evolution to blame?

C

curioucity

Unbelievable and odd
Registered Senior Member
Hello

I'm wondering about various animals', well, 'feeling' (maybe I'm using a wrong term here, see below).
Okay, I'm not good at talking so I'll just give examples:
Compare reptiles and mammals. While most reptiles seems to only think the way of: "give me food or leave me alone", mammals seem to be able to think more of it, perhaps because of their ability to learn? It seems that only mammals and maybe birds which develop such, umm, instinct or whatever it is, while others starting from reptiles to non-Chordatas don't...

Give me an argument.
 
A reptile started raising its children and teaching them some 65+ million years ago, that was a behaviour it developed.
Mammals descended from this creature, and so kept that behaviour, in most cases expanding on it.
 
This is true.
Other areas of the animal kingdom have benefitted from developing large brains with a substantial mental capacity.
But you'll find mammals have a similar kind of intellect, in relation to the rest of the animal kingdom anyway, it is still different from species to species but mammals in general share many common traits, not only in appearance and taxonomy but behaviour also including mental reactions etc.
 
And that is one of the reasons why they are in a class of their own!!!

BTW Curiocity, to answer your title question: everything in biology can be blamed on evolution!
 
The is no evidence for Darwinian / Lemarkian style evolution, it is a misleading approach.

All aspects (mechanisms of expression generating compatible genetic patterns) of LIFE ( a super-organism) are already genetically and structually present in the seeds of LIFE. Genetic manipulation ( based on a specific set of genes, but the choice is a random throw) of genetic recombination.
LIFE modifies the environment of the raw planet it infects, if a genetic throw dies, the species present throws until the new species thrives, which in turn, modifies the environment to allow the next species in the progression... up to humans and the Earth as we know it.

It is OK, it is all as it should be.
:)
 
Zarkov said:
The is no evidence for Darwinian / Lemarkian style evolution, it is a misleading approach.

All aspects (mechanisms of expression generating compatible genetic patterns) of LIFE ( a super-organism) are already genetically and structually present in the seeds of LIFE. Genetic manipulation ( based on a specific set of genes, but the choice is a random throw) of genetic recombination.
LIFE modifies the environment of the raw planet it infects, if a genetic throw dies, the species present throws until the new species thrives, which in turn, modifies the environment to allow the next species in the progression... up to humans and the Earth as we know it.

It is OK, it is all as it should be.
:)
Click to expand...

is there any evidence for that theory then? I recall seeing lots of papers supporting evolution by means of natural selection, i've never seen a paper supporting what you are mentioning.
 
>> is there any evidence for that theory then?

Modern genetics and DNA technology, biochemistry and ecology

>> I recall seeing lots of papers supporting evolution by means of natural selection, i've never seen a paper supporting what you are mentioning.

The new information was not available then, The old theories were good observations but misleading. All that is alive is only one organism, a super-organism. All with the same mechanisms, all compatible and integrated, all genetically linked, same biochemistry........ same destiny
 
Zarkov said:
>> is there any evidence for that theory then?

Modern genetics and DNA technology, biochemistry and ecology

>> I recall seeing lots of papers supporting evolution by means of natural selection, i've never seen a paper supporting what you are mentioning.

The new information was not available then, The old theories were good observations but misleading. All that is alive is only one organism, a super-organism. All with the same mechanisms, all compatible and integrated, all genetically linked, same biochemistry........ same destiny
Click to expand...

the shit is that I am supposed to be part of this modern science shit, and I have no idea what you are talking about.

Could it be that you are 'wrong'?
 
Any analysis can be wrong, but the more an analysis explains, the more useful it becomes, and its predictions become important.

Science is only as good as the data, and modern data is not consistent with old scientific explanations.
 
You could easily both be seen as right.
Spurious, darwin and associates;) are definately correct and haven't been disproven by anyone. IMO it is not debateable.
However, it could be said that what has happened couldn't have happened any other way because there is no magic hand interfering with the processes. Species X going extinct then was inevitable because all the factors that lead to its extinction were not "decided" upon, they just happened and as such were, in a sense, predictable(that is if someone had the ability- and was around- to predict.)
That armadillo had to drown, this leaf insect had to get noticed etc.
How could it be any other way? Could the leaf insect have decided to not stand in that spot? Could the armadillo have thought "I won't go for a swim today", was the river not bound to be in that spot and was the bird not bound to notice the leaf insect?
If you don't believe in true free will, and understand that there is nothing chaotic or random about the environment with climatic changes or continental shifting etc.
Then you have to understand that right when life spawned, it was inevitable it would be where it is now, exactly as it is, right down to a tee.
Evolution still works by natural selection and is "random" in a sense, but when looked at from a timeless perspective, you can see how earth's history was bound to only happen the way it did.
You would need to inject the concept of a magic conducter in the sky to believe it has been chaotic or unpredictable. Some entity would need to have been interfering and making certain things happen.
How can random events occur in the universe otherwise? And how can animals do anything but what they were bound to do if they have no free will?
The coming together of these two factors(and any other factors you can think of that exist in the real universe) is by nature, predictable. Not in the sense that some guy could predict what will happen but rather was 'destined' to happen the way it has.
 
I don't really see the problem with random events.


They can easily be similated on a computer.


Are these events on the similated computer suddenly under the same directing influence?

I doubt it.
 
I refuse to believe computers can do anything close to random. Random is an interesting word, it has broad implications.
Does a computer have infinite options to what it can simulate? How then is it random?
You know the simulation it creates will always be on a computer. The event will always be comprised of stuff that was already on the computer. So much for random.

I actually don't understand computers that well so I'll revert back to nature.
Doesn't anything that happens have factors leading up to its happening? And each of those factors have factors that made them be etc?
It can't be considered random that a volcano erupted for example, none of the factors that lead to its eruption were random, all those things happened naturally and were not coerced into happening by some random decision making force.

Rather than saying you can't see the problem with them, tell me how a random event could occur, I truely don't see how one could. People who believe in free will suddenly are adding the idea of random into their imaginary universe. Because apparently a person can just decide to do something purely because they decided to with no uncontrollable factors persuading them into doing that something.
I don't believe in free will, consider it a huge call, an inherently flawed call, and as such I can't see how anything can be random.
If there was such a thing as free will, and humans were the only animal to have it, the earth(and universe if there were no freewilled aliens) was predictable, inevitable, destined to be the way it became up untill a million or so years ago when it suddenly became chaotic.
Even this would still mean at least evolution up to the point of humans was predictable and thus that humans themselves were predictable(just what they were going to do wouldn't have been predictable- I believe it was).

I don't know exactly how to explain what I'm saying, but I think if you try to tell me how a random event could come about I might be able to make myself more clear with a counter argument.
 
well, you don't actually need a computer. You could also calculate the results of a set of equation by hand (mind).


Examples? I can't really be bothered. I can remember during my biology studies that we looked at ecology situations that were seemingly the product of random events.

They were easily simulated by a set of simple equations. The outcome was dependent on small changes in the parameters or starting conditions.

as for a general comment:

a source of randomness in nature is the presence of noise in most if not all biological systems.
 
uh, people (especially readers only non-poster), I think I need to apologize here for putting rather unsuitable title........

And to those who discussed about evolution due to this mistake, no problem, just go on. Why should I go mad anyway.... who knows it is indeed related:)

And I shall ask those who answered the question of my post, not my title.....
Pete.... you mentioned that octopi are bright. Can they actually learn, or feel, or anything similar to that? I haven't seen enough documentaries on octopi, from what I've seen they're sort of just like what I mentioned on 'lower-class' animals: the "Give me food or leave me alone" thing.....
And by the way, how can I forget about the fact that most likely (most of the time), organisms live to breed? Aw....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top