Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[buffalo]

It is complex, it is a cube and it has formed naturally, and that is precisely why it’s a wonder to behold. You wouldn’t think it to be possible, and yet it is. I see no reason why biological complexity cannot form naturally.

The language of DNA is quite different and vastly more complex. There is a huge difference.

 

[Crocus]

Just got here. Fill me in, what did pianos evolve from. How long did it take. Do they have any interesting offspring?

 

[Techno2000]

Do they have any interesting offspring?

Yes… the Moog synthesizer.

 

[Techno2000]

This could go on for a very long time, giving evolution time enough to develop an adaptation to the new environment which then moves back in to its old niche.

There’s a hierarchy of niches in every ecosystem that is interrelated. One organism can’t change without affecting the others.How can evolution/environment change, cherry pick one creature and not affect the whole ecosystem ?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

This could go on for a very long time, giving evolution time enough to develop an adaptation to the new environment which then moves back in to its old niche.

There’s a hierarchy of niches in every ecosystem that is interrelated. One organism can’t change without affecting the others.

Sometimes it affects other organisms a lot, and sometimes it affects them very little. It all depends.

How can evolution/environment change, cherry pick one creature and not affect the whole ecosystem ?

It doesn’t. Such a change in the environment would probably affect a lot of other creatures.

Now do you have an actual argument based on these questions? Or is this just going to lead to more questions?

 

[Techno2000]

Now do you have a actual argument based on these questions? Or is this just going to lead to more questions?

The argument is that an environmental change would affect every single aspect of a ecosystem… not just one organism.

 

[edwest]

Like rabbits in Australia.

http://www.rabbitfreeaustralia.com.au/rabbits/the-rabbit-problem/

 

[Techno2000]

Like rabbits in Australia.

The Rabbit Problem – Rabbit Free Australia

Loading…

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Wozza]

rossum:

A God who cannot use nature, but is constrained to direct intervention, is not an omnipotent God, because some methods are barred.

rossum

It would seem to me that if God decided to write a computer programme (let’s say to mimic the process of evolution) and wanted a specific result, then that result would obtain. I can’t see that He would need to show up every so ofen and fine tune it.

That’s not God. But it seems that so many want to restrict Him.

If you appreciate the comment @Techno2000, then why are you one of those who restrict God?

 

[buffalo]

Yes… the Moog synthesizer.

I was going to post the exact same thing.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Yes… the Moog synthesizer.

I was going to post the exact same thing.

Love the sound from a Moog synthesizer.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Now do you have a actual argument based on these questions? Or is this just going to lead to more questions?

The argument is that an environmental change would affect every single aspect of a ecosystem… not just one organism.

And what’s the problem with that vis a evolution? I don’t see one. You haven’t brought your argument home yet.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

LeafByNiggle:

Now do you have a actual argument based on these questions? Or is this just going to lead to more questions?

The argument is that an environmental change would affect every single aspect of a ecosystem… not just one organism.

And what’s the problem with that vis a evolution? I don’t see one. You haven’t brought your argument home yet.

I say this because all the pictures of the so-call tree of life shows just one animal at a time morphing . A climate change is going to affect every plant and animal.This means
the whole ecosystem is going to have to evolve at the same time, making the odds of all this happening impossible.

 

[buffalo]

New Paper - Species as Models

Biological species has arguably been one of the most controversial topics in the philosophy of biology. Philosophers and biologists alike have long debated over “correct” concepts of species and their ontological status. The traditional account took species as a category, class, or type instantiated by individual organisms. After the advent of evolutionary theory, the typological concept came under fire by those who identify species with a part of biological lineage (Ghiselin 1974; Hull 1976). They forcefully argued that a species is not an abstract type but a concrete historical entity of which individual organisms are mereological bits. Although this individualist thesis became a de-facto standard in the philosophy of biology in the last century, some have complained its lack of explanatory power and called for a revival of a type or natural-kind based concept of biological species (Boyd 1999).

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/15162/1/species_PSA.pdf

Natural kind - Wow!

 

[Crocus]

Do they have any interesting offspring?

Ah, you and @buffalo must be thinking of the electronic piano. I, on the other hand, was referring the standard upright, or even the baby grand.

These venerable instruments produce sound when the hammers strike the metal strings. While the “Moog” bears some auditory resemblance at times, it is clear that it has so little in common with mechanicals, as to be considered an alien form. Or perhaps simply two evolutionary lines.

Another line that retains the presence of finger keys: the pipe organ! Powered by air. Close relative of the accordion, more distantly related to bagpipes. Ok now I’ve gone too far.

 

[Techno2000]

These venerable instruments produce sound when the hammers strike the metal strings. While the “Moog” bears some auditory resemblance at times, it is clear that it has so little in common with mechanicals, as to be considered an alien form. Or perhaps simply two evolutionary lines.

Yeah… we might have skipped over a couple of transitional forms , but the Moog didn’t make itself.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Techno2000:

LeafByNiggle:

Now do you have a actual argument based on these questions? Or is this just going to lead to more questions?

The argument is that an environmental change would affect every single aspect of a ecosystem… not just one organism.

And what’s the problem with that vis a evolution? I don’t see one. You haven’t brought your argument home yet.

I say this because all the pictures of the so-call tree of life shows just one animal at a time morphing.

You are reading something into the presentation of the graphic that was not intended. They never intended to say that only one animal evolves at a time. So I call this argument a straw man argument since you are misstating your opponent’s position making it easier to argue against.

A climate change is going to affect every plant and animal.This means
the whole ecosystem is going to have to evolve at the same time, making the odds of all this happening impossible.

The fact the numerous creatures are evolving side by side does not cause a problem for evolution. And any claim about “odds” needs to be backed up with solid mathematical proofs, otherwise it is just your “feeling” that is impossible.

 

[edwest]

And what about caterpillars and metamorphosis? It happened because it happened?

 

[Techno2000]

And what about caterpillars and metamorphosis? It happened because it happened?

Yeah…at what point in the caterpillar’s transition into becoming a caterpillar did this ability to become a butterfly come about ? Random mutations knew how to produce a caterpillar and a butterfly at the sametime, it’s all just a little bit too perfect .

 

[Techno2000]

The fact the numerous creatures are evolving side by side does not cause a problem for evolution.

The entire food chain that they need for survival would need to be made fit by evolution also, and that would include plants too.Thats a lot of random mutations going on, and we see none of this going on today.