Why things evolve?

[bahman]

It is very simple. As it stated a random change in DNA cannot be beneficial in net. That is true because any good change is cancelled by a bad change in the organism.

OMG. Are you just trolling? Who said it's always beneficial? Much of the time it isn't. It can be NOT beneficial or just neutral. The unbeneficial ones tend to not get passed on. How difficult is that?

I'm not at all convinced that he's not just trolling.

For one, every time I work him towards something that requires a simple, direct answer, he falls back on the "I don't understand what you're saying" response.

I am honest when I say I don't understand you.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I'm not at all convinced that he's not just trolling.

For one, every time I work him towards something that requires a simple, direct answer, he falls back on the "I don't understand what you're saying" response.

I'm sure of it. This is about the third identical thread of his on evolution and he always plays dumb and takes no notice of anyone's explanations.

[bahman]

There are 3 kinds of mutations the most numerous are the neutral ones and they just accumulate over time and have no effect. The harmful one get selected out and after a few generations have no effect, the beneficial ones do get selected for, and over time change the organism to better fit the environment. The negative mutations do not balance out and neutralize the beneficial ones, that is just a misunderstanding by those who do not understand evolution.

Why negative change do not balance out the beneficial one?

[Terrapin Station]

It is very simple. As it stated a random change in DNA cannot be beneficial in net. That is true because any good change is cancelled by a bad change in the organism.

OMG. Are you just trolling? Who said it's always beneficial? Much of the time it isn't. It can be NOT beneficial or just neutral. The unbeneficial ones tend to not get passed on. How difficult is that?

I am not trolling. What I said is pretty simple.

Simply ignorant about evolutionary theory, really.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It is very simple. As it stated a random change in DNA cannot be beneficial in net. That is true because any good change is cancelled by a bad change in the organism.

OMG. Are you just trolling? Who said it's always beneficial? Much of the time it isn't. It can be NOT beneficial or just neutral. The unbeneficial ones tend to not get passed on. How difficult is that?

I am not trolling. What I said is pretty simple.

And you've had plenty of simple answers.

[thedoc]

There are 3 kinds of mutations the most numerous are the neutral ones and they just accumulate over time and have no effect. The harmful one get selected out and after a few generations have no effect, the beneficial ones do get selected for, and over time change the organism to better fit the environment. The negative mutations do not balance out and neutralize the beneficial ones, that is just a misunderstanding by those who do not understand evolution.

Why negative change do not balance out the beneficial one?

Negative mutations are detrimental to the organism and will be eliminated from the gene pool as those organisms are less successful at reproduction and die out. Positive mutations that are beneficial to the organism will aid in reproduction and will be passed on to the next generation, and those organisms will also benefit and continue to pass on those positive mutations.

[OuterLimits]

Some animals evolve to grow larger, others evolve to shrink. It all depends on the circumstances. One cannot think that each is somehow "more perfect". Evolutionary "fitness" refers to being fit for a particular niche. One species becomes 2 - evolving in 2 different directions - to take advantage of 2 different types of food.

[bahman]

There are 3 kinds of mutations the most numerous are the neutral ones and they just accumulate over time and have no effect. The harmful one get selected out and after a few generations have no effect, the beneficial ones do get selected for, and over time change the organism to better fit the environment. The negative mutations do not balance out and neutralize the beneficial ones, that is just a misunderstanding by those who do not understand evolution.

Why negative change do not balance out the beneficial one?

Negative mutations are detrimental to the organism and will be eliminated from the gene pool as those organisms are less successful at reproduction and die out. Positive mutations that are beneficial to the organism will aid in reproduction and will be passed on to the next generation, and those organisms will also benefit and continue to pass on those positive mutations.

I am not talking about the exact balance out. Negative mutation has negative contribution to the population of species. Positive mutation has positive contribution to the population of species. So the two contribution should cancel out to some degree if not exactly.

[OuterLimits]

Negative mutation leads to less fit offspring, which will not be as successful at having their own offspring.

Positive mutation leads to more fit offspring, which will be more successful at having their own offspring.

That's what you're missing in your understanding of evolution and fitness. Fitness is defined by living to mating age, mating, have offspring.

"Nothing succeeds like success."

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is an agreement between scientist that each being/thing evolve as a matter of fit better in a situation. The fitness is allowed toward a better end because of random change in structure of any being/thing.

We know that random change does not offer any benefit so the main question is: Where does this capacity to fit better comes from? Doesn't that mean that we are evolving because objective perfection exist?

You are completely wrong.

Evolution is not a cause.
Evolution is an effect.

WHY THINGS EVOLVE. is the wrong question.

The question is HOW things evolve. Things stay around because they fit better. Things that stay around are the only things in a position to procreate in nature. OR are "selected" consciously in the case of man made objects, or naturally in the case of surviving in the cut and thrust of every day competition.

So far the entire thread has been a discussion that has failed to notice this bit of linguistic flim-flam.

[thedoc]

There is an agreement between scientist that each being/thing evolve as a matter of fit better in a situation. The fitness is allowed toward a better end because of random change in structure of any being/thing.

We know that random change does not offer any benefit so the main question is: Where does this capacity to fit better comes from? Doesn't that mean that we are evolving because objective perfection exist?

You are completely wrong.

Evolution is not a cause.
Evolution is an effect.

WHY THINGS EVOLVE. is the wrong question.

The question is HOW things evolve. Things stay around because they fit better. Things that stay around are the only things in a position to procreate in nature. OR are "selected" consciously in the case of man made objects, or naturally in the case of surviving in the cut and thrust of every day competition.

So far the entire thread has been a discussion that has failed to notice this bit of linguistic flim-flam.

I agree, "How things evolve?" is a much more interesting question. "Why things evolve?" is relatively simple, organisms evolve because the environment changes, and organisms evolve to better fit a particular niche. In the case of a predator and prey, if the predator evolves to get better at capturing the prey, the prey will then evolve to be better at evading the predator. It has been described as an "Arms Race" with the predator and prey both evolving to better survive and reproduce.

[thedoc]

Why negative change do not balance out the beneficial one?

Negative mutations are detrimental to the organism and will be eliminated from the gene pool as those organisms are less successful at reproduction and die out. Positive mutations that are beneficial to the organism will aid in reproduction and will be passed on to the next generation, and those organisms will also benefit and continue to pass on those positive mutations.

I am not talking about the exact balance out. Negative mutation has negative contribution to the population of species. Positive mutation has positive contribution to the population of species. So the two contribution should cancel out to some degree if not exactly.

Negative mutations will be eliminated and no longer effect the species. A positive mutation will be passed on and will continue to effect the population of a particular species. Negative mutations will be eliminated and positive mutations will continue. A mutation that is eliminated will not have an effect on the species, and will not be able to balance anything, especially a positive mutation that continues long after the negative mutation is gone.

[HexHammer]

There is an agreement between scientist that each being/thing evolve as a matter of fit better in a situation. The fitness is allowed toward a better end because of random change in structure of any being/thing.

We know that random change does not offer any benefit so the main question is: Where does this capacity to fit better comes from? Doesn't that mean that we are evolving because objective perfection exist?

Objective nonsense and babble sure exist.
If you actually knew what you was talking about, you would know some species goes extinct because they were too specialized and couldn't adapt to changes.

Here in Europe we got the nobility in medieval times and onwards that got heavily inbred and got very fugly, and got sickly and weak ..not to talk about lack of intellect.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is an agreement between scientist that each being/thing evolve as a matter of fit better in a situation. The fitness is allowed toward a better end because of random change in structure of any being/thing.

We know that random change does not offer any benefit so the main question is: Where does this capacity to fit better comes from? Doesn't that mean that we are evolving because objective perfection exist?

You are completely wrong.

Evolution is not a cause.
Evolution is an effect.

WHY THINGS EVOLVE. is the wrong question.

The question is HOW things evolve. Things stay around because they fit better. Things that stay around are the only things in a position to procreate in nature. OR are "selected" consciously in the case of man made objects, or naturally in the case of surviving in the cut and thrust of every day competition.

So far the entire thread has been a discussion that has failed to notice this bit of linguistic flim-flam.

I agree, "How things evolve?" is a much more interesting question. "Why things evolve?" is relatively simple, organisms evolve because the environment changes, and organisms evolve to better fit a particular niche. In the case of a predator and prey, if the predator evolves to get better at capturing the prey, the prey will then evolve to be better at evading the predator. It has been described as an "Arms Race" with the predator and prey both evolving to better survive and reproduce.

I can't tell if you really get the distinction that I am making as you, as do many others, express your understanding of evolution frontwards, teleologically. In fact evolutions works retrospectively. Once a particular organism is born its evolutionary potential is not changed due to what it does in its life; the die is already cast in that sense.

[Greta]

There is an agreement between scientist that each being/thing evolve as a matter of fit better in a situation. The fitness is allowed toward a better end because of random change in structure of any being/thing.

This is a conundrum. Logic suggests that evolution is non-directional, but the evidence of four billion years of life is compelling IMO. When you think about it, the idea of non-progressive evolution is at odds with how nature works. All living things mature over time - and it appears that ecosystems and the biosphere itself are not exempt from this dynamic. Evolution can be thought of as the processes involved in a maturing, or perhaps ageing, biosphere.

What is the biosphere doing ATM? The facts are that it's produced beings capable of building craft that can carry the genetic and memetic information of the Earth to other worlds. Humans seem akin to a seed distribution system in terms of their function in the biosphere. Certainly we hominids aren't good for much else as far as the rest of the biosphere is concerned (aside from perhaps dogs and cats).

We know that random change does not offer any benefit so the main question is: Where does this capacity to fit better comes from? Doesn't that mean that we are evolving because objective perfection exist?

A much easier question: because those who fit their environments survived to breed more often than those whose adaptations were less effective. We are each the product of countless generations of survivors, right down to the little champion sperms who managed to beat all the other sperms to the egg that became each of us.

Survival isn't easy; there's countless pivot moments in everyone's lives (especially in childhood and when behind the wheel) where strong support networks, good instincts, sound mindset or dumb luck saved us from an untimely end. It's an achievement to survive long enough to sprout forth as we do. Many never have our opportunities, or capitalise on the ones that come their way. They simply fell away while we who are alive have our time, for a while.