Evolution

[Peregrine]

The problem people have with believing in evolution is that it shows that humans are definitely not the best that there can be, that we were in all likelihood a giant mistake on the part of natural selection. I mean, look at how humans have treated the environment, each other, and other species in their quest for continual advancement. There is only one other organism on this planet that travels from place to place, staying in one spot only long enough to take all the resources that it has to offer, reproduce wildly, then leave for the next fertile patch. That is a virus. Humans could well be called a virus of the planet, because of our willingness to destroy it to gain material wealth for ourselves. (For those of you for whom this sounds familiar, think of the Matrix)

Yes, humans could be considered a parasite, but a mistake? Natural Selection is about survival of the fittest. We have proven that we can survive anything, even ourselves. That shows, there, that e are the fittest, and, thus, not a mistake. A mistake in natural selection would be something like the dodo bird as the dominant species. We may not treat the environment the way most animals do, but that doesn't mark us as a 'mistake'. Evolution doesn't care if everything destroys itself, as long as the strong live on and the weak die out.

 

This is another common misconception. Evolution doesn't deal in "strong vs. weak". The only thing that matters is how good an organism (really, a set of genes) is at surviving to maturity and reproducing. Humans aren't "stronger" than everything else, we just happen to be well-adapted to reproducing in a specific environment. From an evolutionary perspective, "weak" bacteria are just as successful as humans, if not more so (consider the relative numbers of humans vs. bacteria).

 

If you doubt this, just look at predators vs. prey. In every sense of "strong vs. weak", the predator has a clear advantage. The prey should be quickly driven extinct, but clearly that doesn't happen. Predators and prey both go extinct, at relatively similar rates. Why? Because the two sets of genes are equally good at getting reproduced. The "weak" prey is well-adapted to surviving in its role, and produces enough surplus offspring to offset losses from predators. So unlike your misconception, the weak DO survive.

[Marcus Wolfe]

Ok, here goes:

Peregrine (in response to PM):

At one point, supposedly the beginning of time, all 4 forces of the universe (gravity, electromagnetism, nuclear fusion and nuclear fission) were all bound up into one very small particle. All the mass in the universe was in the form of photons (energy). Suddenly, that changed. In less than a second, serious mass was gained, protons neutrons and electrons came into existance. I am not saying the thought of something with higher levels of thinking deliberatly caused this to happen is an absolute fact, I actually think it's quite unlikely, but isn't it something temptingly easy to believe?

Everybody else:

No, man did not start out scavenging meat. We started out even lower than that, picking bugs from eachother's fur coats. As we moved out from the forest and into the grasslands, a multitude of things happened:

a) we lost our fur

b)the ability to walk on 2 legs allowed us to see over the tall grass

c) we started finding dead bodies (more than in the forest) which we ate, overcompensating for the lack of ticks in our diet (in terms of protein)

 

After a while, we decided that waiting for animals to die didn't get us enough meat, and seeing that the other predators didn't like sharing, so we decided to kill them for ourselves.

 

Peregrine( To last post):

Are you trying to say that there's a difference between strong and well adapted? Good! Because that's exactly right! If the weak died, why do mice still exist? However......

I must disagree with you. The weak (and by weak I mean not well adapted) do not survive. The applies to both species and individuals.

For species, let's say we have a Mammal and a reptile. Both are around the same size, at the top of the food chain, and both eat lesser mammals. They live in a fair climate, with colder winters. The mammal copes with winter by quickly growing a fur coat in response to enviromental changes. The reptile copes with winter by laying eggs in a warm spot before the first frost so that, while the adults die off, the young hatch in the spring. If an unexpected Ice age hits, the mammal (both the predator and the lesser prey mammal) will survive. The mammal will only shed it's coat in response to enviromental changes and it's prey wasn't killed off by the ice age, so it should be able to survive the longer than expected winter. But the reptiles are goners. Even if the cold didn't kill off the adults before they layed any eggs, the hatchlings will not survive because in 'spring' when they hatch it'll be -15. This, of course, presumes the reptiles don't migrate or mutate.

 

For individuals, we have 2 cases, one for predators and one for prey:

Wolves only breed once a year, and only the alpha pair(the pack leaders, usually superior to the others in almost every way) get to. This ensures the best offspring possible. Around mating season, of course, is when most of the in-pack fighting occurs, because every male is trying to beat the alpha male. This isn't just for mating, it's a respect thing too. Less social predators (like tigers) will try somethign like this, but being the alpha doesn't give you the right to breed, it means access to more females. (of course, with no females you can't breed with or without a right). Lower individuals still breed, just with less females. They can do this because with tigers, the weak will have a slimmer chance of survival because no one will feed them when they can't catch their own food and die. Wolves, on the other hand, will feed their their weaklings (such low ranked wolves usually guard the cubs whilst the rest of the pack hunts) they must ensure that the weak aren't too weak with selective breeding, so that there are less weak in the first place .

 

Vegeterian herd animals usually gather in herds of females, and, with the exception of elephants who hang out in bull herds most of the year, the males wander around. Males often find themselves in the tiger situaion, fighting for access to the most females. When an elk is born, it must be strong, for the wolves will test it. They will chase young elk around , if it appears to be fast and have a lot of stamina, they will leave it alone. But if it is slow and /or tires easily, they will not hesistate to kill it. Wolves will also chase adults, to find and kill any other flawed or uselsss elk.Like the old (no longer able to produce, just slows down herd) the sick (may pass around disease, may have weak immune system, slows herd down) the crippled (slows herd down) and the stupid (slows down herd, has stupidity in it's genes, makes self easy target for preadtors)

 

So you see, the weak being weeded out doesn't just go for the genetically faulted, it goes for the prey indivduals that have nothign good to offer and are just taking up space, food and air.

[KzinistZerg]

OK, my two cents on the matter...

 

I've have read Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion." Some of the things he said struck me as somewhat harsh and a bit overstated... But I was unable to formulate any argument other than "well I don't like it." That being said, for 99.9% of his book, I wholeheartedly agree. I encourage you all to read it (and his other works on evolution, a most fascinating topic) when you can.

 

So...

 

* The origins of (primitive) life itself. Note that despite popular misconception, this is NOT a part of the Theory of Evolution, I simply include it here because it may be interesting.

 

* Any of the assorted "scientific" arguments against evolution (entropy/thermodynamics, etc).

 

* The "missing link" problem, if you believe one exists.

 

* For those of you who generally agree with me, but have questions/disagreements about the specific details (punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism, etc) , feel free to post them.

 

* The concepts of empiricism and the scientific method, and whether they are capable (or the best method) of finding the truth of the universe.

 

Origin of life: I am not sure about this, but, so what if it's horrendously unlikely?

 

It only had to happen once.

 

Plus Scientific American ran a great article on it in... a recent month's issue involving evolution of chemical cycles.

 

Missing link: Bull. How can you expect every ancestor for the past billion or so years to be fossilized?

 

Punctuated/Gradualism: I think both happened. And since mutations very rarely actually have an effect, once sex was invented* evolution sped up a LOT. Basically every time someone found* something new the equilibrium would go "BOING" and shoot out of balance. Then it would stabilize again. I guess mainly there wasn't a huge amount of change per generation, until something came along and whacked the species out of balance.

 

Sci-Method: We're built* to be pleased at certain effects. I know my own goal in life is to have fun, not in a frivolous way, but I can explain more if anyone cares.

 

*WARNING: terms are not correct. I'm not attributing intelligence or design here; English is just pitifully unfit for a good passive sort of discussion.

[Crisb92]

Yes, it only had to happen once. I recently read a rather good account of science, if a bit less technical, called 'A Short History of Nearly Everything', by Bill Bryson. Something that I read in there inspired me to post this. If 'time' stretched back forever, and forward forever, even though there was no time before the Big Bang, then there must have been many instances in which a universe came into being. This significantly reduces the odds against life developing.

 

This is like saying, after the event, 'Wow, I saw the number plate with 1 A07 475 (insert your countries equivalent), what are the chances of that! And yet, in all likelihood one of these events had to happen, whether this or another number plate, to continue the analogy. So in a way, life and evolution were inevitable, and because of this may have existed in other universes, may exist elsewhere in this one and will most definitely exist in the 'future' or after this galaxy has once again become a singularity because of the uneven forces acting upon it.

 

This also gives rise to the possibility of a 'supreme being' existing in a place with difference universal laws, but I don't think I'll go there. (He says knowingly)

[Marcus Wolfe]

WOAHWOAHWOAH.......slow down.

We don't actually have any proof there are any other universes YET(although if there was any I'd like to see it) so let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Personally, I don't know why anybody still believes in the Bible. I don't mean to offend any religious persons, I have nothing against people who believe there is a god, but I do not trust the Bible. No geographical evidence exists that a major flooding of the earth happened after the rise of man (heck, I don't even think there's enough water in the world to flood everywhere!) We never did find the lost arc, we never found the garden of Eve and Adam (even though we have mapped the entire world and even parts of the moon) and it's a simple fact that getting eaten by a whale results in death, even if it regurgitates you up a few weeks later.

People gathered together in the ancient times and tried to explain the phenomina around them, like weather, why the sun rises everyday, lightning, why trees grow, etc. They made gods to explain these events, and satisfy their curiosity. But why do we still need these gods when we have an explaination for everything?

Simple, we don't. Religion's time is up. It is time for science to take over.

[Crisb92]

I accept your scepticism of the multiple universes comment, it hasn't been proven, and really it is unlikely that it ever will, I was just including it for the implications that it creates.

 

Even without proof the multiple universes concept is quite likely, as universes do not last for ever and either expand or dilate, almost never staying at the critical size needed for the heavier elements to form and stay together to form planets and all other physical substances. So, as there was no true beginning, and will be no end, it is incredibly likely that other universes did, and will exist, even if humans cannot truly comprehend them.

 

While the bible literally concentrates on events that cannot happen (there isn't enough water, frozen or otherwise, to cover the Earth) when analysed intelligently it, like any other religious text, or religion for that matter, concentrates on ways we should live our lives. In all likelihood supreme beings are just the 'moderators' of life, there to explain the mysteries and to control the people who believe in a religion.

 

I believe that some of what they teach, such as tolerance and a healthy level of pacifism can actually help us, even if we still refuse to believe in a god.

 

Oh, and good on the Trilobites, the origin of the structures we see in life today, and the reason for this comment: 'Oh f***, not another phylum.' (Conway Morris)

[Marcus Wolfe]

Actually, about this universe thing......

before the big bang, all matter was in the form of energy. The big bang was when it lost momentum and gained mass. So......theoretically, there could have been a universe before the big bang. Of course, if we only count it as the universe if it has mass, there's a 50/50 chance the theory's wrong. 50% chance the universe was always pure energy before the big bang, making the theory wrong, and 50% chance that there was mass but it was all convertedd to energy before the big bang, making the theory right. Actually, when you consider how difficult it would be to convert all the mass in the universe into energy, those stats are off. But whatever.

[Peregrine]

Ok, seriously people, READ THE DAMN FIRST POST AND STOP TALKING ABOUT RELIGION. It's against the forum rules, and Dark0ne has a personal problem with my anti-religious beliefs. If you somehow don't get my thread locked by yourselves, I guarantee it'll be done the moment I answer any of your comments. If you wish to debate it with me, my AIM screenname is listed in my profile, and I'll be happy to argue all you want. But don't get my thread locked.

 

 

 

And as for the idea of "weak vs. strong", my point is that it's a somewhat mistaken version of the theory. The issue is "'genes that are good at replicating' vs. 'genes that aren't'". In general, this tends to lead to species that are well-adapted, but it's not a necessary rule. A species can be "weak" in our opinion, but evolutionarily very successful, as long is it is still good at replicating its genes. For example, lets invent two hypothetical animals: animal A is "strong" and perfectly adapted, animal B is "weak" and falls well short of A. BUT... B reproduces 10x as fast as A. A is clearly the "fittest" and should survive, but B will quickly drive it to extinction by sheer numbers.

 

The main reason I bring this up is the misconception that all organisms are aranged in some pyramid of "fittest" with humans at the top. It doesn't work this way, evolution doesn't care one bit about how "fit" you are, it just cares about how well your genes replicate in your environment.

[Marxist ßastard]

before the big bang, all matter was in the form of energy. The big bang was when it lost momentum and gained mass. So......theoretically, there could have been a universe before the big bang.

Well, the problem with that statement is that talking about events before the universe's existence is like giving people advice on the best place to get gas if they're ever going North of the North Pole. Anything you could say about any property of the universe before its own existence --- before the existence of time itself --- is a logical impossibility. Thus, if you talk about events leading up to the Big Bang, you're already assuming that there was a universe before that event. Using that logic, I can tell you that the moon is made of cheese, pi is equal to exactly three, and the female orgasm is real.

 

Of course, if we only count it as the universe if it has mass, there's a 50/50 chance the theory's wrong. 50% chance the universe was always pure energy before the big bang, making the theory wrong, and 50% chance that there was mass but it was all convertedd to energy before the big bang, making the theory right. Actually, when you consider how difficult it would be to convert all the mass in the universe into energy, those stats are off. But whatever.

You're gravely misunderstanding some very basic principles of probability and statistics. If I flip a coin, there isn't a 25% chance that it lands heads-up, a 25% chance that it lands heads-down, a 25% chance that it falls perfectly-balanced on its side, and a 25% chance that it instantaneously sublimates and dissipates into a slight breeze. If I draw a card in a game of poker, there isn't a 30% chance that it's a face card and a 7.4% chance that it's actually from another game. A six-sided die doesn't have a 14% chance of being a sugar cube.

[KzinistZerg]

snip

 

Agreed. One thing to keep in mind is that evolution also deals with groups of genes. Groups of genes work to create environments in which certain genes flourish. For instance, "fang" genes on a tiger are good. If you gave them to a horse, however they'd be pointless. Theres several different layers of environmental evolution that go along with the base genes.