Evolution is not...

[kaotic]

Evolution is not chance... It's natural selecion!


Chance

1 a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human intention or observable cause b : the assumed impersonal purposeless determiner of unaccountable happenings : [SIZE=-1]LUCK[/SIZE] <an outcome decided by chance>

Natural Selecion

1: process that results in the adaptation of an organism to its environment by means of selectively reproducing changes in its genotype, or genetic constitution.

 

[tocis]

Evolution is not...

..."humans came from apes".

Humans and apes shared a common ancestor. This is on a species level, not on an individual level. All you creationists out there, note that if you ask "why are there still monkeys?!" or something similar, to "us evolutionists" you're basically saying "look how little I know about the science I attack!".

If you're opposing science, fine. Just please know what you're talking about. Thank you.

 

[dawiyd]

Evolution is not what YECs say it is

 

[TeddyKGB]

Evolution is neither random nor deterministic. It is the culmination of a chance-level process - mutation - and a stochastic process - selection.

 

[shinbits]

The notion that just the right mutations that would cause mutations that lead to such a diverse array of creatures even occured, is pure chance.

 

[Chalnoth]

The notion that just the right mutations that would cause mutations that lead to such a diverse array of creatures even occured, is pure chance.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. Did you make a mistake typing this?

 

[Hydra009]

The notion that just the right mutations that would cause mutations that lead to such a diverse array of creatures even occured, is pure chance.

About the same chance as receiving a diverse array of cards in a poker hand.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

The notion that just the right mutations that would cause mutations that lead to such a diverse array of creatures even occured, is pure chance.

And this notion is wrong and not what is posited. A lot of mutations occured most of them "not right" but only the non-negative ones are in the long run selected.

 

[Abongil]

About the same chance as receiving a diverse array of cards in a poker hand.

Except their are a LOT mroe cards

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The notion that just the right mutations that would cause mutations that lead to such a diverse array of creatures even occured, is pure chance.

what are the right mutations?

going back to Dawkin's example:

start with garbage jiwlighsieitilwxisa
aim at:
methinkslikeaweasel.

there are 19 letters here. make it easy, no duplications and no deletions.
what is the end "goal"?
is it this particular phrase?
how about something recognizable as being like this phrase?
how about any correctly spelled 19letter phrase? in English? in any romanized alphabet?
how about anything you can recognize as have potential meaning?

is there a ratchet effect? that is do some characters lock into place? why or why not?

try to define "right mutations" in just this simple example.
and life is a lot more complex, what are the "right mutations" there? anything that works by giving even the slightest reproductive success over the wild type?

 

[Loudmouth]

The notion that just the right mutations that would cause mutations that lead to such a diverse array of creatures even occured, is pure chance.

In the sense that if evolution on Earth were restarted we would not expect the same results as we see now. There is no reason that evolution would produce the same diversity we see today, but there is not doubt that evolution would produce some pattern of diversity. It is inevitable when you have imperfect replicators and limited resources.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In the sense that if evolution on Earth were restarted we would not expect the same results as we see now. There is no reason that evolution would produce the same diversity we see today, but there is not doubt that evolution would produce some pattern of diversity. It is inevitable when you have imperfect replicators and limited resources.

this is SJG's videotape of evolution metaphor.
the answer to it is that the tape has been replayed, it's called Australia.

 

[TheGnome]

Evolution is not...

..."humans came from apes".

Humans and apes shared a common ancestor. This is on a species level, not on an individual level.

This is false. Humans are apes and came from other apes. Humans didn't, for example, evolve from chimpanzees or monkeys, which is where the argument comes from, but that doesn't mean we didn't evolve from apes. I'd consider the australopithecus an ape. We definitely are apes.

 

[Hydra009]

This is false. Humans are apes and came from other apes. Humans didn't, for example, evolve from chimpanzees or monkeys, which is where the argument comes from, but that doesn't mean we didn't evolve from apes. I'd consider the australopithecus an ape. We definitely are apes.

Exactly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the term, ape, means any species in the Hominoidea superfamily, which means every species in family Hylobatidae (lesser apes) and every species in family Hominidae (greater apes: orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, humans, etc). So humans are definitely apes.

But I suppose the claim Tocis was attempting to address was the old chimp to human claim. Like the word theory, the word ape seems to have a different colloquial definition than the scientific definition.

For example: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ape&x=0&y=0
Definition #1 would be what you and I are talking about, while definition #2 would be how it is used colloquially.

Similarly, people can get offended when they hear that humans are considered animals, not realizing that what is meant is just that humans are classified in the Kingdom Animalia.

 

[TheGnome]

For example: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ape&x=0&y=0
Definition #1 would be what you and I are talking about, while definition #2 would be how it is used colloquially.

Similarly, people can get offended when they hear that humans are considered animals, not realizing that what is meant is just that humans are classified in the Kingdom Animalia.

We are animals, and I don't see what there is to be so offended over. Well, I guess I haven't been living under a rock, but still, animals are not barbaric creatures with no sense of morals. That sounds weird to say, but it's not like the appearance of what seems to be compassion, love, empathy, altruism, and the such hasn't been observed in other animals.

Even a Biblical literalist would have to agree somewhat. There is that common designer argument, and the Bible does state that all the animals were created for Adam to have some sort of companion. Will, you can't be much of a companion with a beast, can you? Apparently he just wanted an equal, so as an afterthought came woman.

I'm rambling.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, still think the offense comes in when arrogance gets in the way. The whole "image of God" thing and all. Many of these people think, "I'm not just an animal!" And so they claim that we have all of these differences: we think, we feel, we have a sense of morality, we have a soul.

When, in fact, there is no tremendous distinction between humans and other social animals. Sure, we're the only ones that have built a civilization, but some animals are capable of all of the things we are capable of. It's just that we have bigger brains and are better at some of these things.

 

[tocis]

This is false. Humans are apes and came from other apes. Humans didn't, for example, evolve from chimpanzees or monkeys, which is where the argument comes from, but that doesn't mean we didn't evolve from apes. I'd consider the australopithecus an ape. We definitely are apes.

My bad, I should have specified. I meant "today's apes".

 

[tocis]

[But] I suppose the claim Tocis was attempting to address was the old chimp to human claim.

Right on target

 

[shinbits]

what are the right mutations?

"Right" just means any mutations which result in organisms also just by chance happening to develop other mutations resulting in offspring branching out with thier own mutations, resulting in a diverse array of life.

That's pure chance.

As someone pointed out, mutations in evolution theory are like having a diverse array of cards---only there are a lot more cards. So then any games that result, which have thier own diverse rules, objectives and thier own set of cards is a result of pure chance, just to result in a game like poker, which itself is a game of chance.


The notion that the early organisms just so happened to survive, and just so happened to devolop mutations and have offspring doing the same and result in the vast array we see today, is pure chance.

Whether you believe in evolution or not, you can't possibly say that evolution is "not" chance.

 

[Loudmouth]

this is SJG's videotape of evolution metaphor.
the answer to it is that the tape has been replayed, it's called Australia.

That's a really good point. There are many convergences between New/Old world eutherians and Australian marsupials. For instance, thylacine wolves and marsupial moles. However, there are also distinctly new adaptations, such as the kangaroo. They even had megafauna (iguanodon if my brain is working today) that died off after humans showed up. But all of these adaptations are within a morphologically constricted clade.

What if ray finned fish were the first to make on land instead of lobe finned fish? Why couldn't this have happend (eg mudskippers)? What if some of the extinct phyla found in the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian strata did not go extinct? What if the meteor event at the K/T boundary did not occur? Or other extinction events like that in the Permian? I think there is still a lot of room for alternate evolutionary histories.