- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,972
- 52,615
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What would an earth look like that was not designed?
The Stamp said:would it look exactly like an earth that was designed?
Nope. There are no rules in evolution (well, not according to what evolution is actually meant to be). That's the whole point. Here's the definition of "rule": 1. one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.
If the first rule of evolution is survival, then who, or what, particularly set the rule so that it would govern the conduct of the organism to desire survival? Did gravity decide survival should be the rule? Or some other random force?
You can't have it both ways. Either there was meaning and purpose, or there wasn't. Stop stealing our language. If you want the essence of your existence to be the result of randomness, then be true to your conviction. Stop cheating on evolution with meaning and purpose.
No ... I live in a created world.You live in a fantasy world,
Better way to word this: what promotes survival and reproduction persists, and what doesn't fades away with time. If an organism has a trait great for survival, but prevents reproduction, this trait will not persist. If an organism has a trait great for reproduction, but prevents survival to sexual maturity, this trait will not persist.the first rule is survival, because those that don't don't produce evolution, so therefore survival became part of it early on, as anything that didn't care to survive, or couldn't wouldn't survive to produce, and those that could/would eventualy did.
The selection/filtering process of the environment would be the biggest one. There's also certain physical limitations like how big a terrestrial insect could get before it's exoskeleton was too heavy to move. There are further limitations on how much mutation can occur in a gamete before offspring are non longer viable.
actually size is limited by it's ability to draw oxygen, why they got bigger when there was more oxygen.
That was part of it, but no insects got as large as marine arthropods because of the weight issue. Once they reach a certain size, they wouldn't be able to move.
Ahhh okay true, so both play, though right now the main factor is oxygen, why insects were so much bigger during the coniferous period. But I guess your saying back then the limiting factor wasn't oxygen, but weight?
Actually I'm going to take that back as it might only apply to insects. Other arthropods have had very large representatives in the past (and present when referring to marine crustaceans). Arthropleura was a millipede that reached over 6 feet in length for example.
I shouldn't worry about it if I were you because none of us will be around to see any changes, it's like saying the sun will go nova in a million years, who cares?First 'rule' of evolution suggests that life is destined to become more complex
March 17, 2008
Scientists have revealed what may well be the first pervasive ‘rule’ of evolution. In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences researchers have found evidence which suggests that evolution drives animals to become increasingly more complex.
Looking back through the last 550 million years of the fossil catalogue to the present day, the team investigated the different evolutionary branches of the crustacean family tree.
They were seeking examples along the tree where animals evolved that were simpler than their ancestors.
Instead they found organisms with increasingly more complex structures and features, suggesting that there is some mechanism driving change in this direction.
“If you start with the simplest possible animal body, then there’s only one direction to evolve in – you have to become more complex,” said Dr Matthew Wills from the Department of Biology & Biochemistry at the University of Bath who worked with colleagues Sarah Adamowicz from from the University of Waterloo (Canada) and Andy Purvis from Imperial College London.
“Sooner or later, however, you reach a level of complexity where it’s possible to go backwards and become simpler again.
“What’s astonishing is that hardly any crustaceans have taken this backwards route.
“Instead, almost all branches have evolved in the same direction, becoming more complex in parallel.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2008-03-evolution-life-destined-complex.html#jCp
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?