Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Did evolution happen in a linear way?
If so how was it possible for species to survive when they are so dependent on other organisms or species to act in parallel.
ie. humans need gut bacteria
predatory animals need a foe
some viruses need bacteria
and literally applies to most living things!
ie. humans need gut bacteria
predatory animals need a foe
some viruses need bacteria
and literally applies to most living things!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@Rov - your posts suggest that you have a problem with the idea of evolution.
Your argument, above, is a straw man. Life is not an either/or proposition, as your post suggests.
1. Humans can survive without gut bacteria. Not all of the organisms that reside within the human gut do anything. some actually do harm. Overall however, we have evolved a symbiotic, mostly beneficial relationship with our gut microbiota.
2. Predatory animals need prey. But that prey could mean pretty much any species other than their own that they think they can kill. What tends to happen is that predatory animals tend to specialise around 1 type prey animal over the generations, depending mostly on prevelance of that species and whether they are a pack hunter or a solitary predator ; If a catastrophic failure of their preferred prey happened, that might temporarily cause them some problems - but they would likely adapt and find another source. Once again, The relationship you propose is not an either/or, fully formed situation.
3. Some viruses need bacteria? Not sure what you mean by this. Care to offer a specific example?
Please remember that the evolution of life on earth took place over billions over years and millions of generations.
Your last comment -" literally applies to most living things" - is quite revealing. Those people who most struggle with the concept of evolution tend to view things too literally. An example would be the eye - the literalists say that the eye is such a complex organ, and we are so reliant on vision, that it could only have occurred fully formed. But of course, this fails to recognise that an eye only half as efficient would be very useful in itself, and that a mere pit of light sensitive cells would be an evolutionary advantage in our earlier forebears.
Your argument, above, is a straw man. Life is not an either/or proposition, as your post suggests.
1. Humans can survive without gut bacteria. Not all of the organisms that reside within the human gut do anything. some actually do harm. Overall however, we have evolved a symbiotic, mostly beneficial relationship with our gut microbiota.
2. Predatory animals need prey. But that prey could mean pretty much any species other than their own that they think they can kill. What tends to happen is that predatory animals tend to specialise around 1 type prey animal over the generations, depending mostly on prevelance of that species and whether they are a pack hunter or a solitary predator ; If a catastrophic failure of their preferred prey happened, that might temporarily cause them some problems - but they would likely adapt and find another source. Once again, The relationship you propose is not an either/or, fully formed situation.
3. Some viruses need bacteria? Not sure what you mean by this. Care to offer a specific example?
Please remember that the evolution of life on earth took place over billions over years and millions of generations.
Your last comment -" literally applies to most living things" - is quite revealing. Those people who most struggle with the concept of evolution tend to view things too literally. An example would be the eye - the literalists say that the eye is such a complex organ, and we are so reliant on vision, that it could only have occurred fully formed. But of course, this fails to recognise that an eye only half as efficient would be very useful in itself, and that a mere pit of light sensitive cells would be an evolutionary advantage in our earlier forebears.
-ctd-
Evolution is not linear. It is not a ladder. It does not have direction or purpose. It is the change in gene frequencies of a species over time, driven by mutation, genetic drift. Those genetic changes that endow the species with a greater survival benefit, either in reproductive frequency, or longevity, or better hunting / food gathering will tend to predominate.
Evolution is not linear. It is not a ladder. It does not have direction or purpose. It is the change in gene frequencies of a species over time, driven by mutation, genetic drift. Those genetic changes that endow the species with a greater survival benefit, either in reproductive frequency, or longevity, or better hunting / food gathering will tend to predominate.
Lazygun thanks for your comments.
Its not evolution I doubt as I'm sure it happened. But its the driver that made it happen and randomness in itself is not sufficient for the complexity even allowing for the millions of years to establish.
As an example of a virus needing a host you could take the single stranded bacteriorphage IX 174 which attached itself to a bacterium then multiplies and bursts out producing many clones.
Generally life is composed of parallel identities coming together to function. Yet within its own universe no knowledge or input would be required of the other.
Its not evolution I doubt as I'm sure it happened. But its the driver that made it happen and randomness in itself is not sufficient for the complexity even allowing for the millions of years to establish.
As an example of a virus needing a host you could take the single stranded bacteriorphage IX 174 which attached itself to a bacterium then multiplies and bursts out producing many clones.
Generally life is composed of parallel identities coming together to function. Yet within its own universe no knowledge or input would be required of the other.
@rov - Deep time and millions of generations are not something to be dismissed as lightly as your comments suggest Rov. Over such time, randomness, and this is important, filtered, distilled randomness through the funnel of natural selection offers an exceptionally,incredibly powerful driver, fully capable of explaining virtually all of the complexity of biological world we see around us.
Your description of the virus sounds like the modus operandi for pretty much every virus I have ever heard of.... so what is it you find strange?
You end your post with this comment "Generally life is composed of parallel identities coming together to function. Yet within its own universe no knowledge or input would be required of the other." That is not a description I recognise, particularly if you mean to support that assertion with the examples you give from your first post, which I would argue are false.
The whole thrust of your argument seems to have at its core two strands - an idea that where we are now is pretty much the end point that evolution was aiming at, and that evolution is undirected randomness that is not a sufficiently powerful driver. The very last thing that natural selection is is randomness.
Your description of the virus sounds like the modus operandi for pretty much every virus I have ever heard of.... so what is it you find strange?
You end your post with this comment "Generally life is composed of parallel identities coming together to function. Yet within its own universe no knowledge or input would be required of the other." That is not a description I recognise, particularly if you mean to support that assertion with the examples you give from your first post, which I would argue are false.
The whole thrust of your argument seems to have at its core two strands - an idea that where we are now is pretty much the end point that evolution was aiming at, and that evolution is undirected randomness that is not a sufficiently powerful driver. The very last thing that natural selection is is randomness.
@Rov - you are offering, as backup to your argument, a link to an Answers in Genesis creationist site? No wonder you are having problems understanding the basics of evolution, if you use AiG as your scientific compass.
Once again, you, and your fellow creationists exhibit this either/or,black or white worldview that superficially sounds almost reasonable - for about a microsecond.
The points you make in your last post is just specious, and once again misrepresents evolution. Yes, of course humans need both genders to procreate, since we are a species that uses sexual reproduction! Too right its a simple argument!Laughably simplistic, in fact. Logically, it appears that you believe that evolution says that the genders had to evolve separately!?
The reality is that there have always been,(and still are), since the advent, in our planetary history, of multicellular life, several reproductive methods available, ranging from asexual, through hermaphroditism and onto sexual reproduction, each of which offers its own unique set of benefits and costs for the species. Homo Sapiens is an evolved species from a long line of ancestor species that used sexual reproduction.
You flatly reject the science - without even understanding the very basics of the science - and this is the extent of your argument? some creationist claptrap?
As chakka says - go read some biology and science textbooks. Then come back and debate.
Once again, you, and your fellow creationists exhibit this either/or,black or white worldview that superficially sounds almost reasonable - for about a microsecond.
The points you make in your last post is just specious, and once again misrepresents evolution. Yes, of course humans need both genders to procreate, since we are a species that uses sexual reproduction! Too right its a simple argument!Laughably simplistic, in fact. Logically, it appears that you believe that evolution says that the genders had to evolve separately!?
The reality is that there have always been,(and still are), since the advent, in our planetary history, of multicellular life, several reproductive methods available, ranging from asexual, through hermaphroditism and onto sexual reproduction, each of which offers its own unique set of benefits and costs for the species. Homo Sapiens is an evolved species from a long line of ancestor species that used sexual reproduction.
You flatly reject the science - without even understanding the very basics of the science - and this is the extent of your argument? some creationist claptrap?
As chakka says - go read some biology and science textbooks. Then come back and debate.
There is a fabulous mutual evolution going on between hosts and their parasites
That is especially true of viruses.
They latch on to proteins in the cell wall get into the cell and hijack the cell.
So evolution changes these proteins by chance and the virus is locked out - unit, a virus variation comes about that can unlock this new cell
In this way you end up with two highly dependant species - if one goes extinct so will the other
That is especially true of viruses.
They latch on to proteins in the cell wall get into the cell and hijack the cell.
So evolution changes these proteins by chance and the virus is locked out - unit, a virus variation comes about that can unlock this new cell
In this way you end up with two highly dependant species - if one goes extinct so will the other
if there was only a single sex, say female that clones itself, as in species of jellyfish. there would be no way that the species could evolve, as the offspring would be an exact replica of its parent.... for species to evolve they need to pass sex cells between them, these can sometimes mutate, if the mutation is good for that species, it will be passed down to future generations... takes a long time for the process to happen though
Chakka and Lazygun you may be able to lean back on the work of evolutionists but you oviously havn't rid the article above. The final paragraph quotes Einstein and I'm sure he was more knowledgeable than both of you
""The highly complex and intricate manner in which the human body reproduces offspring is not a matter of mere chance or a “lucky role of the dice.” Rather, it is the product of an intelligent Creator. Albert Einstein said it well when he stated: “God does not play dice with the universe.”"
""The highly complex and intricate manner in which the human body reproduces offspring is not a matter of mere chance or a “lucky role of the dice.” Rather, it is the product of an intelligent Creator. Albert Einstein said it well when he stated: “God does not play dice with the universe.”"
@Rov - Once again, a huge fail, on so many levels.
1. Why would you reference a physicist and cosmologist when talking about evolution? Why do you assume that Einstein has more education, understanding or insight about evolution than either Chakka or myself, for that matter?
2. For approximately the 1 millionth time - Evolution is not a random process! It is not a process of "mere chance". The only people who (mis)represent evolution this way are creationist literalists, who struggle to understand the basics of biology, physics, cosmology and most especially evolution.
3. For any God-botherer to quote Einstein is particularly funny, since Einstein most definitely did not believe in a personal God. You present a quote, taken from your site du jour, and present it as something Einstein said about human reproduction. He did no such thing. The comment about "God not playing dice about the universe" was taken from a letter to a friend, where he was expressing in a kind of colloquial shorthand, his frustration over quantum theory, which he felt was too reliant on randomness. It most certainly was not an opinion over human evolution, reproduction, or that sexual reproduction was somehow evidence in favour of God.
I have read the article you reference, several times. It is riddles with misrepresentation, misunderstanding and inaccuracy. It makes me laugh.
1. Why would you reference a physicist and cosmologist when talking about evolution? Why do you assume that Einstein has more education, understanding or insight about evolution than either Chakka or myself, for that matter?
2. For approximately the 1 millionth time - Evolution is not a random process! It is not a process of "mere chance". The only people who (mis)represent evolution this way are creationist literalists, who struggle to understand the basics of biology, physics, cosmology and most especially evolution.
3. For any God-botherer to quote Einstein is particularly funny, since Einstein most definitely did not believe in a personal God. You present a quote, taken from your site du jour, and present it as something Einstein said about human reproduction. He did no such thing. The comment about "God not playing dice about the universe" was taken from a letter to a friend, where he was expressing in a kind of colloquial shorthand, his frustration over quantum theory, which he felt was too reliant on randomness. It most certainly was not an opinion over human evolution, reproduction, or that sexual reproduction was somehow evidence in favour of God.
I have read the article you reference, several times. It is riddles with misrepresentation, misunderstanding and inaccuracy. It makes me laugh.
You must be thick Lazygun. Not only do you mis represent my views but have no idea what healthy scepticism means. I'm not at all religious, I've been trained as a scientist which means you question everything even some established views. Also you may have views of your own, which may be right, but don't expect everyone else to follow along like sheep. Even religious people have views give them the courtsey to accept what they believe is right otherwise you could be labelled a bigot.
Lazygun just to show its not all black or white
http://www.theanswerb...y/Question908471.html
You should get out more!
http://www.theanswerb...y/Question908471.html
You should get out more!
@Rov - Your scientific training was Fosters-poor then. If you had any scientific training at all, you should be able to distinguish between "healthy scepticism" and uncritically spouting creationist creed in support of your many posts on the subject of evolution.Your initial question demonstrates your scientific illiteracy.
As to your claim of being non-religious - I think your posts and your uncritical acceptance of creationism/anti - evolution say otherwise.
No one with even the most basic of scientific training could possibly claim with a straight face that sexual reproduction somehow invalidates evolution - Unless, that is, they were trying to twist the scientific fact to fit their religious world view.
As for your claim about me being thick - well, I will let the readers judge - Its not me however that uncritically spouts from an Answers in Genesis site when attempting to supporting a "scientific claim" that sexual reproduction somehow invalidates evolution. Its not me that continually demonstrates their failure to understand evolutionary theory, demonstrated by your continual repetition of the entirely incorrect claim that evolution is either "random" or "mere chance".
As to your claim of being non-religious - I think your posts and your uncritical acceptance of creationism/anti - evolution say otherwise.
No one with even the most basic of scientific training could possibly claim with a straight face that sexual reproduction somehow invalidates evolution - Unless, that is, they were trying to twist the scientific fact to fit their religious world view.
As for your claim about me being thick - well, I will let the readers judge - Its not me however that uncritically spouts from an Answers in Genesis site when attempting to supporting a "scientific claim" that sexual reproduction somehow invalidates evolution. Its not me that continually demonstrates their failure to understand evolutionary theory, demonstrated by your continual repetition of the entirely incorrect claim that evolution is either "random" or "mere chance".
Lazygun is right: you show no signs of having a rational approach to these things. Could you please tell us what scientific training you had?
Your comments regarding male and female, together with many other things you have said, show clearly that not only are you ignorant about evoution but are clearly prejudiced against it for what seem remarkably like religious reasons.
If you are not religious, perhaps you would be more comfortable taking it up. Your new friends won't lumber you with any awkward reasonableness as Lazygun and I do!
Your comments regarding male and female, together with many other things you have said, show clearly that not only are you ignorant about evoution but are clearly prejudiced against it for what seem remarkably like religious reasons.
If you are not religious, perhaps you would be more comfortable taking it up. Your new friends won't lumber you with any awkward reasonableness as Lazygun and I do!
In answer to the original question, "how is it possible for species to survive when they are so dependent on other organisms or species to act in parallel", I would have to make the observation that for many species, of course, they don't.
Fully 98% of all known species have gone extinct - often as a result of big catastrophies such as the one that occured at the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary, which wiped out all dinosaurs. We should be a little careful to clarify that although species may depend on an other to survive, this is rarely a 1:1 relationship - this is why we normally talk about food webs, rather than food chains, for example. However, to examine a theoretical example, if we had a situation where the nitrogen levels increases to a point of toxicity for the majority of micro-organisms at the bottom of a food chain, causing them to die, we might then see a reaction further up the web where fewer and fewer dependant species can survive due to the lack of food at each lower level, resulting in big problems for the apex species.
So the short answer is that the majority of species don't survive, and often as a direct consequence of those they depend on.
Incidentally, I see you claim not to be religious, despite apparently relying exclusively on the claims of woo-woo merchants like Answers in Genesis, but I would like to observe that *if* some intelligent entity were behind life, it's somewhat surprising that 98% of his creations do go extinct. Not very intelligent, if you ask me...
Fully 98% of all known species have gone extinct - often as a result of big catastrophies such as the one that occured at the Cretaceous–Tertiary boundary, which wiped out all dinosaurs. We should be a little careful to clarify that although species may depend on an other to survive, this is rarely a 1:1 relationship - this is why we normally talk about food webs, rather than food chains, for example. However, to examine a theoretical example, if we had a situation where the nitrogen levels increases to a point of toxicity for the majority of micro-organisms at the bottom of a food chain, causing them to die, we might then see a reaction further up the web where fewer and fewer dependant species can survive due to the lack of food at each lower level, resulting in big problems for the apex species.
So the short answer is that the majority of species don't survive, and often as a direct consequence of those they depend on.
Incidentally, I see you claim not to be religious, despite apparently relying exclusively on the claims of woo-woo merchants like Answers in Genesis, but I would like to observe that *if* some intelligent entity were behind life, it's somewhat surprising that 98% of his creations do go extinct. Not very intelligent, if you ask me...
Latest Posts
Sewing Recommendations For Beginner?
ChatterBank10 mins ago
ChatterBank21 mins ago
This Is A Bit Alarming - Rise In Strokes...
News42 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles50 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.