The inevitability of evolution?

[PrimalMinister]

Given that we have an environment with water, land and air, wasn't it inevitable we ended up with things swimming in water, walking on land and flying in the air?

For example, evolution might produce random 'wing' designs but only the ones that are areodynamic will work, meaning wings have a certain inevitability.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Given that we have an environment with water, land and air, wasn't it inevitable we ended up with things swimming in water, walking on land and flying in the air?

yes  

[Itoero]

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Given that we have an environment with water, land and air, wasn't it inevitable we ended up with things swimming in water, walking on land and flying in the air?

For example, evolution might produce random 'wing' designs but only the ones that are areodynamic will work, meaning wings have a certain inevitability.

Land air and water need to have the correct ingredients/chemicals/composition for life to develop . And many factors can inhibit or block the development/evolution of life.

Mars used to have a more dense atmosphere and it might have had life but when the magnetic field of Mars got destroyed, the atmosphere got thinner and probably destroyed life. In 2020 Nasa sends a rover that will steal rocks….'we' can then analyse those rocks to see if there was life.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Itoero

[Strange]

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Given that we have an environment with water, land and air, wasn't it inevitable we ended up with things swimming in water, walking on land and flying in the air?

For example, evolution might produce random 'wing' designs but only the ones that are areodynamic will work, meaning wings have a certain inevitability.

Yes. As long as a mechanism for evolution exists: some form of heritability of characteristics, variation in the population, source of new variation, etc.

[MonDie]

Probability depends on the perspective.  If determinism is true, life always had a 100% chance.

On 3/6/2019 at 6:05 AM, PrimalMinister said:

For example, evolution might produce random 'wing' designs but only the ones that are areodynamic will work, meaning wings have a certain inevitability.

Language is a map of internal map of the external world.  Our concepts are within, but they come from without. If an instantiation of some concept, e.g. the wing concept, has to meet functional criteria, e.g. allowing aerodynamic flight, then the notion of a non-functional, never-functional wing is absurd.

Maybe you can clarify?

[QuantumT]

On 3/6/2019 at 1:05 PM, PrimalMinister said:

Given that we have an environment with water, land and air, wasn't it inevitable we ended up with things swimming in water, walking on land and flying in the air?

For example, evolution might produce random 'wing' designs but only the ones that are areodynamic will work, meaning wings have a certain inevitability.

There's nothing inevitable about life. The first living cell was a true miracle. A miracle that included two very complex ingredients and one amazing ability: RNA, the mitochondrion and the ability to split into two identical entities. It baffles me to just think about it.
Many theists think this is a sign of divine intervention, but it really is just crazy crazy luck!

[Strange]

54 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

There's nothing inevitable about life.

There might be. We don't know enough about the conditions necessary.

54 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

The first living cell was a true miracle.

Really? Or maybe inevitable.

[QuantumT]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

There might be. We don't know enough about the conditions necessary.

Really? Or maybe inevitable.

You might be right. I guess it's a matter of perspective, until we get a clear reply from research.

Edited March 10, 2019 by QuantumT

[Phi for All]

17 hours ago, QuantumT said:

There's nothing inevitable about life.

It's more efficient than non-life at using and dissipating light as energy for work, so it seems inevitable given enough time. 

[CharonY]

17 hours ago, QuantumT said:

A miracle that included two very complex ingredients and one amazing ability: RNA, the mitochondrion and the ability to split into two identical entities.

Well, consider the fact that most cells do not possess mitochondria, for starters.

[SerengetiLion]

On 3/10/2019 at 6:09 PM, QuantumT said:

There's nothing inevitable about life. The first living cell was a true miracle. A miracle that included two very complex ingredients and one amazing ability: RNA, the mitochondrion and the ability to split into two identical entities. It baffles me to just think about it.
Many theists think this is a sign of divine intervention, but it really is just crazy crazy luck!

Oh my, I feel the same exact way, all life just frigging happened, period, with no help or intervention from a being that had any kind of process to make a plan with any desired outcome.

[QuantumT]

13 minutes ago, SerengetiLion said:

Oh my, I feel the same exact way, all life just frigging happened, period, with no help or intervention from a being that had any kind of process to make a plan with any desired outcome.

I just expressed my own personal - non evidence based - opinion. But please note that I am not a theist!

[swansont]

 

3 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

I just expressed my own personal - non evidence based - opinion. But please note that I am not a theist!

 

!

Moderator Note

This is posted in a science section, so please keep personal opinions out of it.

 

[QuantumT]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

!

Moderator Note

This is posted in a science section, so please keep personal opinions out of it.

 

Understood.

But we're debating, and debates - even scientific ones - are always colored by points of view.

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

Understood.

But we're debating, and debates - even scientific ones - are always colored by points of view.

!

Moderator Note

Which have to be based on evidence and/or models, and you went out of your way to point out yours was not evidence-based.

 

[QuantumT]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Which have to be based on evidence and/or models, and you went out of your way to point out yours was not evidence-based.

 

Duly noted!

[Polinski]

On 3/6/2019 at 7:05 AM, PrimalMinister said:

Given that we have an environment with water, land and air, wasn't it inevitable we ended up with things swimming in water, walking on land and flying in the air?

For example, evolution might produce random 'wing' designs but only the ones that are areodynamic will work, meaning wings have a certain inevitability.

Manta rays have wings in the water, with zero aerodynamics and sharks and rays are among the longest surviving best suited organisms on the planet

[Moontanman]

12 hours ago, Polinski said:

Manta rays have wings in the water, with zero aerodynamics and sharks and rays are among the longest surviving best suited organisms on the planet

Both air and water can be thought of as fluids, manta rays wing allow them to fly through water but air is not supportive enough to allow sharks to swim through it. Manta rays and other free swimming rays evolved from flat blotten dwelling rays and evolution seldom results in new structures but it does act on old ones... A Manta ray can fly through the water very fast as can other free swimming rays. The shape of a Manta ray is quite aerodynamic, see delta wing jets... 

[Phi for All]

14 hours ago, Polinski said:

Manta rays have wings in the water, with zero aerodynamics

As Moontanman points out, you're wrong here. In the denser medium of water, mantas "fly", albeit more like an airplane than a bird since they don't need to constantly flap their wings to move and remain "aloft". With that bit of ignorance dispelled, has your objection to the opening post changed? 

[Polinski]

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

As Moontanman points out, you're wrong here. In the denser medium of water, mantas "fly", albeit more like an airplane than a bird since they don't need to constantly flap their wings to move and remain "aloft". With that bit of ignorance dispelled, has your objection to the opening post changed? 

Wrong again, mantas do not fly. They swim with wings, do you really think a 3000lb ray would be able to fly

Edited June 21, 2019 by Polinski

[Moontanman]

20 minutes ago, Polinski said:

Wrong again, mantas do not fly. They swim with wings, do you really think a 3000lb ray would be able to fly

I guess birds do not fly either, they swim through the air with wings? 

[Polinski]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

I guess birds do not fly either, they swim through the air with wings? 

Birds do not fly under water, that is true.  They can dive or swim however.  

[Moontanman]

23 minutes ago, Polinski said:

Birds do not fly under water, that is true.  They can dive or swim however.  

You are so very wrong, some sea birds do indeed fly underwater, penguins for one and even sea birds that fly in air use their wings the very same way under water. I've actually seen this personally while scuba diving but it's shown on many nature shaws as well.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Moontanman

[Polinski]

4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

You are so very wrong, some sea birds do indeed fly underwater, penguins for one and even sea birds that fly in air use their wings the very same way under water. I've actually seen this personally while scuba diving but it's shown on many nature shaws as well.

Wrong again as penguins are not capable of flight.  

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, Polinski said:

Wrong again as penguins are not capable of flight.  

The other sea birds I mentioned do both and with the same wing movements...