Question about the theory of evolution in here

[Spacky]

Evolution occurs via natural selection right?
Natural selection occurs via innevitable mutations / genetic drift, which ARE RANDOM.

Therefore mutations are factors that will affect the results of natural selection, which is DISTINCTLY non-random.

The random componants have an effect on the distinctly NON-RANDOM process of evolution.

Get it?

Off topic I read that and thought X-Men film, I know its off track big time but hey couldn't help it

 

[Energize]

Evolution occurs via natural selection right?
Natural selection is a process which is affected via innevitable mutations / genetic drift, which ARE RANDOM.

Therefore mutations are factors that will affect the results of natural selection, which is DISTINCTLY non-random.

The random componants have an effect on the distinctly NON-RANDOM process of evolution.

Get it?

EDIT - I revised it to make it better....

Theres so many factors that can affect it though it practically is random.

 

[Nitefly]

Theres so many factors that can affect it though it practically is random.

The only two random factors I have mentioned above. Its not random at all, I can't explain it any further than that I'm afraid, and I don't want to have to use the ghostbusters quote

 

[Psyk]

I guess it's random in the same way diffusion or radioactive decay is. It's a random process with highly predictable.

 

[Nobski]

Point proven, but I don't believe you, can you prove to me evolution is real? Just on the basis some animals look abit similar.

Lol, It goes much deeper than just that the animals look a bit similar, for instance there are sequences of identical dna between different species on the same related branch of evolution, which sometimes shows that simmilar looking species are not closely related. There are many courses, books, info out there for those that have an interest, as I said for those that choose to see.

My point is its just more widely accepted, therefore it is considered by some the answer to the way we are all here but its entirely what you believe and what you accepts. Those who aren't religious will believe anything where as those who are believe in something.

Lol, from my viewpoint its the other way around, as a non religious person I don`t just believe anything, at heart I am a scientist and if a subject is scientifically proven then that is the way it is, of course this can sometimes conflict with what you feel is correct, but without this willingness to accept the facts progress will never happen, just look at the history of medicine and say the use of leaches to `remove toxin from the body` if scientific fact was not accepted then that would still be the level of our health care, interestingly enough, leaches can / are used for some medical benefit

It seems to offend many if you say evolution is a religion a misdirected offshoot of science, or to some the foundation of science?

All what you believe

Maybe it comes down to semantics, I would feel the same way if any branch of science was called a religion as that to me suggests belief without scientific evidence and therefore that that branch of science was not valid

 

[Nitefly]

stuff

Come on Nobski, your with me on the 'random' issue, right?

 

[Nobski]

Come on Nobski, your with me on the 'random' issue, right?

Hmmm, it’s an interesting point.

The way I see it natural selection is determined by chance events; a food source dies off, a new predator better adapted to the environment eats the available food source (or the original area predator), climate change (sabre tooth tiger then extinct) etc that gives conditions more favourable to an altered species to then be successful at that moment in time. Mutations ect that are successful are of their time, in other words what might work today might not have done 1000s of years ago.

Is this random, I guess ad infinitum these events could be seen as predictable, just as with a good enough weather model and super uber computers you could predict the weather.



There is no `intelligence` in the way it works, just as the way our bodies function at the cellular level without intelligent direction.

 

[ElvisFan]

No, even the most stupid, uncapabe of doing anything person can give something to our society and civilisation. .

And as long as they do so without passing on their dodgy genes, then fair play to them.

 

[Sparky__H]

For anyone still questioning Evolution or “Natural selection through the means of random mutation and natural selection”

Look into birds and it will come obviously apparent as there are so many specialised species and sub species. Their genetics have proven they share common ancestors but their physical attributes (shorter wings, longer bills) have mutated. The larger seabirds seems to have the best scientific study attributed to them so that would be the best place to start.

At no point did a bird decide to change but their physical mutation allowed them to gain access to an abundant food source others unavailable to the others.

 

[Dolph]

No, No, No sorry don`t buy that ! !

Evolution is a science with proof for those that choose to see, religion is a faith not based on provable evidence ( not looking to offend anyone with that, just an observation ) but on personal feelings.

Evolution isn't based on provable evidence either. You cannot investigate evolution in a classical scientific manner...

Instead, what we have is a series of steps that we can see pretty well happened, and a possible theory on how. We have no proof how it happened, and anyone who claims otherwise is either relying on faith themselves or doesn't understand how science actually works.

I can freely question mutation and favourable selection as the only possible explaination for what has been observed, because ultimately it's the top theory for one reason, and one reason only.

Occum's Razor.

Occum's razor states that if you have several equally valid mechanisms the most likely one is the one with the least variables.

When trying to explain how life changed on the planet, you could have several mechanisms for doing so (including intelligent design). However, when all mechanisms are equally likely (or in this case equally unproveable), you choose the one that is simplest. In this case, that's random mutation and selection.

As with many things that stray towards Science on these forums, there seem to be a few people who present all science, and all parts of science, as fact. Science is not about fact, it's about prediction and attempted explaination, that's all it's ever been about.

(this has actually been covered in great depth in the thread I linked to earlier)

Please also note that I'm not saying that Evolution via random mutation/selection couldn't have happened. I'm simply saying there are other mechanisms that would produce the same data, and as the process can't be repeated via experimentation, it's very hard to determine whether or not we are correct, especially when you factor in the way science actually picks it's processes and mechanisms if several are evidentially equally possible.

 

[Dave M]

We all have the ability to grow limbs - everyone did it once !

You just have to have the ability to turn on that part of your genetic code to do it again, large animals generally don't, simply because of the amount of time, energy, nutrients it would take to do so.

In modern times you could - you'd lay up in hospital / home with people bringing you food, dressing your weeping growth and keeping you clean. In the wild could you guarantee that? Might it not be better for survival to just do your best to stop the bleeding and heal over?

There us talk of one day being able to turn back on the gene for growing a limb, some sort of gene therapy to kick it into action again, just like they seek to turn on the gene for growing teeth (we all did that twice - but then stopped, oddities).

Oh and some mammals do regrow limbs - if you count tails as limbs.

 

[King4aDay]

As Dobzhansky said: 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.'


I really do wish that people would properly research topics such as this before posting in utter ignorance.


Oh, and on the 'random' issue, its quite interesting looking at microbial studies of evolution, as stochastic events do seem to have long-term effects on the evolution of populations.

 

[Nitefly]

More back on topic, I rediscovered that starfish and other echinoderms (Which a lot do have the ability to regenerate) are the group of closest invertebrate relatives to humans and other chordates.

Interesting

 

[Pudney]

That reminds me of a philosophy 'arguement' I had...

Him - "Is it a table or a chair?'
Me- "Its quite clearly a chair....?"
Him - "But why isn't it a table?"
Me - "..... you.... your kidding.....?"
Him - Prove to me its a chair!
Me - "... it functions as a chair well because it was designed to be used as one...."
Him - "Ah! *Places glass on it* But now its a TABLE!"
Me - *Pulls out a shotgun and shoots him in the face*

You're missing the point of philosophy then. What defines something to be a table and what does it mean to be a chair? If you use a chair as a table is it now a table and vice versa? Is it the use of something that defines an object or is it deeper than that?

You're argument was flawed, and you were proved wrong. You said it was designed for a use and thus it was a chair. He showed that it's perfectly plausible to use it as a table, and thus by your argument, it functions as a table and thus must be a table.

 

[Nitefly]

Evolution isn't based on provable evidence either.

I agree with you, but nothing in science is 'provable' in that respect...

However there is a lot of evidence as I have already mentioned...

Anatomy
Embryology
Palaentology
Biogeography
Taxonomy

 

[Nitefly]

You're missing the point of philosophy then. What defines something to be a table and what does it mean to be a chair? If you use a chair as a table is it now a table and vice versa? Is it the use of something that defines an object or is it deeper than that?

You're argument was flawed, and you were proved wrong. You said it was designed for a use and thus it was a chair. He showed that it's perfectly plausible to use it as a table, and thus by your argument, it functions as a table and thus must be a table.

You see, this is why I tend to ignore philosophy, no offence

 

[squiffy]

Evolution is a religion, you choose to either follow, believe and accept or you don't!

Prove to me of the existance of God, of some way or other. There is proof of similarity between speices (DNA), fossils etc, where changes cannot be seen in realtime (obviously) Science has proof of each fact, religion does not (and the only proof is that of invisible or impossible to proove/disprove belief) The religious side use non scientific claptrap in attempt to disprove repeatable scientific methods (ie the existance of fossils, is "God put them there") or some other BS with carbon dating with dinosaur bones.

There are different sub species of animals, therefore evolultion DOES exist. Humans- different races, if humans didn't exist we would all be one colour with similar shape and build. Why are Eskimos short and stumpy, wheras African nomads are tall and skinny? That is evolultion, as surely if you picked up each village and plonked them down vice versa they would surely die.

 

[King4aDay]

You see, this is why I tend to ignore philosophy, no offence

I always think that considering its been around for such a long time, philosophy is still staggeringly useless

 

[Dolph]

I agree with you, but nothing in science is 'provable' in that respect...

However there is a lot of evidence as I have already mentioned...

Did you read the rest of my post? None of the 'evidence' you post proves anything about the mechanism of evolution, that it's by natural selection or anything else...

The only thing that can be said with any degree of accuracy is that life and creatures have changed from one form to another, that's it.

 

[King4aDay]

Did you read the rest of my post? None of the 'evidence' you post proves anything about the mechanism of evolution, that it's by natural selection or anything else...

It is remarkably consistent with the proposed mechanism of evolution through descent with modification though.