Biology-Online • View topic - Is evolution as simple as we think?
Login

Join for Free!
122498 members
Advertisement
Advertisement

Is evolution as simple as we think?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby wbla3335 » Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:29 pm

That's the best you can come up with after a week? I think I'll let the readers of this thread judge for themselves our relative levels of denial and scientific expertise. I only jumped into this thread briefly to clarify your position for others, which I think I have accomplished. Best of luck in some day freeing yourself from those beliefs of yours.
wbla3335
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:20 am

Postby animartco » Mon Aug 12, 2013 11:32 am

I think Biohazard has given the answer. Diversity had no need to start before the first life had spread right across the planet. Competition is the driving force of evolution, and before then there was none.
animartco
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:56 pm

Re: Is evolution as simple as we think?

Postby bioduchamp » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:26 pm

Cat wrote: If you put a live chicken in the fridge for a long time, it will die. There is no "response to environment", mutations at will, etc. However, if you put a million (billion?) chickens in the fridge - one or two might survive


i like this explanation!
Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science - in all of biology.
User avatar
bioduchamp
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:11 pm


Re: Is evolution as simple as we think?

Postby Vlad » Tue Jun 06, 2017 12:33 pm

Folks, let me to try and revive the thread. First, a question to dayren: what are the reasons to believe that “there was no evolution of lifeforms for 2 billion years after blue-green algae appeared 2.6 billion years ago”?
Second, are there reasons to believe that accidental (accidental!) mutations tend to happen in response to an environmental pressure? That is, does the probability of emergence of a chicken or two (out of million/billion of them), able to survive in the cold, depend on actual exposing a lot of chickens to low temperatures (fridge or no fridge)?
The very vision of biological evolution heavily depends on the answers to the above two questions.
Vlad
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 2:12 am

Re:

Postby GeniusIsDisruptive » Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:51 pm

thoffnagle wrote: However, we cannot predict (and neither can evolution) what traits will be beneficial in the future. If the traits weren't available, then no organism could take advantage of the conditions.


"If the traits weren't available"?

What on EARTH is that supposed to mean?

In response to the opening post, evolution is not just AS simple as we think, it is much SIMPLER.

1. Random mutation, almost always worthless or harmful, followed by

2. *Selection*, on the rarest of occasions when the *selection* is conducive to survival and higher rates of reproduction.

Thus we see that the end result of humanity is Darwinian Islam. Muslims reproduce as if that function was their prime directive.
And then millions of them kill, or support the killing, of those not their kind. This will, they insist, take place until all humans on earth are like them.

At the other extreme, atheists have far fewer children, and when they do father them, only ~30% retain their atheist beliefs into adulthood. For a group so enamoured with their own *intellectualism* and *rationality*, atheists aren't doing so well compared to those lovely Muslims.

Atheism - the ultimate Darwin Award Winner.
GeniusIsDisruptive
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:40 pm

Re:

Postby GeniusIsDisruptive » Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:59 pm

animartco wrote:I think Biohazard has given the answer. Diversity had no need to start before the first life had spread right across the planet. Competition is the driving force of evolution, and before then there was none.


"No need to start." Oh please.

Semantics and wordplay are not science, not truth, not common sense.

Random mutation is THE driving force of evolution, in theory. Pray tell, what precludes random mutations in organisms?

Anyone? Anyone? Anyone?

Now as to what, precisely, blue-green algae evolved INTO, nobody has stated, but given that the new organism is supposed to be more fit, better able to survive, why then did the blue-green algae continue living to this very day? That competitive advantage obviously didn't displace blue-green algae, or any other organism anybody can name.

Finally, a very interesting perspective on the "Tree of Life."
Darwin's original book had only one diagram, viz., the Tree of Life.
It was unlabeled as to any names, genera, species, anything. A barren stick tree, signifying nothing.

Today, the stick tree is much bigger, more colorful. But you note that only the tips are labeled, no branches, no base.
With all the billions spent on research and after 150 years of concerted effort, is this the best biologists can do? A tree with only tips named?
GeniusIsDisruptive
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2017 7:40 pm

Previous

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron