idea. our world has changed so much since the start and we have researched it so much that we have discovered what we might have looked like many many years ago, as to destroying the past, i guess its only in your opinion to what you might think as destroyed

Answer 4

Evolution has nothing to do with "progress" as we understand it. It is to do with adapting to an environment, or go extinct. Ants are best adapted for their environment, daisies for theirs, sharks for theirs. None could survive in the others' environment. So there is no "better" or "worse" about how a species adapts - only whether it can survive. Humans are good at what we do, but sharks are better in their own environment.

I've no idea what you mean by destroying the past.

Answer 5

Do you mean actual evolution?

Mutation is random, but natural selection is not; in that sense evolution is progressive. New generations represent change; the past is in the past, and is different from the present and future.

Answer 6

I would say that evolution does mean progress. It does not destroy the past, it is built on the past.

Answer 7

No, it doesn't mean progress at all. It means adaptation for survival. In certain cases, like nuclear strike, we are at a disadvantage with cockroaches who can survive it.

Answer 8

yes, it does kinda mean progress. Dostroy the past? what do you mean? i don't see how it could destroy the past.