How did evolution get it right?

[Phi for All]

might i ask?

where did you pull the always out from?

thus it is inevitable if you think about it in terms of natural selection

the "fittest" individual will become dominant

and being bigger is fitter, simply because the little things cant harm you as much

For me, your original statement implied "always". The fittest will dominate (absolute) and being bigger is fitter (absolute).

 

Also, it was pointed out more than once that you were making a pretty broad generalization:

 

You're still missing the point. You can't use one scenario to decide what's best for all organisms.

... yet you chose not to respond to those posts and continued to defend the position, rather than amend it, until now.

[jp255]

But accepting this thought would suggest that evolution today is somehow superior to evolution 250 million years ago. I just don't think there is a good case for that assertion.

I agree, at the moment. It hasn't really been explored much, but if you compare evolution to man made evolutionary algorithms, one can potentially find solutions that can improve the rate of evolution (maybe it is best described at average fitness gain over generations, as opposed to the number of generations it takes to find fittest allele) and the other cannot (at the moment at least).

 

 

I can see how this might work for an organism with an extreme high fecundity rate and low generation time, but the outcome is statistically poorer for organisms that do not fall under those categories.

It is definitely something I would imagine to be more advantageous for a plant that is fixed in it's position than for an organism capable of movement. The problem is really determination of fitness, there are other examples of stress leading to heritable changes but no studies I know of have related them to increased fitness.

 

It seems to me, that it is a tremendous gamble for an organism that is placed under stress to respond by introducing more stress into the system (e.g. increased mutation rates).

 

That is exactly what it is. The risk of death is higher (assuming stress in an indicator), so more of a risk is taken in attempt to find fitness gains.

[dmaiski]

"You're still missing the point. You can't use one scenario to decide what's best for all organisms."

... yet you chose not to respond to those posts and continued to defend the position, rather than amend it, until now.

yes well...

1. evolution isn't linear, its more like a bomb explosion

2. it expands in all directions at once taking advantage of anything it can

3. one direction it expanded in was size (because it has features that are advantageous

4. it also expanded into: complexity, efficiency, specialisation, parasitism, symbiosis, photosynthesis, chemotrophics, and any environment you could possibly conceive

5. the question was interpreted to be about size(by me)

6. thus i limited my answer to size, i have no intention on writhing a book on this forum

 

(i see no reason as to why you insist on nitpicking on fine details and deciding my arguments towards a specific point must apply to everything)

thus i have amended my assumption that humans are intelligent creatures and will be adding explanations to the limitations of the argument with * as subscripts

Edited September 25, 2012 by dmaiski

[Phi for All]

(i see no reason as to why you insist on nitpicking on fine details and deciding my arguments towards a specific point must apply to everything)

thus i have amended my assumption that humans are intelligent creatures and will be adding explanations to the limitations of the argument with * as subscripts

Forgive me, but this doesn't seem as mature as simply admitting you might have overstated your position. And I'm sorry that answering your question about generalizations seems like nitpicking to you. It's often difficult to admit when we might have been wr... wr... wro... incorrect.

[Ben Banana]

So, we're being subjective here? Eh. Well, I'd say evolution got it terribly wrong. Evolution is a failure! Boooooooo! *cracks open a giant dinosaur foot shaped stamp subtracted with an 'F' and scornfully presses it into the desolate clay, then marks record into the universal grade-book of eternity with a cast of shame*

Edited September 25, 2012 by Ben Bowen

[dmaiski]

well there goes any hope of a logical discussion...

 

*at least me and Ben had humour with its complaints

**Ben brown has a point though, depending on how you look at it plants, or bacterium are far more evolved then humans

 

 

[jp255]

Ben brown has a point though, depending on

how you look at it plants, or bacterium are far more evolved then humans

 

Bacteria have had a few more generations to evolve than us, so that is expected. I wouldn't say evolution is a failure because bacteria have had more opportunities to evolve than we have. We still exist despite the extremely large difference in generation time, so there must have been some advantage to compensate for this.

[akh]

yes well...

1. evolution isn't linear, its more like a bomb explosion

2. it expands in all directions at once taking advantage of anything it can

3. one direction it expanded in was size (because it has features that are advantageous

4. it also expanded into: complexity, efficiency, specialisation, parasitism, symbiosis, photosynthesis, chemotrophics, and any environment you could possibly conceive

5. the question was interpreted to be about size(by me)

6. thus i limited my answer to size, i have no intention on writhing a book on this forum

 

(i see no reason as to why you insist on nitpicking on fine details and deciding my arguments towards a specific point must apply to everything)

thus i have amended my assumption that humans are intelligent creatures and will be adding explanations to the limitations of the argument with * as subscripts

 

I have know idea how you managed to think this entire thread was about size (retroactive attempt to show how you are right?) The title wasn't "How did evolution get everything bigger?" The point is, your original statement was just plain wrong. Then you tried to float your idea with logical arguments and analogies so full of holes that they only served to illustrate how poorly you understand evolution. You made accusations as to a relationship to size and redundancy, which you have yet to back up with anything. At every post, you are amending the original statement, moving the goal posts in attempt to show what "you really meant" and how your original statement was correct. Now you want to show how we, being unintelligent (yes another insult) are too stupid to understand what you are saying?

 

Give me a break! It not about nitpicking, its about being accurate with your statements. That is so the next guy that comes across this thread doesn't repeat the same garbage as fact. Broad sweeping generalizations will get you into a lot of trouble in the field of science, as will not being able to back up your claims, or failing to admit you are wrong. Congrats, you have done all three in a single thread.

 

And, you are still making strange wide-sweeping claims and analogies in your posts.

 

 

1. evolution isn't linear, its more like a bomb explosion.

 

Huh? Can you not see what is wrong with your verbiage?

 

well there goes any hope of a logical discussion...

 

*at least me and Ben had humour with its complaints

**Ben brown has a point though, depending on how you look at it plants, or bacterium are far more evolved then humans

 

 

 

Ben Brown? Did you mean Ben Bowen?

 

Also, you referred to Moontanman as "Moonman" earlier.

 

Way to pay attention to details!

 

 

 

[dmaiski]

akh

 

i don't quite see how you are advancing the discussion... (the previous post was inflammatory and irrelevant)

(the two posts before(Ben and Phi) were also more of the same but I took them in good humour since they were short and somewhat amusing...)

 

is there any better analogy to the way evolution has evolved to fill every single niche and environment on the planet?

another thing, my original post was in response to Tres Juicy, and was pointing out that the results of evolution are not entirely random

 

then you decided it was wrong, and i have no idea what fitness is

(i think you don’t... in biology its a MATHEMATICAL term used to describe the change in allele frequencies, morons(such as yourself) use it in discussions about evolution to derail topics, and have something to whine about, even though any reasonable person would have realized that the fitness the person is talking about is the colloquial definition (by the apparent lack of numbers, and equasions))

 

 

 

eventually with the help of moonman we get the topic back on track

 

now once again you are complaining about my analogies, unfortunately without them what i am explaining seems rather dry

 

(i needed to actually scroll back to find the context for what i said... really why are we arguing about this?)

 

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2012 by dmaiski

[Moontanman]

akh

 

i don't quite see how you are advancing the discussion... (the previous post was inflammatory and irrelevant)

(the two posts before(Ben and Phi) were also more of the same but I took them in good humour since they were short and somewhat amusing...)

 

is there any better analogy to the way evolution has evolved to fill every single niche and environment on the planet?

another thing, my original post was in response to Tres Juicy, and was pointing out that the results of evolution are not entirely random

 

then you decided it was wrong, and i have no idea what fitness is

(i think you don’t... in biology its a MATHEMATICAL term used to describe the change in allele frequencies, morons(such as yourself) use it in discussions about evolution to derail topics, and have something to whine about, even though any reasonable person would have realized that the fitness the person is talking about is the colloquial definition (by the apparent lack of numbers, and equasions))

 

 

 

eventually with the help of moonman we get the topic back on track

 

now once again you are complaining about my analogies, unfortunately without them what i am explaining seems rather dry

 

(i needed to actually scroll back to find the context for what i said... really why are we arguing about this?)

 

 

 

 

 

You can call me anything you wish just don't call me late for free margaritas.... Your analogy of an explosion is not a bad one but the idea that fitness is definable in anyway via things like size is simplistic at best. Large animals seem to be vulnerable to a double edged sword, too large and nothing can eat them and they destroy the ecology, too large and getting through disasters is more difficult. A better way to put it IMHO is adaptability is the most advantageous trait a life form can have. Being large in some environments is good and bad in others, being small is good in some environments and bad in others. If I had to assert a single defining trait that is most advantageous it would be symbiotic mutualisms.

 

Natural selection is thought by some to be some sort of battle with the strongest surviving but in reality virtually all organisms depend on symbiotic relationships. From elephants to bacterial mats all of life is interdependent and the survival of the fittest is not a battle of the strong over the weak but is more of a battle of who has the best relationships with other animals.

 

Elephants cannot digest their food without bacteria, nor can lions, everything including humans depend on symbiotic organisms to survive....

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

dmaiski,
We do not tolerate offensive language at this forum. Calling anyone a moron is a sure way to get banned. Don't ever do it again on our forum.

If you cannot deal with a disagreement in a discussion in a polite way, then please do not post at all. For more information, read the rules, especially the bit about being civil.

Also, I would like to refer to our etiquette guide, regarding the use of punctuation and emphasis features.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Do not reply to this moderator note. If you have an issue with it, use the report button at the bottom left corner of this post.

[dmaiski]

i apologise for the earlier outburst, some people only behave like they have the mental age of a 12 on the internet, and i do get annoyed at them even though i should know better...

 

 

symbiotic ecosystems can be discussed as the chicken or the egg argument in evolution so i'm not going to get into that

but symbiotic relationships, or at least evolution of new organisms to take advantage of the waste products of others is what was responsible for the rise of plant life

predatory relationships were probably responsible for the rise of big things, not to say being bigger can help being a predator (ants are really good examples) but usually big predators find it easier to catch and eat little things

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

If other people misbehave, report it. Do not take any action yourself, certainly not if you cannot do it politely.
By the way, saying that people behave as if they're 12 is still considered impolite. Correcting people is the the job of the moderators, and since you seem to struggle to keep it polite, I would suggest you keep strictly to the science.

Also, I hope you checked out the etiquette guide. You still fail to use capital letters and punctuation. Finally, we all wonder why you insist on changing the font of all your posts, when our etiquette guide suggests that you do that only to emphasize things. Emphasizing your entire post does not make sense.

Now, stop responding to mod notes (that goes for everybody). Please carry on, nothing more to see here.

[Alyaarn]

Evolution got it "right", because it simply was "right". If you're confused about why things evolved, I think that may have something to play with the complex laws of the Universe, but that is beyond my understanding. Evolution itself is merely change in a species to match the ever-changing environment invoked by predators,weather change... etc.

[Ben Banana]

Well, in seriousness, not only do I think "How did evolution get it right?" is a silly question to ask, but also a conceptually-destructive question. This kind of thinking is precisely what disables many people from accepting the theory as much as a fact it is. You can also call creationism a culprit if you want, but if we're talking about matters of individual comprehension rather than organized ideological movement, then I would say, this false aspect is the culprit.

[iDevonian]

Thanks. I guess that narrows it down one further. From water, to more muddy and shallow waters and then land. And I suppose one of the things scientists in this area are able do after finding evidence such as fossiles is to narrow down these transitional stages between species even further.

 

The fact that it did happen I realise. However the extent to which seems impossible. Although I am not expecting a definite answer, I was thinking maybe there would be some more speculation and hypothesis' around the subject. Or maybe not.

 

On a similar note, the complexity of the body which many may lazily credit a god for does seem somewhat reactionary. Not in the way of intelligent design. But rather than just Natural Selection, it seems from the way the body is designed that it does not just have successful features but knows what these features are and do and can therefor successfully build upon them. Definitely not in a conscious way, but there may be a reactive component in the evolution of life that could explain these seemingly impossible feats it accomplishes. Anyway just a thought.

 

Of course I too am a fine supporter of the theory. It is quite clear that we have all evolved (from the perspective of a geologist with some experience in paleo).

 

In my opinion though, especially with some of the most recent discoveries with respect to our DNA and its functionality (the junk dna studies in particular). I believe that our understanding of evolution is not full proof or the "whole picture".

 

Much of our DNA and its functionality is still not fully understood.

 

I believe random mutation and selection do indeed lead to evolution of species, though I believe there may be other other genes, acting in ways which may lead to more productive alterations, beyond merely the purely random changes. Of course, there are also genes (regulatory) that manipulate groups of other genes, that when altered, lead to the alteration of many genes. This would create larger jumps in DNA functionality change.

 

Also, yes natural selection does in a sense, guide mutations, but I to what extent mutations may follow suit with the environment, I think is something that may have a few secrets with it.

 

Just my opinion.

Edited November 3, 2012 by iDevonian