|
Post by AZERTY on Feb 24, 2004 1:48:47 GMT -5
however... although there is to an extent physical evolution as you call it... there is also a degree of randomness to this evolution... it is not always what fits best, for are there not hundreds of best combinations? as a result, it is not necesarily which is best, but more, what seems better. and because there are many ways to improve, there is always a random factor in any kind of evolution that will allow something to become better in a different way.
Furthermore, regardless of evolution, the laws of the universe cannot change, and therefore cannot be governed by evolution. The laws exist because of the way that the universe "evolved." I beleive that there is one fundemental unifying force, (which is being studied, and many scientists are trying to unify all the forces under one large force, however it is a difficult task) and that the way in which the (particles, energy etc) that this force produces interact, force a part of the unifying force to act in a certain way.... that if the universe had evolved differently, the unifying force would be the same but the way it manifests itself might be different. It is how evolution manipulates this force that creates the universe. (ex: a bird can manipulate air to "counter gravity" in a sense.... it is possible, that matter might have evolved to counter that force too, but in suppressing gravity might have accessed a different part of the unifying force.)
|
|
|
Post by Antid on Feb 24, 2004 2:53:08 GMT -5
is not always what fits best, for are there not hundreds of best combinations? as a result, it is not necesarily which is best, but more, what seems better. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. Moreover, there are no hundreds of combinations, because there is only one way - the way that it WORKS.
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Feb 25, 2004 2:30:51 GMT -5
look at it this way magister... why did the mammoth evolve into the elephant (and thereby lose hair)? because, in that adaption, it survived better, it was easier to keep cool.... However, what if the elephant had evolved to have a skin that made it impermeable instead.... Would not that adaption have suited the elephant better? the problem is that there are many different ways the elephant can evolve, and the path it takes is as much based on randomness as natural selection.
|
|
|
Post by Antid on Feb 25, 2004 17:38:15 GMT -5
That is not true.
The "randomness" that you're thinking of is mutation, which only introduces new alleles into a population. A mutation is random, but if it does not benefit the individual, it will not last (natural selection).
Mammoths didn't just evolve overnight and become elephants. Of course, it's possible that an individual may live on in a population with a unique allele, until a catastrophe strikes, wiping out the entire population except this individual, who had an allele that made it immune to that catastrophe. For example, bacteria don't just "become" resistant to antibiotics. What happens is the antibiotic kills all the bacteria except those that had the genes that made it resistant to the antibiotic. That is natural selection, and it is not random - it is determined by the environment in regards to population and survivors/advantage bearers.
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Feb 25, 2004 22:51:45 GMT -5
natural selection does not always occur as a result of catastrophes, it can occur gradually over time, as the species with the advantageous gene, finds that much more food, and dies out less than the other. As a result, there are many mutatations that could benefit a species, and the ones that occur are random...
|
|
|
Post by Antid on Feb 26, 2004 21:13:52 GMT -5
Thank you for repeating what I said.
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Feb 27, 2004 18:06:43 GMT -5
I didnt... notice that you said that evolution was not random... where as I said it was.
|
|
|
Post by Antid on Feb 27, 2004 23:09:29 GMT -5
natural selection does not always occur as a result of catastrophes, it can occur gradually over time... Yes you do. But that aside, evolution is not random - I explained why in a previous post.
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Mar 2, 2004 21:16:13 GMT -5
How did that say that evolution was not random? All I said, was that evolution didnt have to occur because of catastrophes. Furthermore, I am explaining that your explanation is wrong. Evolution is random... otherwise if it isnt, wouldnt that be proof that there is some sort of God? In which case why are you atheist. If you read Darwin, you will find that half of his argument is that natural selection is based on chance and is random.
He writes in preface to The Origin of Species
"* Aristotle, in his 'Physicae Auscultationes' (lib. 2, cap. 8, s. 2), after remarking that rain does not fall in order to make the corn grow, any more than it falls to spoil the farmer's corn when threshed out of doors, applies the same argument to organization: and adds (as translated by Mr Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to me), 'So what hinders the different parts [of the body] from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident."
|
|
|
Post by Antid on Mar 3, 2004 0:08:00 GMT -5
I don't understand your counter-argument.
Frankly, this argument bores me to death, no offence. I'm kinda sick of arguing about this, especially since I don't feel any interest or necessity in doing so.
You're right - go publish a book. I'll read it when it's out.
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Mar 3, 2004 0:46:14 GMT -5
But my book would almost copy Darwins... and therefore be plagurism.... plus I cant be bothered.
|
|