deleted
Last edited:
Why does the evolutionary process exist?
- Thread starter Theoryofrelativity
- Start date
Theoryofrelativity (ToR), I was halfway through responding in the original thread this was in and noted that you had set this up in response to my original post... so here goes with some answers from a self-professed non-expert.
As we have not yet been able to create "life" from nothing, it is difficult to say.
However, it is entirely possible that a number of potential first-lifes arose but quickly died out - part of evolution - as they could not replicate.
It is non-sensical to talk about biological evolution without the assumption of replication / reproduction.
Please can you clarify this question?
As stated, the adaptability and survivability is what we DEFINE as evolution - not what drives it.
The evolutionary process did not need to happen....
It is only because one "first-life" DID have the ability to initially survive, and then manage to adapt to some changes, that we are here.
Also, there was no "desire" to survive - it just did.
It just went through the natural biological evolutionary process.
It had no choice about it - just like every other living creature has no choice about it.
I have no idea how life began.
Also - we humans have only had the ability to look for such things within the last 100 years or so - hardly enough time in the grand scheme.
It is probably through gradual mutations of these clones that differences from the original arose.
Some of these differences would have died out - as they may have caused the life to be unable to survive the environment.
Other differences would have survived as they did not effect the ability to survive.
Then, when there was a change in the environment, those without the ability to survive in this new environment would die out.
If the creature spread to two differing environments (such as on the border between water and land) then two branches of the life might have developed.
And so it would go on.
No idea. But isn't one requirement for "life" the ability to replicate. Therefore first-life only exists when the entity demonstrates the ability to replicate? Thus life, by definition, had this at the start.ToR said:
No idea.ToR said:
As we have not yet been able to create "life" from nothing, it is difficult to say.
However, it is entirely possible that a number of potential first-lifes arose but quickly died out - part of evolution - as they could not replicate.
The biological evolutionary process requires reproduction / replication. Thus evolution begins when replication begins - not before.ToR said:
It is non-sensical to talk about biological evolution without the assumption of replication / reproduction.
Not sure I follow? All life forms are genetically connected. We all have DNA that has replication as part of the instruction-set.ToR said:
Please can you clarify this question?
The biological evolutionary process only kicks in when there IS replication.ToR said:
As stated, the adaptability and survivability is what we DEFINE as evolution - not what drives it.
The evolutionary process did not need to happen....
No idea. New first-life could possibly be arising every moment, but because it does not have the ability to adapt and change it dies very quickly.Tor said:
It is only because one "first-life" DID have the ability to initially survive, and then manage to adapt to some changes, that we are here.
Also, there was no "desire" to survive - it just did.
It just went through the natural biological evolutionary process.
It had no choice about it - just like every other living creature has no choice about it.
Again, isn't one of the common requirements of "life" the ability to replicate/reproduce etc. Without it there is no life.ToR said:
I have no idea how life began.
It might be happening all the time - and we have missed it before that life dies.ToR said:
Also - we humans have only had the ability to look for such things within the last 100 years or so - hardly enough time in the grand scheme.
It probably self-replicated / cloned itself. Thus, if the original can survive the environment, so can the clone.ToR said:
It is probably through gradual mutations of these clones that differences from the original arose.
Some of these differences would have died out - as they may have caused the life to be unable to survive the environment.
Other differences would have survived as they did not effect the ability to survive.
Then, when there was a change in the environment, those without the ability to survive in this new environment would die out.
If the creature spread to two differing environments (such as on the border between water and land) then two branches of the life might have developed.
And so it would go on.
They wouldn't have - but obviously it had the necessary features for its survival - as it did survive.ToR said:
Life per definition replicates. Otherwise it is not life, oh mighty IQ of 155.Theoryofrelativity said:
You clearly cannot substitute an IQ of 155 for actual reading up on a subject.Theoryofrelativity said:
Clearly the IQ of 155 prevents you from seeing the trees in the forest. There is no evolution without replication. Indeed by asking the wrong question you can make your own points valid. The intrisinc value of your own points however will appraoch zero.Theoryofrelativity said:
It wasn't. Otherwise they would be connected. You cannot subsitite an IQ of 155 for actually reading up on a topic. We are not in ancient greece anymore.Theoryofrelativity said:
Once again a collection of silly questions. There is no desire in evolution. Evolution is a process.Theoryofrelativity said:
We never did. False questions cannot be answered oh might IQ of 155.Theoryofrelativity said:
Because there is efficient life everywhere.Theoryofrelativity said:
Who knows? It doesn't diminish the value of evolution.Theoryofrelativity said:
Once again it seems that an IQ of 155 is not a substitute for actual reading up on a topic. Evolution occurs with every replication round. The overall direction in a population during each replication round can be zero. However, in the beginning there was so much room for improvement that it can easily be imagined that the first evolution was fast untill more stable forms appeared.Theoryofrelativity said:
Don't bother. Just read http://www.talkorigins.org/ first.Theoryofrelativity said:
You fail utterly in basic knowledge. Maybe it is a smart move (one that even an IQ of 155 should be able to see) to first read up on the basics before criticising a well established theory.
Otherwise this is nothing more than an exercise in silliness.
Sarkus said:
Who decided that requirement?
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?
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.
You can't answer a question about the origin of evolution with 'it is part of evolution'
Replication takes into consideration the need to adapt, thus evolution is at work when replication is at work. So again you cannot answer the question as to why do we need to replicate with 'that is the definition of life' it is NOT an answer, you cannot answer the question 'how did evolution begin' with it's part of replication, because the whole buisness of being alive and remaining so is dependant upon the abilty to remain alive. Organisms that arose without these BUILT in abilities would die and there is NO reason at all why anything better would airse to accomodate the inadequacies fo the first. Unless you are implying LIFE wants to LIVE? WHY does LIFE want to live?
Why not live,die, live,die, live die.
WHEN did life decide it wanted to live?
Sarkus said:
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? 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?
It is important you see beyond the limitations of answering a question with the following:
I ask you: why does a televison work and you say: "they always have, this is just the way it is. The first televiosn worked and so now they all do. There is nor eason for it, it just does, they just do. all televisons work this way, this is what defines a television.
Last edited:
Theoryofrelativity said:
What do you mean "decide"??? If life didnt live, it wouldnt be life.
I think what she means is 'what drove the process of life persisting for any meaningful time such as a day, a week, a year, a century etc etc.....' instread of just giving in to perpetual 1 minute extinction for example.
Because the '1 minute' ones went extinct after 1 minute.
imaplanck. said:
My answer would be it was a random event made inevitable by the numbers game. Like all of the evolution process there was no intent or design, just the random success (if you like).
Last edited:
No that is not the answer to the question. You call yourself an expert?spuriousmonkey said:
No, I'm an expert in evo-devo of teeth.
Nickelodeon said:
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?
Theoryofrelativity said:
How are you defining "life"?
imaplanck. said:
ah an intelligent contributor, thank you. I have trouble expressing exactly what is on my mind as the absence of my knowledge does indeed hinder progress, but it is nice to know despite that, that the point I try to make is still observable.
Then the answer is:
Because the '1 minute' ones went extinct after 1 minute.
Because the '1 minute' ones went extinct after 1 minute.
imaplanck. said:
Evolutionary process may appear random, but the fact remains that this process was in place at the beginning of life, and this is the part I am asking about! Life CAME from the very FIRST step designed with a mechansim that enabled it to survive.
Theoryofrelativity said:
Bearing in mind there is more than one of a species. Those with usefull traits will more likely survive than those without usefull traits. Those with useful traits pass it on to thier offsrping. Those without useful traits don't, because they are dead.
Nickelodeon said:
Living things desire to live
The desire to live enables the mechanism of evolutionary process and replication to exist. Else why do they?
Nickelodeon said:
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?
Can't anyone answer these questions with 'because they just do'
Isn't that how the parapsychology club get along?
Isn't that how the parapsychology club get along?
Last edited: