ybbor said:
i have a few friendly questions about evolution, these are not ment to be taken as an attack or basis for argument (although i might stet them as an idea later, if there is no formidable explination) i'm just curious how evolution fits into the following:
1)entropy (for lack of a better term): theoretically each mutation should have an equal chance to make the organism less complex as it would make the organism more complex. now a change making an organism more complex would probably require more than 1 change in DNA to be effective, otherwise it would gain no selective advantage. whereas a small scale change (which according to you all large changes are made up of) that makes an oragnism less complex would take effect immediatly, and if this change made the organism more fit to survive (by providing very little to no drawbacks, but in the process requiring less energy to do a function). wouldn't that make it just as likely that an organism becomes less complex?
I'm not sure if entropy necessarily applies here, since a single individual is not really a closed universe. Either way,
evolution does not mean that organisms become more complex, it simply means that they become more able to survive in their current environment. Therefore, if a mutation makes an organism more complex and the organism benefits from the lack of complexity (for instance, all great apes - and I believe all apes - members lack tails, which you could say means that they are less complex in that regard, but they don't need tails), then the mutation will be passed on. I am pretty sure that there are cases where, over time, a species has become less complex because it provided a benefit.
ybbor said:
2)the platypus. this organism has no clear path of evolution from anything resembling a common ancestor, short of being created in the lab. Unless the platapus is roughly equivilant to the common ancestor for birds and mammals i don't really see where this could come from.
It's not as much of an enigma as you might think. It merely branched off from the mammalian evolutionary line a long time ago.
Wiki agrees.
ybbor said:
3)humans losing tails. this is sorta a two pronged argument, a)isn't evolution suppose to be the process of gaining something, not losing it? what purpose would losing a tail serve? and it almost certainly didn't occur while we living in caves and stuff. unless the primates common ancestor didn't have a tail and the other primates evolved it indepndantly (although i'm pretty sure that isn't the consensus). and b) the piece of bone you claim is the remenants of a tail comes from, is actually holds the muscles stopping us from pooping in our pants, so if it holds a purpose how can we claim it was something else before?
As I said earlier, evolution does not necessarily mean that you
gain something, it merely means that the species adapts to its environment, whether or not that means that simplicity or complexity is beneficial. If it were just about complexity, then most animals would be huge, wouldn't they? They aren't because it is not necessarily beneficial to be large, as it also means that you must consume a great deal of food. Moreover, it seems logical to me that too much complexity would mean that an organism would be too fragile (i.e. there are multiple nutrients it needs, therefore it dies off more easily); however, this is merely my own conjecture.
Specifically regarding tails, just because the bone where tails used to be is used now does not mean that it was part of a tail in the past. Remember, the beneficial traits are the ones that survive. Obviously, those who could still utilize their tail bone, though not for its intended purpose, would be selected for more so than those who could not. The reason why great apes don't have tails is that they do not need them for stability. Being bipedal helped with this, I imagine. Some evidence for tail bones being vestigal structures is the fact that human embryos have tails; some people have been born with small tails (the longest was apparently 9 inches, according to wiki).
ybbor said:
4) the human being. we are a riducosly fragile organism, we need clothes for tempature fluctuations most animlas wouln't blink at. our skin is so soft we get paper cuts, we're so weak i would guess half of us could barely lift our own body weight for more tha a few seconds. shouldn't evolution (and early warfare) kept only the least fragile among us?
That's not exactly true. For one, humans were much hairier in the past to survive cold winters. Moreover, we are not that susceptible to cold. This one feral child in the 18th or 19th century was experimented on regarding this subject matter. He was taken outside (presumably when it was cold) and derobed, and he merely frolicked outside. I believe I read this on wiki.
Here it is. It was a French boy in the 1790s, and he indeed frolicked in the snow, seeming to not notice the cold.
Regarding the thickness of human skin, do you think that a hairless dog cannot get a paper cut? I doubt our skin is that much thinner than other animals: paper is just very thin, making it more easily cut our skin. I do not understand why you think that evolution would mean that the weakest humans would survive, though. The strongest (evolutionary, not
necessarily physical strength) would survive. Yes, warfare would result in a dimishment in population - particularly the stronger humans - but it is unlikely that warfare was as prominent as it is today. Hunter gatherers did not really have reason to fight over land, as it was plentiful. Remember, until about 8,000 years ago, when agriculture, settlements, and, subsequently, civilization, came into being, the human population was very low. It is unlikely that hunter gatherer groups would meet very often; in such a case, I do not think that they would fight over the land.
ybbor said:
5) this is the one i have the most trouble understanding. consiouness. what is prety much defines humans is the sense of self, and the ability to appreciate art. as we devolp consiouness, we feel surviving to reproduce is less important, getting food is no longer as important, any other form of pleasure will do. i'm no longer something just programmed to eat and reproduce, i have other motives i want to fufil.
Like Rhymes, I don't see what the problem here is.
ybbor said:
some of these are obviously more friendly, and others are very close to points i would use in an actual argument. one of the reasons they are considered friendly is because they don't agree with each other, if i'm right about #1, then #'s 3,4,5 are suddenly arguments
for evolution (all be it not a mainstream view). so please, help- me understand where you're coming from
I hope I have answered your questions to the extent that I can provide them, which is unfortunately not that great.
