Total Posts:4|Showing Posts:1-4
Jump to topic:

Types in evolution

janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 8:57:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Evolution has predetermined goals. This is obvious when you look at convergence. There are multiple paths to the same types. There are thousands of examples of convergence, with different species taking different paths to the same end. These types are a part of the natural evolution of the universe. Rewind the tape of time, and you will get basically the same evolution as we see now, with only minor variations.

Adaptation is a separate thing to evolution. Evolution has predetermined goals. Adaptation is the minor variations allowed a species by natural constraints. Each species can only adapt to a certain extent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 12:44:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:57:47 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has predetermined goals. This is obvious when you look at convergence. There are multiple paths to the same types. There are thousands of examples of convergence, with different species taking different paths to the same end. These types are a part of the natural evolution of the universe. Rewind the tape of time, and you will get basically the same evolution as we see now, with only minor variations.

This appears to be merely speculative, and unsupported.

Why is convergence indicative of predetermined goals, rather than physics and the environment causing particular shapes to have the maximum survival efficiency, and thus are positively (and aimlessly) selected for?

If you can't answer that, or if your answer doesn't include any justification, but simply more speculative arguments; then your "it's obvious" seems only to be a word you have put in because you feel certain, but you are unable to produce either evidence or justification for what you believe.

Adaptation is a separate thing to evolution. Evolution has predetermined goals. Adaptation is the minor variations allowed a species by natural constraints. Each species can only adapt to a certain extent.

This is actually true, just not to the extent, or the nature you intend to state.

Adaptation has constraints; because some changes are easier to produce consistently. For example, it is easier to change an arm into something else over time, than it is to develop an additional set of limbs.

This happens to be why the back-bone, skull, four limbs model of most craniate life forms (fish and non arthropod all land animals) have exactly the same form.

You also can't simply grow a new organ from scratch, but have to co-opt other parts; for example the lungs being a developmental offshoot from the gut in fish.

So yes, adaptation has limits which affects evolutionary lineages; but these limitations are obvious in taxonomy and evolutionary history; and don't in any way preclude evolution from a common ancestor; as they are a limitation on the ways one organism can vary at one time, not how much all organisms can vary all the time.

It can't be the latter simply given what we know about biological development. DNA isn't a blueprint, it's effectively a list of genes that tell cells to divide, start producing protein X, stop producing protein Y, divide more, stop dividing, etc.

When the DNA changes, it isn't binary. It isn't simply that a cell can either produce protein X at a given time or not; the gene expression can be modulated, increased, and increased a bunch of times, with successive mutations.

The idea that there is a limit as to how much a particular organism can adapt in this way to mean that it can only get so tall, for example, isn't supported by any evidence; because saying this is true is effectively saying that an organism can acquire 10 successive mutations that increasingly modulate the protein production in particular cells to produce the protein for 10 more divisions than it started out, but not 11.

It neither makes no sense in general, nor does it make any sense genetically.

And it strikes me as odd that people make such claims without a functional understanding of the way DNA in general works, nor how DNA mediates development.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 12:51:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:57:47 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has predetermined goals. This is obvious when you look at convergence. There are multiple paths to the same types. There are thousands of examples of convergence, with different species taking different paths to the same end. These types are a part of the natural evolution of the universe. Rewind the tape of time, and you will get basically the same evolution as we see now, with only minor variations.

Adaptation is a separate thing to evolution. Evolution has predetermined goals. Adaptation is the minor variations allowed a species by natural constraints. Each species can only adapt to a certain extent.

ME: It has been argued back and forth in these forums that evolution does not have direction or 'per-determined goals' and that there is not many theories of evolution...Here is the proof of the fact that there are as many theories of evolution as there are theories on creation. And they will keep cropping up as people think they are the ultimate mind amongst ultimate minds of the scientists.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2016 5:43:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/1/2016 12:51:48 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:57:47 PM, janesix wrote:
Evolution has predetermined goals. This is obvious when you look at convergence. There are multiple paths to the same types. There are thousands of examples of convergence, with different species taking different paths to the same end. These types are a part of the natural evolution of the universe. Rewind the tape of time, and you will get basically the same evolution as we see now, with only minor variations.

Adaptation is a separate thing to evolution. Evolution has predetermined goals. Adaptation is the minor variations allowed a species by natural constraints. Each species can only adapt to a certain extent.

ME: It has been argued back and forth in these forums that evolution does not have direction or 'per-determined goals' and that there is not many theories of evolution...Here is the proof of the fact that there are as many theories of evolution as there are theories on creation. And they will keep cropping up as people think they are the ultimate mind amongst ultimate minds of the scientists.

Janesix isn't a scientist. They have not published researched, nor holds any sway of opinion. What Janesix is saying is neither supported by, mentioned by or upheld by the scientific community, nor does anything Janesix say constitute any form of formal "theory" in a scientific sense.

Just because a random nut-job on a forum has their own quirky speculative assertions about how evolution works, does not mean that there are many theories of evolution.