Evolution and Our Thought Process

A common way for scientists to describe evolution and adaptation is to assign a purpose for the various features and behaviors that animals possess. For example: An anteater's long snout evolved to allow it access to out-of-the-way areas where its food lives. This wording insinuates that the animal evolved along a path, a direction, a plan. We also tend to mention that the goal of nature is survival, as if nature itself has an intelligent purpose. Remember, though, that species go extinct just as they survive; through the adaptations that either succeed or fail to prepare them for their ever-changing environment. It is important for scientists to remember this distinction when describing nature because the example above is not accurate for evolution; it suggests intelligent design.

Evolution, as we know, describes a series of random variations and mutations that take dominance over thousands of generations within every life form. Organisms that multiply very quickly, like viruses and bacteria, seem to evolve much faster because we can observe it right before our eyes. Meanwhile animals whose generations span many years appear to us as running in place. This distortion makes evolution difficult to grasp for many people who simply cannot imagine their future progeny, millions of years from now, with giant heads or tentacle fingers because they cannot see any difference in their ancestors. Part of the problem is our tendency to justify things or events with a reason for their happening; we are not happy just accepting happenstance as a result of random chance. It does not give our lives much meaning or context.

Looking at the adaptations we see today, it is hard to imagine that we are here right now as a result of purely random circumstance. Take syphilis as an example; with the advent of antibiotics, this strain of bacteria would certainly not survive today if it still worked like it used to 400 years ago. Back then, you would develop hideous boils on your face as a mark of your infection. In addition to hampering its carrier's mating agenda, syphilis can easily be treated with modern medicine. So, what does it do? It goes hidden. Today's strains of syphilis have subtle symptoms that are not easily detected. This allows the bacteria to spread amongst unaware sexual partners. Now, the idea that syphilis' adaptation was guided by some intelligence would certainly have a little clout if not for the fact that many other strains of bacteria have faded from existence in the same time span as a direct result of their own "adaptations."

Can organisms without self-awareness or technology evolve in directions that they intend? Is there intelligence or choice involved in the existence of the species that are alive today, or is this all a function of circumstance? Its easy to look back at history and say, "Everything that has happened thus far was necessary for this very moment to occur." This is true and it depends on your belief in whether an invisible guiding hand exists or not to answer the questions. This kind of thinking is unique to humans.

The larger fallacy at hand here is our present-to-past view of our world. Being naturally self-serving animals, humans possess intelligence that coddles their sense of importance. We often forget that intelligence is only a function of a large brain, subject to its own design flaws (as explained by the field of behavioral economics). These flaws influence us to create justifications for things that happened in the past as part of a scheme, possibly because our sense of worth has outgrown the reality of our existence. It is easy to look at something that has happened and then come up with evidence for why it did. Isn't it strange, though, that with everything we know about the past, we still cannot predict the future?

Think of predicting the future as preventing it from even happening. If one person knew the secret to stock market success, others would follow and soon the financial environment would normalize around it. If we could predict 9/11 (conspiracy not withstanding) then we would have been able to prevent it. Since it did happen, we look back and piece together all the reasons why, as if they'll help us moving forward. The problem here is that we are using what we know as a gauge for what is possible. That is, until something else comes along and exploits what we don't know; another attack, or the recent shootings at Fort Hood. Then we'll start the justification process all over again, hoping for the best. We are not comfortable considering it's likely that what we don't know far outweighs what we do.

I ask you what is more valuable: a shelf full of books that you've read, or one full of books you haven't?