Why does the evolutionary process exist?

I didn't note that the posters were 'anyone' in particular, no reputation forsuccess in their field (I could be wrong I will look again) I also cannot argue with their alleged 'proof' as I don't know enough to do so. I can however when it comes to theory decide myself to agree or disagree. I chose to disagree.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

TheoryOfRelativity:

I shall try to answer your questions regarding how things such as stick bugs and pollinating bees can come into existence through evolution:

Let us suppose that since time immemorial, there have been people which have been apt with computers. That is to say, before humans even had computers, there were people in this world who were meant to use them. Now, let's also suppose this is a random trait, and ontop of that, was either very deadly, or at least moderately deadly enough, to make the mutation very rare. Then one day the computer was invented (by Turning, wasn't it?). Now after this event, these computer people, no longer having to live in a world where no computers are, are capable of practicing and flourishing, even so much so, that it becomes -advantageous- for people to be a computer work and ontop of that, women (or men) want to mate with them, and so they reproduce at a rate larger than the average. Over time, so long as computers persist, the population will be seeded with greater and greater amounts of these individuals, until such time that they are so prominent and so distinct from non-computer users, they'll be a new species. But should computers go away, they'd be made obsolete, and without further adaptions, they'd fall to the way side and die.

When one sees a bee which can transport pollen, one is seeing a glorious coincidence which, in its connection, gives a mating advantage to either/or. In the absent of one, the other would either not exist, or exist in a different way. The stick bug needn't come before or after trees, only adapt to trees once they are there, et cetera. In fact, that the stick bug can mimic a tree at all is just a coincidence, just as computer-users were created before the computer in the above example, but would've died off.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

a piano player who has never palyed a piano?

Hmm coincidence indeed, I don't buy it. Too many fabulous coincidences, too neat a puzzle. Much more likely that genes are akin to star treks replicating machines don't ya think?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My thought a while back was that genes hold the memory of early genetic forms, thus the fact the gene can then replicate the tree is no mystery, the information regarding the tree (an earlier life form) is there in the insects genes. The question is why not all? Why do we adapt in different ways in same environment?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And I will defend your right to do so to the death.

Not obvious answers, no. But there are fascinating stories proposed by very intelligent biologists, which (to my uneducated mind) sound like could actually be true!

Richard Dawkins is annoyingly evangelistic atheist (you know what I mean, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), but his account of fig wasps in Climbing Mount Improbable is a great read. The whole book is very good as a popular account of how evolution provides a mechanism for the indescribably amazing variety of life on this world. I wouldn't expect it to change your point of view, but it should certainly help inform you about what evolutionary biology is all about.

This is also mentioned in one of Dawkins' books. It might be Climbing Mount Improbable, but I'm not sure.

The key is tiny increments. Imagine two insect siblings, sitting in a tree. One is a slightly different shade of brown or green from the other. A bird flies by some distance away... and spots one. Which one survives? The one whose shading is closer to that of the tree. Or the one whose shape is just slightly more leaflike. Or the one who holds its legs in a way that is slightly less insect-like, and slightly more twig-like.

Of course, event like this are rare... but over millions of generations of insects, it's reasonable to suppose that they might to happen enough times to make a difference, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and that's why we love you!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Alternatively, imagine a big increment.

Imagine that an intelligent from of life works out the way that life works so as to adjust the way it works to suit itself, with what might be called genetic engineering.

How does that strike you as a theory of creation?

If you then want to say that this itself is a part of evolution, what then if it is put to you that life itself came about because god the original creator had evolved?

--- Ron.

 

I can't deny that possibility, of course... but I've seen tiny increments.

And I also can't deny the possibility that the Universe was sneezed from the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My point was that we have seen a big increment.

--- Ron.

 

I dont see the problem here.
The plant obviously had the ability to pollinate by itself before the bee arrived on the scene but only with a lesser degree of success. Mutatons of the said plant that attracted bees were able to reap a higher success in reproduction and population due to the bees help, thus a higher and higher attractiveness to bees prevailed over time. Now come on! this is childs stuff.

 

Why is this obvious?

It would rather appear to be conveniently assumed.

--- Ron.

 

i think they knew, sort of.

 

and that's why they hate me !

I'm not feeling the love people!

I want to develop my idea about fractal memory stored in the genes (probably been done already) anyway I may ponder on that for a while, did you know a good long ponder reveals the answers to everything, I figure a ponder of about 25yrs should do it, shall have to wait until I retire though, so that will make me 90 before my great big revelation. Unless of course someone starts pondering now and gets there before me. Einstein attributed his genius to merely thinking about problems longer than the average person...such modesty, or merely truth?

 

how did they know?

 

so the bee domesticated the flower?

 

Group hug! (but keep your pollinators to youself, please!)

Hmmm... a bit of both, I think. Also a dash of luck (right place, right time).

There's a great quote about persistence by Calvin Coolidge...

 

Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence.

Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.
Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.

Persistence and determination are omnipotent.
The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.​

- Calvin Coolidge

 

It becomes obvious by observing plants with similar genera. One that is able to pollenate without bees(because living in a bee devoid area). Second plant of the same genus that spread to a pro-bee area can be observed to attract bees and thus thrive in comparison to its cousin.
There have been so many observations that this is merely a debate on observing evidence versus ignoring evidence, there is certainly no doubt on the side of scientists. This is obviously another instance of theist propaganda only?

 

because they had little consciousness. hm... how should i explain...

 

agreed, as proven recently by Cato in pm! (private joke)

 

The bee and the flower found a mutual cooperation.
The flower got it's pollen more widely spread and in return the flower was able to afford a meal for the help there in.

 

so the flower domesticated the bee?