I don't think that success as a species has any relevance for any species other than humanity. All other species just do their thing, and have done forever.
Poll: How would you measure a species' success?
- Thread starter FireDr@gon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm noticing that this is all very human-centric. And considering what we've done to the planet, I'm not sure I like that.
I'm going to buck the trend, and vote for the Ants. Yes, the ants win. Because they developed agriculture loooooong before we did.
I'm going to buck the trend, and vote for the Ants. Yes, the ants win. Because they developed agriculture loooooong before we did.
None of the above.
Longevity is not a measure of success, since there are species that have been around since forever with little change and I'd hardly call them "successful". Case in point: the Lingula genus, a bunch of living fossil clam-like animals that are basically identical since 488 million years ago and are quite happy to dwell the seas in little numbers. A specie's longevity says nothing about how it's likely to expand to new environments and to progress to more advanced forms.
Number of individual is a flawed measure since it mixes apples with oranges. A species might benefit for having a large number of individual but at the same time the large numbers can be detrimental. An excess of population might lead to resource depletement, which puts it at risk of extiction. Collapsing under your own weight is something that happened before, and let's not forget that many extict species litteraly dominated the environment in large numbers before disappearing.
Wide range of habitats leads to speciation. Meaning that the same species is likely to split into different species when natural barriers and genetic drift come into play. How can you say that one specie is successful when it split? By definition it's not the same species anymore. No species is habitat-generalist and keeps being that way for long.
Longevity of individual is meaningless. An individual may live for 100 years and still not contribute to the genetic pool of a specie. A long life means more resources to live and reproduce. The species that live a long life are most of the time endangered (Galapagos turtles, chimps, whales...) because living for that long is something very few species can afford, and if they don't due to changes in the habitat, they risk extinction.
Adaptability is not something you "have". A species is not inherently more adaptable than another. Adapting means that the random genetic mutations that a species possess are just the ones that give more chances to survival in the context of natural selection for that specific environment, and that's completely out of control of a individual. A species is successful because it managed to adapt in that particular situation, not because it's "adaptable" and such more likely to succeed. The same adaptation in a certain context is good, in another context is very bad. The term is so unhelpful in evolutionary studies that scientist are starting to not use it anymore (and adopted the more fitting "exaptation" concept).
Complexity doesn't mean a better species. The organic being that the Earth the most since the beginning is the simple bacteria. An overly complex biological systems is less likely to succeed in the long run due to the constant shift in the environmental features. Something that is complex can fail more easily that something that is simple but functional. Also, as Stephen Jay Gould said, there is a wall of minimum complexity for something to be considered alive, and the large majority of the living creatures on the planet has a structure that puts them very close to this wall. Natural selection strives for simplicity.
Intelligence? Define intellingence. There is no clear accepted definition for it, therefore using it as a measure of success is out of question.
In evolutionary terms, what measures the "success" of a individual and its species is, and will always be, darwinian fitness. How much offspring do you produce? How long do they survive? How much do they manage to reproduce themselves, thus ensuring the survival of your genes? The species that manage to reproduce and survive the most are the successful ones, and nothing else. It's as simple as that.
Fitness (relative to your species or absolute) is the central idea of evolution. Without it, all discourse on what is a good species or adaptation is without a compass. A species is successful because its fitness is high enough in that particular situation. Of course, no one lives forever and even the fittest species is doomed to extinction sooner or later.
The entire definition of species (the one that is mostly used within the science community) is based on reproduction. A species is a group of individual that can reproduce with each other (sexually or with other means). Therefore, the offspring is the only measure that counts. All of the measurement OP proposed are either a consequence of fitness (number of individual, longevity...) or unclearly defined (intelligence, adaptability, complexity...)
It goes without saying that a young species such as ours (Homo sapiens) can't really afford the presumption to call itself "successful" after being around on this planet for 300-400 thousand years tops.
Longevity is not a measure of success, since there are species that have been around since forever with little change and I'd hardly call them "successful". Case in point: the Lingula genus, a bunch of living fossil clam-like animals that are basically identical since 488 million years ago and are quite happy to dwell the seas in little numbers. A specie's longevity says nothing about how it's likely to expand to new environments and to progress to more advanced forms.
Number of individual is a flawed measure since it mixes apples with oranges. A species might benefit for having a large number of individual but at the same time the large numbers can be detrimental. An excess of population might lead to resource depletement, which puts it at risk of extiction. Collapsing under your own weight is something that happened before, and let's not forget that many extict species litteraly dominated the environment in large numbers before disappearing.
Wide range of habitats leads to speciation. Meaning that the same species is likely to split into different species when natural barriers and genetic drift come into play. How can you say that one specie is successful when it split? By definition it's not the same species anymore. No species is habitat-generalist and keeps being that way for long.
Longevity of individual is meaningless. An individual may live for 100 years and still not contribute to the genetic pool of a specie. A long life means more resources to live and reproduce. The species that live a long life are most of the time endangered (Galapagos turtles, chimps, whales...) because living for that long is something very few species can afford, and if they don't due to changes in the habitat, they risk extinction.
Adaptability is not something you "have". A species is not inherently more adaptable than another. Adapting means that the random genetic mutations that a species possess are just the ones that give more chances to survival in the context of natural selection for that specific environment, and that's completely out of control of a individual. A species is successful because it managed to adapt in that particular situation, not because it's "adaptable" and such more likely to succeed. The same adaptation in a certain context is good, in another context is very bad. The term is so unhelpful in evolutionary studies that scientist are starting to not use it anymore (and adopted the more fitting "exaptation" concept).
Complexity doesn't mean a better species. The organic being that the Earth the most since the beginning is the simple bacteria. An overly complex biological systems is less likely to succeed in the long run due to the constant shift in the environmental features. Something that is complex can fail more easily that something that is simple but functional. Also, as Stephen Jay Gould said, there is a wall of minimum complexity for something to be considered alive, and the large majority of the living creatures on the planet has a structure that puts them very close to this wall. Natural selection strives for simplicity.
Intelligence? Define intellingence. There is no clear accepted definition for it, therefore using it as a measure of success is out of question.
In evolutionary terms, what measures the "success" of a individual and its species is, and will always be, darwinian fitness. How much offspring do you produce? How long do they survive? How much do they manage to reproduce themselves, thus ensuring the survival of your genes? The species that manage to reproduce and survive the most are the successful ones, and nothing else. It's as simple as that.
Fitness (relative to your species or absolute) is the central idea of evolution. Without it, all discourse on what is a good species or adaptation is without a compass. A species is successful because its fitness is high enough in that particular situation. Of course, no one lives forever and even the fittest species is doomed to extinction sooner or later.
The entire definition of species (the one that is mostly used within the science community) is based on reproduction. A species is a group of individual that can reproduce with each other (sexually or with other means). Therefore, the offspring is the only measure that counts. All of the measurement OP proposed are either a consequence of fitness (number of individual, longevity...) or unclearly defined (intelligence, adaptability, complexity...)
It goes without saying that a young species such as ours (Homo sapiens) can't really afford the presumption to call itself "successful" after being around on this planet for 300-400 thousand years tops.
Just like to point out, people couldn't survive without bacteria. Also since bacteria have been around for way longer and live in more places that we do I gotta say bacteria is a more successful branch of life on those terms, however we are further down the evolutionary path than bacteria, its kinda unfair to compare advanced and concious multicellular organisms to those which are monolayer or colonies at best.
A healthy human has more bacterial cells in their body than human cells because of the vital role bacteria pay in our digestive system. So yep, bacteria have made it everywhere humans have... even France as the captcha mentioned.Keoul said:
Adaptability leads to longevity, longevity may lead to intellect which is complex and then it comes round to intellect leading to adaptability again.
A species adapts to live so I don't really get the whole measuring of success thing.
Edit:
I still don't get the whole success thing though.
A species adapts to live so I don't really get the whole measuring of success thing.
Edit:
Wow nice, you win this tread my friend.HEAVY IS JETPACK said:
I still don't get the whole success thing though.
Intelligence would be a very slippery slope to bring in this. Screw Mensa, you cannot measure a concept as immense and difficult to define.
What I find interesting about bacteria is they can bloody exhange genes like trading cards! How do they determine what the other cell has? How do they estimate which traits are useful now and in the future..? It's a completely different existance from what humans know.
Humans flourish as a species thanks to cultural evolution. That says nothing about the fitness of individual specimens. Any damage to infrastructure can leave cities, that is to say, large populations of humans, twisting in the wind.
Then again there is no species called bacteria, so you could just say the whole argument is moot and call it a day.
What I find interesting about bacteria is they can bloody exhange genes like trading cards! How do they determine what the other cell has? How do they estimate which traits are useful now and in the future..? It's a completely different existance from what humans know.
Humans flourish as a species thanks to cultural evolution. That says nothing about the fitness of individual specimens. Any damage to infrastructure can leave cities, that is to say, large populations of humans, twisting in the wind.
Then again there is no species called bacteria, so you could just say the whole argument is moot and call it a day.
Given that 99% of all species that have ever lived are not extinct, I'd say that if you're still around, you must be pretty successful.
I voted 'Wide range of habitats' on the basis that the most successful species would be those that have managed to colonize worlds beyond their native star system, thus safeguarding their species from being wiped out because "all of their eggs are in one basket".
