A direction to Evolution?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Kuznetzova
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm

A direction to Evolution?

Post by Kuznetzova »

Evidence from biology, geology, and climatology all suggest that life arose on earth 3.7 billion years ago as a primitive form of single-celled bacteria in the oceans. Life on earth consisted entirely of such bacteria sloshing around in the water for the next 2 billion years. It was not until 1.7 BYA that the first multicellular organisms came onto the scene. However, these were not at all like the animals with body plans we see today, instead being similar to microbial mats, fungi, and algae. Life was just like that only for another 1.2 billion years. It was not until 530 million years ago that genuine animals emerged in the ocean, complete with the bilateral symmetry seen in nearly all modern animals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

By 250 million years ago, evolution had produced 4-legged vertebrates that walked on land, and a diverse collection of those. Among these were lizard-like ancestors of dinosaurs, and therapsids who were squirrel-like animals roughly the size of a cat.
Image

A severe extinction event at the end of the Permian period caused a steep decline in species diversity, and caused most species on earth go extinct. When life finally recovered from this, the land on earth was dominated by dinosaurs whose bodies evolved to enormous sizes. The dinosaurs proliferated and diversified for the next 200 million years, spanning three geological periods. Despite their incredible success, a single extinction event caused all of the larger species to go extinct in a strange event at 65 MYA. The remaining small dinosaurs underwent further changes and their predecessors are the birds of today. A cooler geological period followed where mammals dominated ecosystems, and diversified to the point of becoming apex predators on all continents.

At 4.5 MYA, conditions in equatorial Africa allowed for the evolution of a type of primate called a hominid. The defining features are no tail, grasping hands, dwelling on the ground rather than in trees. Hominids rely heavily on very sharp binocular color vision to sense the world around them -- to the point that their reliance on smell decreased. Hominid species diversified during a period in which the equatorial rain forest in Africa dried out and shrunk suddenly. From 1 MYA to 500,000 years ago, Bipedal hominids spread out of Africa into Europe, Asia, and even South Pacific islands. Homo sapiens were also migrating out of Africa at this time, and their relationship to the existing populations is a topic of heated debate among paleontologists.

Bipedal hominids were able to migrate and adapt to various environments, climates, and ecosystems on many continents. Despite this incredible success, today there exist only four species of hominid on earth. All others are extinct.

Homo sapiens had a peculiar relationship to tool use for most of their history, up to the point around 10,000 years ago, where agriculture was invented in the middle east. This gave rise to humans creating artifacts that we recognize as "technology" today. Empires rose and fell among agricultural humans up until the 16th Century AD, where the printing press was invented in Europe, right after a decline in influence of the Catholic Church in the north. "Scientists" appeared in small numbers in the next 200 years, the results of their knowledge were eventually applied to very rapidly create new technology. This rapid expansion in technology -- historians loosely refer to as the Industrial Revolution.

The main impact of Industrialization on human life was that the human population began to explode, where even the rate of growth became exponential. Starting in 1800, in a mere 210 years, human population grew from 1 billion to 7 billion. Yes. Read that again. Humans have increased their numbers by a factor of seven in 2 centuries.
Image
For the first time in the history of the Earth, a species has created a change in itself, by itself, merely by changing their relationship to artifacts and medicine. This change did not correspond to any mutation of their genes nor of their traits. For all hitherto existing organisms, any rapid transition like this would be attributable only to evolutionary change.

The invention of electrical technology in the 20th century pushed technological progress into overdrive. Within the time of a single lifespan, rapid invention and deployment creates artifacts that are unrecognizable to older generations.
Image
Last edited by Kuznetzova on Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Kuznetzova
Posts: 583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 12:01 pm

Re: A direction to Evolution?

Post by Kuznetzova »

We can pause and reflect on the above essay. Some recent futurist writers have suggested that evolution is speeding up in an exponential manner. However, proposing a "speed up" implies that there must be some direction that the process is going. Is evolution going in a direction? If evolution is getting faster, exactly what process is "going faster" here on earth?

One may be seduced into thinking that life on earth is becoming more complex, tending towards higher complexity, or "complexifying" as it were. Trained, stuffy academics in biology often bluntly deny any increase in complexity as a direction to evolution. They usually follow up with a defense that says there is no reasonable or objective metric for determining whether a human being is more complex than a stegosaurus. The number of cell types in the human body is not very large, and the size of our genome is not particularly large either. (Organisms with huge genomes include the marbled lungfish, and a flowering weed that grows in Japan. "Paris japonica")

The stodgy academics further deny that any modern ecosystem is more complex than any given ecosystem during the Devonian geological period. Catch these academics on a day in which they are feeling snippy and ungracious, and they will outright deny any direction to evolution at all. They may describe it as a random wandering through a random space of random mutations. But such a position is, in my opinion, pointedly nihilistic.

A better way to frame the question of a direction to evolution, is to consider life forming on many different planets in the galaxy, and then (from the vantage of an astrobiologist) talk instead of the likelihood that life on those distant planets may become intelligent, and later invent technology.
Mike Strand
Posts: 406
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 6:54 am
Location: USA

Re: A direction to Evolution?

Post by Mike Strand »

Whether evolution has a "direction" is a question that might require something beyond biology or science for its answer. Some religions see homo sapiens as God's highest creation, and it's OK to assume that God used the process of evolution to achieve this, according to the latest position of many mainstream Christian churches, including the Catholic church.

Others might express a more skeptical view: Chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestor and evolved along separate branches, and one might ask: Which is the "superior" branch? Human beings may be capable of destroying the world with nuclear weapons, but I would hate to get into a fight, unarmed, with a healthy, full-grown chimp. Brains? Even if human beings start using their brains enough to live together in peace, life as we know it may still end by natural calamity, such as another asteroid hitting the earth, like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs about 60 million years ago.

On the other hand, if humans get their act together, they can colonize other planets and improve their chances of survival as a species.

Thanks, Kuznetzova, for this interesting question!
User avatar
Bernard
Posts: 758
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:19 am

Re: A direction to Evolution?

Post by Bernard »

Very primitive views of evolution here. Basic standpoints are pessimistic, whereby life is seen as being able to end. Not. This is nonsense - just like to keep that anthropocentric thing happening by creating the idea we are special. Evolution is an important, intricate aspect of life. Life, existence, by nature is the unending increase of consciousness. There are no limits to which consciousness can increase. Its taking awhile for man to get the gist that we are nothings amid this infinity - not just physically, but as far as awareness goes as well. There are unimaginable conscious beings beyond us, and the earth is one such; like the cells in our body, barely conscious of what they are a part of, so are we barely conscious of what the earth is as a consciousness. Real God is just the intent of infinite living things at play together. Intent is what prevails, is what drives evolution in the infinite direction, and will infinitely do so. Humans have nowhere to go biologically as far as evolution goes. We will be replaced in some other place and time (past or future) by new forms.
jinx
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 10:32 am

Re: A direction to Evolution?

Post by jinx »

"Evolution" is the greatest MYTH in history. Neodarwinian myth has NO foundation in empirical science. When im saying 'evolution' i dont mean simply 'change over time' (change in allele frequency, descent with change, speication etc etc) i mean the UNTESTABLE CONJECTURE/HYPOTHESIS that all life that ever was and is shares a common ancestor with a fish.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: A direction to Evolution?

Post by reasonvemotion »

Dating the origin of life to a time of bilions of years ago still doesnt help explain how lfe could start from nonliving matter. So how can scientists assert that life started by a random chance formation of a living organism from nonliving chemicals? Dr John Ashton, Professor of Biomedical Sciences of Victoria University states, "despite more than 50 years research, scientists still do not have a workable viable explanation of how life could start.
We are still near the bottom of the evoluntionary tree - only up to the worms. Not only have scientists not observed any of this new genetic information being generated, but on the basis of probability there is simply not enough time in the supposed four billion years of evolution for all the genetic information required in the genomes of all the millions of different species of bacteria, fungi, plants and animals to evolve as a result of random mutations. If the evolution of simple cell is statistically impossible, the evolution of higher organisms is even more impossible. As University of Rochester biology professor Allen Orr points out "The overwhelming majoriy of random mutations are harmful, that is, they reduce fitness, only a tiny minority are beneficial".
Last edited by reasonvemotion on Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: A direction to Evolution?

Post by thedoc »

jinx wrote:"Evolution" is the greatest MYTH in history. Neodarwinian myth has NO foundation in empirical science. When im saying 'evolution' i dont mean simply 'change over time' (change in allele frequency, descent with change, speication etc etc) i mean the UNTESTABLE CONJECTURE/HYPOTHESIS that all life that ever was and is shares a common ancestor with a fish.

Then what is a viable, alternate explination?
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: A direction to Evolution?

Post by reasonvemotion »

The chimpanzee and the human share about 96% similar DNA. (John Ashton gives compelling reasons why Darwin's theory of evolution is a myth). Why would they not do so. They each have arms, legs, eyes, heart, lungs and hormones, immune system etc, which would translate to you would have similar genetic code. The question arises, that if humans evolved from chimpanzees you could expect a figure of 99.9% similar DNA.

It is totally unacceptable to believe that human embryos passed through a "fish stage" with gill structures, BEFORE, it became human. This assumption was being used as evidence for evolution right up to the early 1990s, accompanying illustrations of human embryos with gill pouches. This has since been proven that actual embryos of humans do not have gill structure, which would disprove the evoluntionary origins of humans.

Darwin's main claim in his theory is the struggle for living organisms to survive, and that a large number of small mutations over time with natural selection involved can produce completely new types of life.

But does this really happen? Have new higher organisms been produced? Is it possible that life itself could have arisen by the random chance combinations of natural chemical compounds to form the first living organism?

No one has come up with a satisfactory explantion of how the first living cell could form by itself, yet it is commonly assumed that it did.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A direction to Evolution?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

reasonvemotion wrote:The chimpanzee and the human share about 96% similar DNA. (John Ashton gives compelling reasons why Darwin's theory of evolution is a myth). Why would they not do so. They each have arms, legs, eyes, heart, lungs and hormones, immune system etc, which would translate to you would have similar genetic code. The question arises, that if humans evolved from chimpanzees you could expect a figure of 99.9% similar DNA.

It is totally unacceptable to believe that human embryos passed through a "fish stage" with gill structures, BEFORE, it became human. This assumption was being used as evidence for evolution right up to the early 1990s, accompanying illustrations of human embryos with gill pouches. This has since been proven that actual embryos of humans do not have gill structure, which would disprove the evoluntionary origins of humans.

Darwin's main claim in his theory is the struggle for living organisms to survive, and that a large number of small mutations over time with natural selection involved can produce completely new types of life.

But does this really happen? Have new higher organisms been produced? Is it possible that life itself could have arisen by the random chance combinations of natural chemical compounds to form the first living organism?

No one has come up with a satisfactory explantion of how the first living cell could form by itself, yet it is commonly assumed that it did.

No one has ever claimed that humans evolved from chimpanzees, at least no one but creationist nut-jobs. Chimpanzees are modern animals, as are humans. We are closely related, closer than we are to any other living thing. It is 'commonly assumed' that the first living cell formed by itself because that is exactly what happened. We wouldn't be here otherwise.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A direction to Evolution?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

OMG, I can't believe that there are creationist loonies who don't accept the FACT of evolution on a supposedly 'intellectual' philosophy forum! They might as well be living in the bronze age.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A direction to Evolution?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Bernard wrote:Very primitive views of evolution here. Basic standpoints are pessimistic, whereby life is seen as being able to end. Not. This is nonsense - just like to keep that anthropocentric thing happening by creating the idea we are special. Evolution is an important, intricate aspect of life. Life, existence, by nature is the unending increase of consciousness. There are no limits to which consciousness can increase. Its taking awhile for man to get the gist that we are nothings amid this infinity - not just physically, but as far as awareness goes as well. There are unimaginable conscious beings beyond us, and the earth is one such; like the cells in our body, barely conscious of what they are a part of, so are we barely conscious of what the earth is as a consciousness. Real God is just the intent of infinite living things at play together. Intent is what prevails, is what drives evolution in the infinite direction, and will infinitely do so. Humans have nowhere to go biologically as far as evolution goes. We will be replaced in some other place and time (past or future) by new forms.
:? Does that mean anything?
jinx
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 10:32 am

Re: A direction to Evolution?

Post by jinx »

Vegetariantaxidermy. Which definition of 'evolution'? Mankind is DECAYING

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KGuvGH9wuQ
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: A direction to Evolution?

Post by reasonvemotion »

It is 'commonly assumed' that the first living cell formed by itself because that is exactly what happened
ASSUMED.

PROVE IT.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A direction to Evolution?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

reasonvemotion wrote:
It is 'commonly assumed' that the first living cell formed by itself because that is exactly what happened
ASSUMED.

PROVE IT.
How else did it happen then? Magic sky-man did it?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: A direction to Evolution?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

reasonvemotion wrote:
It is 'commonly assumed' that the first living cell formed by itself because that is exactly what happened
ASSUMED.

PROVE IT.
You seem to be talking about two different things. Are you saying we didn't evolve, or are you just saying that the first living cell must have been 'given life' by a supernatural entity?
Post Reply