|
RJT: 1, 21 Credit Semester: 0 (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
1. Evolution is always 'right'. It forces organisms to adapt to their environment
2. An environment can't be wrong. |
it can be unatural though.
Evolution is not always right It just happens randomly. It doesnt affect single orgamisms, it implies random changes over generations towards the genetics of a species to either weed out strains and variations of the species, or create a new species out of that species.
The resultant is that species that are genetically more adaptable to the environment are more likely to survive and reproduce their offspring and spread their genes.
NOW IF THE ENVIRONMENT TAKES A SPIN OR A DRAMATIC CHANGE. then the evolution has failed in created an organism that is best suited to the environment. (for instance an ice age or what not)
so in theory, evolution is not the best answer in creating organisms most suitable for the environment, but in fact SIMPLICITY in organisms is the best solution.
If we look at the types of species that have remained on this planet for the longest, you'll find that its the less complex organisms that have thrived, not the ones that have gone through the most evolutionary change. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
it can be unatural though.
Evolution is not always right It just happens randomly. It doesnt affect single orgamisms, it implies random changes over generations towards the genetics of a species to either weed out strains and variations of the species, or create a new species out of that species.
The resultant is that species that are genetically more adaptable to the environment are more likely to survive and reproduce their offspring and spread their genes.
NOW IF THE ENVIRONMENT TAKES A SPIN OR A DRAMATIC CHANGE. then the evolution has failed in created an organism that is best suited to the environment. (for instance an ice age or what not)
so in theory, evolution is not the best answer in creating organisms most suitable for the environment, but in fact SIMPLICITY in organisms is the best solution.
If we look at the types of species that have remained on this planet for the longest, you'll find that its the less complex organisms that have thrived, not the ones that have gone through the most evolutionary change. |
Even in cases where drastic 'unnatural' changes have occured, evolution had adapted new organism. I can't recall the name, but there's a large crater that was created by an asteroid several million years ago. It is alive with life, with many of the organisms being completely unique to the crater. I'm not entirely sure what you mean why unnatural though. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
If we look at the types of species that have remained on this planet for the longest, you'll find that its the less complex organisms that have thrived, not the ones that have gone through the most evolutionary change. |
and if we look at people that have remained on this planet for the longest, we'll find that it's the older people who have been here for the longest. :gsmile: |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
and if we look at people that have remained on this planet for the longest, we'll find that it's the older people who have been here for the longest. :gsmile: |
True that, I didn't catch that. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
i think this has gone on long enough: humans are a part of the environment as are all other creatures we know of, we are internal to it, we are it, and as most everything else, we affect everything else. the fact that we do some of it consciously as opposed to other animals doesn't mean much in this discussion.
|
your argument of relativism is weak here. You cannot disagree that human influence within the past hundred of years or so has caused the most genetic variation within this century then a couple of thousands of years combined (cancer, genetic disorders etc)
| quote: |
by your backwards reasoning, the moment a living organism preformed an action, any action, the environment became unnatural, because the organism affected the environment.
|
thers a difference between the cattle walking on the grass and killing it, to a shernobyl up.
| quote: |
who said i want/need to?
|
you dont, im just saying evolution cannot be the definition of right as opposed to natural selection against an organism being wrong. This with the original constraint being a natural environment no longer being natural.
| quote: |
first of all, it's not my definition, i just threw us a bone to play with.
second of all, which insects or bacterias have remained unchanged for millions of years?
third of all, the most "right" organisms at any point in time are the ones living. |
I dunno cocroaches, beetles, ants you name it. they probably got smaller and bigger but they are pretty much the same.
now im hungry for chicken :D |
|
|
| Zild |
| I'm hungry for children. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
I'm hungry for children. |
SOLVE THJE MATH! |
|
|
| Zild |
| I don't want to go outside and get my 89. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
your argument of relativism is weak here. You cannot disagree that human influence within the past hundred of years or so has caused the most genetic variation within this century then a couple of thousands of years combined (cancer, genetic disorders etc)
thers a difference between the cattle walking on the grass and killing it, to a shernobyl up. |
the extent of the effect is irrelevant, as long as there was an effect by the 'cattle walking on the grass', then according to your reasoning, we've been living in an unnatural world. it was unnatural before we got here.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
I dunno cocroaches, beetles, ants you name it. they probably got smaller and bigger but they are pretty much the same. |
i asked which have remained unchanged for 'millions of years', and you answer me with "eh, group A, group B, and group C, but they all probably changed". |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
the extent of the effect is irrelevant, as long as there was an effect by the 'cattle walking on the grass', then according to your reasoning, we've been living in an unnatural world. it was unnatural before we got here.
i asked which have remained unchanged for 'millions of years', and you answer me with "eh, group A, group B, and group C, but they all probably changed". |
im talking about size, not genetics.
For instance
take pirhanas. You put them in a small tank they remain small. You put them in a HUGE TANK they will grow to be maybe 10 to 20 times larger.
I think this also holds for insects.
The evolution dates for the following
Ants:
| quote: |
120 to 170 million years ago
|
from wikipedia source
cocroaches:
| quote: |
354–295 million years ago
|
wikipedia
Now evolution didnt manipulate these organisms very much, yet they are the most succesful creatures. If change needs to be imposed on an organism, it just indicates that it is not versatile or adaptable. thus Evolution is basically an eradication of a species when it occurs. The more it occurs the more likley the species will diminish. |
|
|
| Zild |
| If you let pigs go wild they grow hair and tusks. Same with small children. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
im talking about size, not genetics.
For instance
take pirhanas. You put them in a small tank they remain small. You put them in a HUGE TANK they will grow to be maybe 10 to 20 times larger.
I think this also holds for insects. |
and size isn't influenced by genetics and evolution? what the are you on, karim?
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Now evolution didnt manipulate these organisms very much, yet they are the most succesful creatures. If change needs to be imposed on an organism, it just indicates that it is not versatile or adaptable. thus Evolution is basically an eradication of a species when it occurs. The more it occurs the more likley the species will diminish. |
first of all, it did manipulate them 'very much', there are more than 11,000 known species of ants
second of all, most successful creatures? i thought we are working on my proposed definitions here, and those definitions stated that any species alive at the point in time in which the evaluation is being made is a successful species.
and lastly, the more evoltionairy change occurs, the more likely the species it occurs on is to evolve, not die and/or diminish. |
|
|
|
|
