Is evolution efficient as its designs?

>>8467005

(OP) or better yet, does it tend toward efficient designs?

>>8467010

If it means it will be better at generating offspring, yes. Otherwise no.

Evolution can only tend towards to the local optimum instead of a global optimum. These means that there will likely never evolve an organism with wheels despite wheels being more efficient than limbs

>>8467005
>>8467010
sometimes yes, sometimes no.

there is a vein (or artery or nerve) that starts at the head, goes AAALLLL the way down to the stomach around and back up to where it started.

it pretty important, too. I forgot its name though, maybe someone better versed in human anatomy could refresh my memory?

>>8467034
I think you're thinking of the vagus nerve.

>>8467005
does "efficient" even mean anything with respect to evolution? how could evolution be efficient if it doesn't have a task?

>>8467192

well i mean are the phenotypes themselves efficient? so like how many other ways could you arrange any phenotype - in a less complex but biologically plausible way - without changing the behaviour or morphology of the rest of the organism/organism as a whole.

The only mechanism is evolution is death. Everything evolves without direction, or along lines of entropy, or for any "reason". There may be local reasons you assign, but they cannot even be correlated with survival when there are so many reasons things die.

Species are here and look like they do because the trillions of others in their past are not here.

It is pure sophistry to say that the bird has a long bill so that it can get nectar from the deep flower, without also saying the deep flower also evolved and had a role, or that the shallow flowers and the shallow billed birds died out because of a disease in either the bird, so the flower couldn't pollinate, or the flower, so the bird starved, leaving shallow long billed birds and deep flowers.

The fossil record holds the smallest fraction of the variety of species that have ever lived. Your stories of specialization as cause and effect are just another lie in the way you tell your stories.

Everything changes; most things die. What is here, is; What is not, isn't.

There is no design or reason for survival; only reasons for death, most of which have nothing to do with whether you had a specific trait or not. It is incredibly myopic to think so.

>>8467336

wow, pretty heavy! i just said design because its easy to say but see >>8467298 for a better description of what i meant without implying teleology. i was just wondering if there are reasons for which evolution might tend to less complex phenotypes. they dont have to be teleological but can be explanations that appeal to physics or selection. the original motive of the question was because i was wondering if - if i were comparing possible two biologically plausible arrangements for a phenotype, would complexity be a reason in one choice being more likely than the other and if so, would that to an extent conflate the penalties for complexity when comparing models of these phenotypes.

>>8467405

sorry, if not, would that to an extent conflate*

>>8467010
Evolution is a biological optimization algorithm. It finds local maximums. It doesn't always take the shortest route, though.

>>8467026
The assumption being that evolution doesn't promote intelligence in the form of organisms that try to direct their own development. Your assumption is demonstrably false.

>>8467336
It's not death or change that guards evolution. It's time and physical universe filled with other agents that can adapt.
Time passes in a blink of an eye. How can anything be made to last? Evolution has found the answer and it is reproduction. Funny thing is that reproduction does not only apply to biology it also applies to technology too. The cars you see on the streets are reproduction. The phones you have in your pocket also are also tied to reproduction. Out of all the possible solution to existence, reproduction is the only one that time won't be able to eliminate.
>>8467441
It's more than an optimization program. It uses representation in the form of dna (same way a blueprint is used) and interactions of population through sex. Evolution is an intelligent process. It is able to produce us. Funny thing is that human beings assume consciousness is at the heart of intelligent but it is not. Adaptation and the ability find and utilize patterns in an environment is intelligence.

>>8467041
I dont think thats it. The one I mean starts at the neck somewhere, makes a gigantic and completely useless detour all around and ends within a few centimeters of where it started.
it's a very important artery (I think it's an artery) too and used as an example against intelligent design

>>8468155

its the nerve that controls your voice. it should just go from your head to your voicebox but some bone got in the way i think during evolution from fish

>>8467502

i think theres a tradeoff between reproduction rate and the complexity costs for an organisms flexibility to an extent.

>>8467005
Efficient? Hell, no. It's the design equivalent of bogosort. But it's incredibly robust.

>>8467026
> Evolution can only tend towards to the local optimum instead of a global optimum.
Random mutation provides annealing.

>>8468273
provides what?

>>8468273
>Random mutation
Game show host: "Random mutation, meet non-random selection!"

>>8467026
>He thinks energy efficiency is the only parameter to optimize.

A wheel doesn't work in the mountains, or doesn't last long in sand, or water, or on anything that isn't a fucking road.

You are confusing the optimal energy consumption and the optimal survival strategy against for a given cost function.
Energy consumption is part the of cost function, but it is not the only thing that matters.

>>8468632

i think he was just using wheels as an example tbf.