Why does the evolutionary process exist?

[Nickelodeon]

I said this already

the question is not that, the question is regarding the alleged intelligence you are affording these genes? Are genes intelligent? If so why?

why did first randon life appear from nothing with intelligent genes...with INTELLIGENCE?

I'm sorry this discussion is getting rather bizzare. Intelligent genes? What is that supposed to mean??

 

[Ophiolite]

I said this already

the question is not that, the question is regarding the alleged intelligence you are affording these genes? Are genes intelligent? If so why?

why did first randon life appear from nothing with intelligent genes...with INTELLIGENCE?

Nickelodeon is affording the genes zero intelligence. What makes you think s/he is?
Most living things don't have an opinion one way or the other on survival and living. They do no more desire to live than a pebble desires to be caught up in an avalanche. They live for the simple reason that they have characteristics that keep them alive. If they had not evolved these characteristics they would not live. It really is that simple. What is the problem with this for you?

 

[imaplanck.]

Life replicates itself, fit specimens pass their 'fit' traits to their progeny while the weaker traits are diminished, thus an even fitter creature 'evolves'.

The question is not how this process works but why..who cares?

how is it that the genes were so cleverly engineered (in absence of an engineer) to permit the prevailing fit genes to survive and the weak ones to dimish? Why didn't the accident that was life just not know the difference between good and bad genes?

Your first 3 lines rather cleverly answers your own question. It is because that the survivors become more fit the longer time goes on, that replication and gene persistence was inevitably thrown up. There would be a huge amount of zeros in the count of the competing individuals that didn't make it past meaningful persistence though.

 

[Sarkus]

First life was a random thing, sprang from the soup, how did this requirement to replicate thus simultaneously arise as part of that random event?

No idea - a question of abiogenesis - not evolution.

How and why did the evolutionary process begin? I know how it works, I am not asking how I am asking why? Why did 'fit' organsims pass this knowledge to their progeny, oh I forget they just did. It is purely accidental that life is randomly designed to survive.

No - it is NOT purely accidental.

Evolution (biological) IS the process by which life survives or doesn't in the face of a changing environment.

There is no WHY to evolution other than: BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS.

Evolution is a process - and there is only the HOW.

Otherwise, please explain to me WHY the sun shines, or why the sky is blue.
And answer me those without merely telling me the HOW.

You can't answer a question about the origin of evolution with 'it is part of evolution'

Evolution kicks in whenever there is a change in environment and an ability of things to adapt.
Those that do are said to evolve - those that don't die out.
Things don't choose to evolve - they just either do or don't.
The origin of evolution is when you first have the pre-requisites for evolution in place. And even then you may only get a result that was "F - Failed to evolve".

Replication takes into consideration the need to adapt, thus evolution is at work when replication is at work.

No. Replication just replicates. There is no "need" to adapt.
When life replicates it can introduce minute changes.
Future survival might later (in a changing environment) depend upon certain changes from the original - and those that have those changes survive, those that don't die off.

quote=ToR]So again you cannot answer the question as to why do we need to replicate with 'that is the definition of life'[/quote]We do not NEED to replicate.
Life is DEFINED as being something that DOES.

Unless you are implying LIFE wants to LIVE? WHY does LIFE want to live?

Life doesn't WANT to live. It just does!

Why not live,die, live,die, live die.

That could have happened.
But one bit of life arose that DID replicate.
And this one continued to replicate as its environment didn't adversely change for a while.
And sometimes when it replicated, minute changes were introduced. Some of these changes resulted in that offspring dying.
Some durvived.

When the environment did change adversely, some of the changes from the original allowed the offspring to keep surviving, while others without these necessary changes died off.

The first life forms were not genetically connected unless the first life forms arose with the ability to replicate. IF the VERY first living this arose with the ability to replicate, HOW and WHY?

Maybe when we manage to create life from raw-matter we will be able to provide you with a satisfactory answer.

Meanwhile I am NOT saying they did appear without ability to replicate. I am just trying to get you to ask yourself WHY, bearing in mind it was a random event....rather complex set of inbuilt mechanisms for a random event?

Why random?

It is important you see beyond the limitations of answering a question with the following: etc

Then don't ask "why does life replicate?" because that is the wrong question - as life is defined as (among other things) replicating.
You should be asking HOW raw matter began self-replicating in complex structures - and that is a matter of abiogenesis - which is nothing to do with evolution.

 

[Nickelodeon]

Evolution kicks in whenever there is a change in environment and an ability of things to adapt.

I think evolution can occur even if there is no change in environment.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Nickelodeon is affording the genes zero intelligence. What makes you think s/he is?
Most living things don't have an opinion one way or the other on survival and living. They do no more desire to live than a pebble desires to be caught up in an avalanche. They live for the simple reason that they have characteristics that keep them alive. If they had not evolved these characteristics they would not live. It really is that simple. What is the problem with this for you?

so evolution began because evolution began, it's much clearer now.

"If they had not evolved these characteristics they would not live."

I said this in my first post, how did the first life forms live bearing in mind the absence of the evolutionary process.

If you say this process was immediately in place, then this is what I am asking you, how does a random event put such a thing as a 'process' in place?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Otherwise, please explain to me WHY the sun shines, or why the sky is blue.
And answer me those without merely telling me the HOW.

.

you are aware there are answers as to 'why' re these two questions aren't you?

 

[Oli]

If you say this process was immediately in place, then this is what I am asking you, how does a random event put such a thing as a 'process' in place?

You're looking at it the wrong way... random events didn't "put" the process in place, random events allowed the process to eventuate (along with numerous others that didn't work as well) and the process, being "self-replicating", kept itself going.

 

[Nickelodeon]

so evolution began because evolution began, it's much clearer now.

"If they had not evolved these characteristics they would not live."

I said this in my first post, how did the first life forms live bearing in mind the absence of the evolutionary process.

If you say this process was immediately in place, then this is what I am asking you, how does a random event put such a thing as a 'process' in place?

You dont need an "evolutionary process" for the first life to live. Just the right lifeform in the right circumstances.

 

[Sarkus]

you are aware there are answers as to 'why' re these two questions aren't you?

Please give them - without merely explaining the HOW - even just PM the answers to me. I'm intrigued.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

You're looking at it the wrong way... random events didn't "put" the process in place, random events allowed the process to eventuate (along with numerous others that didn't work as well) and the process, being "self-replicating", kept itself going.

how did the 'process' of replication arise at the same time a living thing first arose?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Please give them - without merely explaining the HOW - even just PM the answers to me. I'm intrigued.

google the question including the word 'why' and you'll have the answers.

 

[Nickelodeon]

How do you know the first living thing replicated itself?

 

[Sarkus]

I think evolution can occur even if there is no change in environment.

No - evolution does not occur if there is no change in the environment.
Bear in mind that the life-form itself, and the number and type thereof, form part of that environment.

Evolution requires a change in the environment - otherwise you are just talking "changes", whereas evolution describes a process relating to the fitness of those changes.

 

[Oli]

how did the 'process' of replication arise at the same time a living thing first arose?

Did it? Can you prove (or even demonstrate, or even indicate) that it did? Any number of "living" things without the ability to replicate may have occured before replication became "possible". We'll never know. It's just that our current definition of life inculdes replication.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Anyway Sarkus thanks for your long and detailed reply, it is under consideration

meanwhile I am off to Shaggies world. later

 

[Sarkus]

google the question including the word 'why' and you'll have the answers.

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html Nothing but HOW.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html Nothing but HOW.
http://www.sky-watch.com/articles/skyblue.html Nothing but HOW.

This is my point - there is no WHY - as WHY implies a purpose.
And there is no purpose - just process.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/sky_blue.html Nothing but HOW.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html Nothing but HOW.
http://www.sky-watch.com/articles/skyblue.html Nothing but HOW.

This is my point - there is no WHY - as WHY implies a purpose.
And there is no purpose - just process.

your link is thus

"From time to time SkyWatch sends it subscribers articles such as Why is the SkyBlue? to help them better understand its predictions and notices. The following article is aimed primarily at newcomers to skygazing and astronomy but I hope it will also contain information that the veterans will find interesting.

etc"

 

[Sarkus]

your link is thus

"From time to time SkyWatch sends it subscribers articles such as Why is the SkyBlue? to help them better understand its predictions and notices. The following article is aimed primarily at newcomers to skygazing and astronomy but I hope it will also contain information that the veterans will find interesting.

etc"

Yes - they may say "Why" - but they only explain the HOW. Read the links more - it is all the processes by which our eyes observe, the processes by which the atoms in the air defract the light etc.
All of it is HOW.

Likewise, with evolution, there is no WHY - just HOW.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I got Sarkus' point and I don't have an IQ of 155.