You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Qiaochu_Yuan comments on Does evolution select for mortality? - Less Wrong Discussion

12 Post author: DanArmak 23 February 2013 07:33PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (55)
Tags: immortality evolution

Comments (55)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 23 February 2013 08:25:25PM *  4 points [-]

This seems to be blatant rationalization of a preconceived idea that death is good. (I doubt he truly believes that extra progress is worth everybody dying.) So perhaps his first statement is also a form of rationalization. But it seems improbable to me that he would make such a statement about biology if he didn't think it well-founded. More likely there's something I'm misunderstanding.

No, I think you're right. Eric Lander is a well-respected scientist in his field, but his field is not ethics.

How could a distinguished professor of biology, a leader of the HGP and advisor to the US President, get something so elementary wrong, when even a biology undergrad dropout like myself notices this seems wrong?

Reddit is not an academic paper. Biology has many subdisciplines and there's no reason to expect an expert in one subdiscipline to know everything about other subdisciplines. Your impressions are not necessarily accurate. Take your pick.

Comment author: DanArmak 23 February 2013 08:30:36PM 3 points [-]

Is the claim that evolution selects for mortality true?

Most organisms are mortal, so... yes?

The two alternatives (which I think are correct) is that immortal varieties either never arise in the first place, and so can't be selected; or else are always linked to some tradeoff or disadvantage which is selected against.

Your explanation is isomorphic to saying "most organisms die if heated to 100 degrees C, therefore evolution selects for organisms that die if heated". But the simpler explanation is that resistance to extreme heat never arises in the first place, or has a large associated cost whenever it appears. Not that such resistance is in itself harmful and selected against.

Eric Lander is a well-respected scientist in his field, but his field is not metaethics.

His field is biology, and this (seems to be) a fundamental error in biology (evolution).

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 23 February 2013 08:33:48PM *  2 points [-]

The two alternatives (which I think are correct) is that immortal varieties either never arise in the first place, and so can't be selected; or else are always linked to some tradeoff or disadvantage which is selected against.

Well, this is not true. Some organisms actually are immortal.

Your explanation is isomorphic to saying "most organisms die if heated to 100 degrees C, therefore evolution selects for organisms that die if heated". But the simpler explanation is that resistance to extreme heat never arises in the first place, or has a large associated cost whenever it appears. Not that such resistance is in itself harmful and selected against.

Yes, I noticed this, which is why I removed that part of my comment.

His field is biology, and this (seems to be) a fundamental error in biology (evolution).

Again, biology has many subdisciplines and there's no reason to expect an expert in one subdiscipline to know everything about other subdisciplines. And even experts occasionally make mistakes. I mean, seriously.

Comment author: DanArmak 23 February 2013 08:35:37PM 0 points [-]

Well, this is not true. Some animals actually are immortal.

Yes, and that is weak evidence against theories that say evolution selects against immortality.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit