A note on Evolution

[scribble]

Some of you like to argue the topic with other folks. I found this to be a brilliantly concise rebuttal to some of the things I've heard anti-evolutionists say:

Ah, yet another person who misunderstands evolution. Evolution says no such thing about "evolving forward into higher life forms", that's just an asumption that a lof of people make.


Evolution is simply a method to optimize and organism for its environment. For example: down here in Australia we have these little creatures called Koalas. You may have seem photos of them. They eat eucalyptus (sp?) leaves, and nothing else. It happens that these leaves aren't very nutritious and have a lot of toxins that take a long time to break down. Because of this, koalas conserve their energy by spending most of their time sleeping. And their brains are quite tiny.


Now, are koalas a higher life form? No. But its ancestors did find a plentiful food source that was being eaten by little else. They adapted to eat the leaves and became the animal we have today.

From here:

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=110241&cid=9358070

 

[Iacchus]

So, would it be fair to say that some koalas are better adapted than others?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

No, they are just better adapted to eating eucalyptus leaves.

They are in fact poorly adapted since they cannot take advantage of diverse food sources. Once the eucalyptus trees are gone then so are they. It would be better if they were the only ones who could eat those leaves, but also take advantage of other sources when they need to.

The more restricted one's diet is, the better your chance to end up extinct in any type of climate change.

 

[The idea]

They are in fact poorly adapted since they cannot take advantage of diverse food sources. Once the eucalyptus trees are gone then so are they. [...]

The more restricted one's diet is, the better your chance to end up extinct in any type of climate change.

Lots of people like Koalas (and I don't mean as food). Some important people who know some biology are concerned that Koalas have a restricted diet. People will ensure that Koalas have food to eat and will protect Koalas from predators. So Koalas are well adapted.

Sharks, on the other hand, are not well protected by human beings. Have you seen any "shark-friendly" labels on tunafish lately?

 

[Ratman_tf]

So, would it be fair to say that some koalas are better adapted than others?

Technically yes, but that's true of every organism of every species on the planet.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Lots of people like Koalas (and I don't mean as food). Some important people who know some biology are concerned that Koalas have a restricted diet. People will ensure that Koalas have food to eat and will protect Koalas from predators. So Koalas are well adapted.

Sharks, on the other hand, are not well protected by human beings. Have you seen any "shark-friendly" labels on tunafish lately?

If it came down to depending on humans or not for survival, I would prefer not having to. Sharks are so well adapted they have survived as a species from the cartilagenous age. This was before there was ever a bony fish around. They are like crocodiles, very successful and have a very diverse diet-they aren't restricted to just eating bunny rabbits
I'm sure you know what I mean

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

Koalas are well adapted to its specific eucalyptus niche, just as sharks are equally well adapted to a more general environment in the sea!

 

[Iacchus]

Technically yes, but that's true of every organism of every species on the planet.

So then wouldn't it also be fair to say that the genes of animals which are better adapted to their environment are typically the ones which are passed on to future generations?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

So then wouldn't it also be fair to say that the genes of animals which are better adapted to their environment are typically the ones which are passed on to future generations?

Until the environment drastically changes. Then you will find that the vegetation follows suit, and the same with the animals. You get those jumps that lead to macorevolution since now a new "set of genes" is suddenly better adapted to the changing environment.

Those huge reptiles just couldn't survive on earth the way it is now. They died off and niches opened up for the smaller animals. As one population dies off, another different one explodes.

Climate change tested our ancestors. We have dead ends on some of our branches of the ancestor tree. They coincide with big changes in climate (ice ages).

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

Random mutation is the working ground for nonrandom natural selection to work upon, 99% of all species, which has ever lived are extinct, because changing conditions will only lead to adaptive complexity when this random base is in favor, or is compatible with the new adaption! Hence there is no intrinsic urge to climb up the ladder in nature, therefore; adaptive complexity can only be seen by hindsight, known as reversed engineering, just as a flipping coin has no purpose to ending up heads, or tails, in example; four heads in row is a random outcome just as new genetic trait is, if it is good, or neutral, or detrimental depends how well fitted it is to the environment!

 

[Doctor X]

[Engage Fundi Mode--Ed.]

But DON'T YOU SEE?!!!!

Eucalypsis plants are SO poisonous and non-nutritionous that that first kuala would have died eating it!

There would have been NO MORE KUALAS!!!!

Thus is evilution DISPROVES and Intelligent Design the only logical answer. . . .

[Disengage Fundi Mode--Ed.]

--J.D.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So then wouldn't it also be fair to say that the genes of animals which are better adapted to their environment are typically the ones which are passed on to future generations?

Uhh, yes. And?

That is sorta what natural selection is about. But the point is, the the best adapted needs not be the most advanced.

Hans

 

[Iacchus]

Uhh, yes. And?

That is sorta what natural selection is about. But the point is, the the best adapted needs not be the most advanced.

Hans

Okay, then by what other process does the advanced come about then? Not through a series of adaptations?

 

[Iacchus]

Those huge reptiles just couldn't survive on earth the way it is now. They died off and niches opened up for the smaller animals. As one population dies off, another different one explodes.

And yet when they died off, it wasn't due to anything of their own accord was it? Wasn't it because an asteriod or a comet hit the earth?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Okay, then by what other process does the advanced come about then? Not through a series of adaptations?

They come through a series of adaptations, too. Is not a question of either, it is a question of both, or rather, all. If being advanced is a quality that helps survival, species will tend to become advanced, if simplicity is an advantage, they will become simple, if large size is an advantage, they become big, if being white is an advantage, they become white, etc, etc, etc.

Also, "being advanced" is rather subjective. Are humans advanced? Well, we have the most complicated brain on the planet, but in many other respects we are far from advanced.

Hans

 

[Ratman_tf]

So then wouldn't it also be fair to say that the genes of animals which are better adapted to their environment are typically the ones which are passed on to future generations?

Typically. There are exceptions. Not all animals get to breed solely based on their genetic adaptation to their environment, but it's the general result, since those less adapted tend to fail to pass on their genes.

 

[Ratman_tf]

Okay, then by what other process does the advanced come about then? Not through a series of adaptations?

Advanced is putting the horse before the cart. There are advantages and disadvantages to every aspect of an organism. One only has to look at blind cave fish to understand that.

Also, don't forget competition within a species. One of Darwin's great insights was the fierce competition for resources from others of your own species. There are lots of factors that affect the 'fitness' of an organism.

 

[Ratman_tf]

And yet when they died off, it wasn't due to anything of their own accord was it? Wasn't it because an asteriod or a comet hit the earth?

Indeed. Environmental change came from the outside. Those organisms that could adapt (or who were luckily already suited for such an environment) survived.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Evolution is a sieve, not a ladder.

 

[Iacchus]

Evolution is a sieve, not a ladder.

How do you know it's not both? Doesn't everything in effect (specifically plants) reach towards the light of the sun?