Intelligence without natural selection?

Question

Natural selection is not the only driving force of evolution. There are other mechanisms such as genetic drift, mutations, gene flow, etc... To what extent can these different mechanisms (which don't influence adaptation to new environments as much as natural selection) evolve a more 'complex' species than when there is no natural selection?

Using a very utopian example... imagine that the first living beings that appeared in the world had access to an infinite amount of resources and space. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection would not make sense because it wouldn't be necessary. However, there could be other mechanisms that allow evolution such as genetic drift.

In a world like that, would it be possible (even if it took a long time) to emerge certain 'complex' species with, for example, traits like intelligence (like human beings)? Or in this case, as there is no natural selection, species would evolve with just 'simple' variations like, for example, bacteria that reproduce faster than others?

Answer 1

The answer is yes, but really no. It’s probably true that things were kind of laid back at first for life. But selection was still going on. A strong wave might break the membrane, a strong wind or storm. A long cold winter. These were all selective. Selection comes with any sort of challenge, not just from other living things. Natural Selection sounds like Big Science but it has many simpler humbler forms. A good way of defining it here is that any different traits between two living things can be passed down to their progeny. If a trait conveys even a very small advantage to producing progeny that survive to reproduce themselves then it is selected.

What you are saying is that if a fantastical being appeared that were infinitely superior then it would not be part of natural selection. In fact 'genetic drift' 'mutations' and are the source of nearly all these advantages. An infinitely superior being as you describe would disappear without progeny that maintained the advantage you are right - no natural selection. If that being had progeny and they produced the same advantage it would be preserved by natural selection and part of natural selection as we all know it.

That being said it’s very hard for a large advantage to show up. Even let’s say naturally green hair hasn't shown up on many millennia of human selection. If such a mutation or 'genetic drift' showed up I’d bet that gene would be pretty popular and there would be a good number of green haired people around in about 100 years. But none have shown up. Why? Because it requires too many very unlikely events to happen at once.

It’s difficult to overturn a theory like Natural Selection. It’s really very simple at its base. "If you can print copies of a book, more people will read it." is a similar theory. It’s possible all the books would just show up on peoples' doorsteps sure. It could happen but in all human history it has not become a common experience. People do give books away but they almost always print them. People could give away books that were written at random or by throwing a die. It’s possible to even write a best seller that way. But it’s so improbable that you might wait until the end of the universe before you see it happen. Look at Borges' 'The Library of Babel' which dramatizes the odds you are talking about.

Answer 2

No

Large multicellular animals only have an advantage in resource conservation monopolization.

So with infinite resources and infinite space you won't have anything that could even have a brain.

In your situation reproductive speed is the only competition, which means a race to the simplest. You can't even get significant predators because prey is a limited resource.

When you throw around words like "infinite" most common sense starts to break down. Of course infinite can't exist in this context in a universe like ours, so it is just a thought experiment anyway.