Jessica_1995 Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 Darwin's theory is often called theory of evolution by trial and error. How are you think why?
Strange Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 I have never heard that term, but I suppose it is reasonably accurate: evolution proceeds by random changes ("trial") that are "tested" by the environment. As a result, some of the changes survive and some don't (the "errors"). 1
delboy Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 I wouldn't be entirely happy with the word trial since it seems to imply some kind of positive forethought, whereas the changes happen due to errors in DNA copying. Though error and error does sound a bit silly, I admit.
MEC1960 Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 The term also ignores drift at the phenotypic level and neutral theory at the molecular level. Darwin was right - natural and sexual selection are the main drivers of evolution and since the raw material of evolution is mutation, it can be said to be like trial and error solutions. However, we now know that there are stochastic drivers of evolution, such as drift and neutral theory. 1
Strange Posted April 4, 2016 Posted April 4, 2016 I wouldn't be entirely happy with the word trial since it seems to imply some kind of positive forethought Yes, I have argued against it for just that reason in the past. (I never claimed to be consistent!) 1
StrontiDog Posted April 5, 2016 Posted April 5, 2016 There is some logic to the descriptor of trial and error. There is evidence of numerous 'failed' attempts at everything from vision to flight. Though calling that an 'error' is potentially erroneous. Perhaps the most efficient, most effective mode of flight was developed by a beast on some island that was wiped-out by a volcanic eruption. . .and we'll never even know what it was. The implication of a conscious effort is probably a mistake, as well. Wide genetic variation within a population is an observed phenomenon. If some combinations work under certain circumstances. . .and are passed-on to allow for more progeny with these combinations. . . .that's hardly a 'trial.' Anthropomorphism is always a challenge when describing nature.
Zarina1995 Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 If you follow the theory of Darwin, man evolved from monkeys (work made, from monkey man) why then currently monkeys evolve?
EdEarl Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 Some epigenetic changes by our environment affect gene expression and may or may not be inherited.
Sensei Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) I have never heard that term, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_error If you follow the theory of Darwin, man evolved from monkeys (work made, from monkey man) why then currently monkeys evolve? Because they are good prepared to life in their environment. If f.e. there would be catastrophic winter world-wide, humans could survive, heat by artificial energy sources, below the ground, but the all animals not prepared for cold on the surface of Earth, would die (assuming no human help). Dinosaurs also lived parallel to their ancestors. Sometimes successors cause extinction of ancestors, but so far it didn't happen yet in the case of monkeys. Edited April 6, 2016 by Sensei
Strange Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 (edited) If you follow the theory of Darwin, man evolved from monkeys (work made, from monkey man) why then currently monkeys evolve? Monkeys evolve. Everything evolves. And of course, humans didn't evolve from monkeys. They both evolved from a common ancestor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_and_error Sorry, I just meant I hadn't heard it in relation to evolution. Edited April 6, 2016 by Strange
Phi for All Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 If you follow the theory of Darwin, man evolved from monkeys (work made, from monkey man) why then currently monkeys evolve? Do you follow the theory?
Arete Posted April 6, 2016 Posted April 6, 2016 If you follow the theory of Darwin, man evolved from monkeys (work made, from monkey man) why then currently monkeys evolve? 1) It's a common misconception that hominids evolved from other extant primates. We share a common ancestor - in a similar sense, you and you cousins share a common ancestor (i.e. your shared grandparents), but you didn't come from your cousins. 2) Even if humans did split from an extant primate population, there's no reason to expect that the ancestral population wouldn't continue to evolve along it's own independent trajectory.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now