Evolution doesn't explain one thing.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
Can't people just accept the fact that there are higher powers/aliens in the Universe and they could have created life on Earth?

So, even though it's not evolution's job to explain how life originated, what you're really saying is "I believe in a higher power and don't accept the scientific method, and I'm just looking for an excuse to trash evolution."

If a theory can't explain the laws back of both how and why something happens, and only theorizes that it does happen somehow, then that theory is a joke and of course could never be correct.

Think about it, if you have to make seperate theories about how and why something happened in the first place, then the theories could never be completely and systematically integrated with each other, meaning they are actually opposing theories and one or both has to be wrong.

Originally posted by robertnesta

wouldnt this put a hole in the entire idea? any thoughts?

No, it doesnt put a hole in the entire idea.

Survival of the fittest isnt about the individual surviving, it is about the offspring of the individual surviving.

Survival of the individual is only necessary until that individual reproduces in sufficient number to ensure its representation in the gene pool. Which is one of the reasons older people sicken and die. There has been no selective pressure to ensure humans live past the age at which they reproduce and raise their children to reproductive age.

Consider, a 20 year old male involved in crime and gang activity, and a 45 year old male accountant. The 20 year old male is shot and killed in the same year he is 20, the 45 year old accountant lives to be 90. The relative "fitness" of the individual is not measured by the length of his own life, but by how many of his own children reach reproductive age and bear children of their own. If the 20 year old was promiscuous, and had 8 children, by 8 different women, who all survive to reproductive age and have children of their own, and the accountant only has 3 who survive to reproductive age, then the gang member was the "fitter" of the two in evolutionary terms despite his short individual life.

There are differing reproductive "strategies" among individuals of the same species. For instance human males (in general) prefer a strategy of low input, high volume, human females have adopted a strategy (of necessity, they can only have one every 9 months, and each birth increases their own risk of death) of lower volume, higher input. Of course, there is also a range of strategy within the male and female "groups." Some males as I have pointed out, choose a very high volume approach and do not stick around to rear their young, where some males choose to have less children and invest more in assuring they reach adulthood and reproduce themselves.

Anyway, the point is, it is not YOUR survival that determines your relative "fitness" but that of your offspring and their offspring. The "Darwin Awards" that are awarded to people who have already reproduced are not, technically speaking, Darwin awards unless the act of stupidity kills off all his/her genetic heirs as well as him/herself. And you cannot compare the details of the reproductive strategy of one species with another unless you understand that it is the outcome that is important. After all, trees aside, many plants die over the winter and their "children" do not sprout and grow until the spring, and yet their DNA survives generation after generation.

High volume, however, does not guarantee success. If for instance the area you live in suffers some event that limits resources, and you have 8 children to feed and cannot, and they and you all starve, you have failed. In times like that, someone who has one or two children who survive the environmental change is fitter. Reproductive strategies succeed or fail based not solely on their own inherent merits, but also relative to the environment in which they are implemented. Which is why there is generally variation within a species in terms of strategy. What works best in one time and place may not work at all in another time and place.

All of the above said, there is a another factor. Events, or "nature," acts as the ultimate judge of who and which strategy was the fittest, not individuals themselves. The individuals that can most closely align their reproductive strategy with the demands of the area in which they live, rather than blindly following habit, are quite likely to be the winners.

Originally posted by Hollywood11
If a theory can't explain the laws back of both how and why something happens, and only theorizes that it does happen somehow, then that theory is a joke and of course could never be correct.

Really? So if I commit a murder, and no one can show how and why I did it, it means no murder could have occurred?

Because what you are saying is that something that cannot be explained in terms of "how and why" could not be a fact at all. So, in the above scenario, not only can you not prove I did it, no murder could have occurred at all.

That makes a lot of sense.

reply to post by robertnesta


I'm going through the thread again now, so my apologies to everyone if this has already been addressed.

You bring up a good point Robertnesta. My hypothesis on your scenario is that you now invoke another facet of evolution theory - adaptation. The tree/plant/ that fails in root structure under a natural foe has adapted to be prolific in its seed dispersal. There is a tree here in the Caribbean that perfectly illustrates this possibility: We call it shamrock, because its infant seedlings look like a four-leafed clover. When mature, the tree tends towards a full canopy, but small trunk. For root structure, it depends upon a single deep taproot, and horizontal (subsurface) roots radiating out in at lest three directions. It is easily blown down by tropical storm winds, however the parent plant will continue to grow, as long as the taproot is still anchored. When it blows down, it throws thousands of seeds, and these seeds are winged -- they have thin, long and rounded wings on each side of the seed, and they travel very lightly and a good distance on the air. After a tropical storm/hurricane, we have to go out and pluck the shamrocks from the soil. They will set root in anything that is moist. If we do not do this, pretty shortly they are grown into a nuisance plant. They increase their productivity and reproductive ability by producing yellow flowers. These flowers have a color which is an attractive wavelength to local pollinating insects.

Some plants are subject to high attrition, and ....... wouldn't you know it...... they are the same ones that produce a plethora of seeds. Other trees have adapted to growing their seeds in fruits, which are carried and scattered by birds, and these trees seem to produce far less seeds, and grow hearty trees that are rarely blown down.

It's a beautiful and fascinating dance. Nature is wonderful.

reply to post by Hollywood11


I think what you're searching for is a unification of theories. Unfortunately -- and I wish it weren't so -- such a theory would have to meld science and theology, in that the origins of life, combined with the mechanisms of evolution would be involved. That would be one whopper of a theory, and by theory, we are talking about the scientific method, which would involve a "testable" or measurable variable. How to measure God?

You raise a good point, however attempting to push an established and proven theorum to a place outside its own boundaries does not negate the variables that the theorum contains.

reply to post by Hollywood11


No. Just because you think so doesn't make it true. Why do you believe the only accurate information in the world is in your head? That if you can't understand it then it must be false? Weird.

My point is that evolution doesn't satisfy the requirements to explain how life began, or, how life started. I don't want to create a flamewar here, but, I believe that evolution was started, because they wanted to do away with religion. I don't think evolution successfully does that, because, it doesn't explain enough. It doesn't say how life started. It doesn't say how each single-cell life form evolved into all of these different species. It doesn't talk about how a meteor could have brought humans on to Earth and how there were dinasaurs before there were humans.

LMAO... You seriously believe evolution was made up to draw attention away from religion???

Evolution doesn't explain how life started??? Neither does religion, religion gives u stories, but those stories that religion gives you have no evidence...

It doesn't talk about how a meteor could have brought humans on to Earth and how there were dinasaurs before there were humans.

this desoives no response

The theory of evolution doesn't allow the idea that life exists on other planets. It just goes on the guiding principle that life only exists on Earth.

Jesus christ give me a break

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by WatchNLearn

 

My point is that evolution doesn't satisfy the requirements to explain how life began, or, how life started.

No, it doesn't. It explain how life evolve from the beginning.

I don't want to create a flamewar here, but, I believe that evolution was started, because they wanted to do away with religion.

What are you talking about? There were many christian scientists, some of them supported evolution theory.
It's a common creationist rhetoric to state that evolution theory was created to do away with religion.

It doesn't talk about how a meteor could have brought humans on to Earth

Evolution theory is not concerned with that.
It is actually a good theory. Panspermia or exogenesis do have some evidence to support it.

The theory of evolution doesn't allow the idea that life exists on other planets. It just goes on the guiding principle that life only exists on Earth.

Huh? What does that have to do with anything? Evolution theory is concerned with life on THIS earth. I don't remember anyone saying that evolution theory states that life only exists on Earth. As for the other planets, if life exist on some of them, they will probably follow the same law.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by Deseis1204

 

No. I think evolution says we all started out as single-celled organisms. How did these single-celled organisms get on Earth? Why did they evolve the way they did? Why does natural selection play out the way it does? Does the rules to natural selection change over time?

I don't think evolution answers these questions.

How and why life began on Earth is irrelevant to evolution. That's not what evolution explains.

Macro Evolution: news.nationalgeographic.com...

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by Deseis1204

 

No. I think evolution says we all started out as single-celled organisms. How did these single-celled organisms get on Earth? Why did they evolve the way they did? Why does natural selection play out the way it does? Does the rules to natural selection change over time?

I don't think evolution answers these questions.

How and why life began on Earth is irrelevant to evolution. That's not what evolution explains.

Macro Evolution: news.nationalgeographic.com...