The Implications of Evolution

I know many evolutionists which don't completely understand the implications of their beliefs. When one says "I believe evolution as fact" it implies not only Darwinian(biological) evolution but also stellar evolution and subsequently the big bang theory. The big bang theory itself is evolution at its finest. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for the initial condition rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant, exactly like Darwinian(biological) evolution does with life.

Taking this into account, I have just a few questions that, if they can be answered, I'd love to have answered from ATS. If I am wrong in any of my assumptions please be aware that I'm not trying to provide disinformation or anything of the sort. I am simply seeking answers that I myself cannot provide.

I will begin my questions in the astronomical and physical sciences and conclude with life sciences. I also have questions in the earth sciences but I will save these for a later time as I haven't yet to search for conclusive answers myself.

Backward spinning planets? If the origin of the entire cosmos was once a very dense "speck", for lack of better terminology, wouldn't that imply that all planets should have similar properties? Such as rotation? If so, why is that Venus, Uranus, and Pluto, among others, rotate backwards?

Backward orbits? A good portion of the known moons in our solar system orbit their respective planets in the same direction. Why then are there 30 or so that have backward orbits? Also, why are there those planets such as Jupiter and Saturn that have both?

Again, if my assumptions are incorrect, please let me know in a friendly manner. I'm only seeking answers.

Tilted orbits and angular momentum? If relativity does in fact apply, shouldn't the orbit of moons lie very near the equatorial plane of their respective planets? Also, shouldn't the orbit of the planets lie equally near the equatorial plane of the sun?
Angular momentum- The sun, from my assumptions, should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets COMBINED. Instead, we see that the planets have about 50 times more angular momentum than the sun.

Planetary evolution? I do not understand the concept that lies behind the mutual attraction of particles orbiting the sun somehow producing planets. I would think that these particles would be much more likely to to be scattered or expelled than to be permenantly pulled together. From the experiments that I've researched I have only came to the conclusion that I am correct in my assumptions - colliding particles would rather fragment than stick together.
Despite these problems, let's assume that they do stick together. Then how does a large, gaseous planet, like jupiter or saturn, form when it's so distant from its central star?

Moving on to the life sciences branch-

Mendel's Laws - If Mendel's law of inheritance states that genes(Mendel called them "factors") are merely reshuffled from one generation to another,different combinations are formed, not different genes, does that discredit evolution? I think this may be my worst assumption(I am by no means a geneticist). But, for example, if evolution happened, according to Mendel's laws, organisms that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select from the more favorable of these, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial "factors". I would assume then, that the organisms which have evolved the longest would possess shorter reproduction cycles producing many offspring.

However, when considering humans, we see the opposite. It seems that the more complex the organism is, the longer the reproduction cycle is.

Natural Selection - I view natural selection as a kind of elimination factor. I don't know if my views of this are what is causing my assumptions or not. However, it seems that nature "selects" genetic characteristics that are suitable for a said environment thus eliminating unsuitable genetic variations. This makes me come to the conclusion that an organism's gene pool is constantly decreasing.

If natural selection does in fact limit genetic variations, how is that considered part of evolution? Wouldn't that limit biological diversity, which evolution is supposed to account for? Wouldn't natural selection be a limitation placed upon evolution in this sense?

And finally, altruism - It's common knowledge that humans and many other animals will endanger or even sacrifice their own lives to save another, even the life of another species. Natural selection, which selects traits more suitable for the sustainment of life, should then eliminated altruistic(self-sacrificing) behavior. If evolution, by relation-natural selection, were indeed correct, why is altruism still being inherited if it is such a threat to "life"?


Again, I cannot stress it enough that I am only seeking answers which I myself cannot answer. I am not, by any standards, trying to dispute evolution.

S&F

My opinions align with yours almost exactly for the most part for the same reasons. That is aside from the reverse orbit of some planets and moons, perhaps even stars around the central mass of a galaxy. I haven't thought about that and I'm not necessarily sure what your correlation is between the reverse orbits and the big bang theory.

Personally I don't believe that singularities exist. I have a hard time believing in macroevolution as well. However, I'm by no means am an expert on the subjects nor very well informed of the deeper complexities of the theories.

I'll be watching the thread.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Great post, I could hazzard a guess at most, but I will leave that to those who are more in tune with the sciences than I.

However, I will attempt to answer this:

And finally, altruism - It's common knowledge that humans and many other animals will endanger or even sacrifice their own lives to save another, even the life of another species. Natural selection, which selects traits more suitable for the sustainment of life, should then eliminated altruistic(self-sacrificing) behavior. If evolution, by relation-natural selection, were indeed correct, why is altruism still being inherited if it is such a threat to "life"?

I've just finished reading the selfish gene by Dawkins and he discusses this at length. He argues on many fronts and I believe he does it consistently. You mention animals and so I will give you the example he used when talking about gazelles. Many people have pointed out that fit Gazelles jump and draw attention to themselves before their predators. Their interpretation is that they are sacrificing themselves in order to protect their "species". Obviously, from the perspective of the selfish gene theory this makes no sense, however this altruism makes sense to those who believe in "group selection".

In his defense he states that what acutally happens is those gazelles are statistically less prone to attack, because their display of strength and vigor that discourages their predators (who will usually kill the weakest links in order to preserve energy).

Another kind of altruism is highlighted by contemporary society and charity. What is the personal benefit in giving change to a homeless person? This behavior should make no sense. It does not increase out chances of survival, and there is no chance of our generosity being reciprocated. Dawkins answers this by saying that for hundreds of thousands of years we lived in hunter-gatherer societies where acts of altrusim would be reciprocated. The catch is that genetically we have not gotten used to living in cities, and in a sense our altrusim is a misfiring (because while we know we get nothingi n return, our genes do not, or have not yet -- because of our ability to transcend evolution)

Interesting stuff. Again, good thread.

I will try to answer two ouf your biological questions:

Mendel's Laws - If Mendel's law of inheritance states that genes(Mendel called them "factors") are merely reshuffled from one generation to another,different combinations are formed, not different genes, does that discredit evolution? I think this may be my worst assumption(I am by no means a geneticist). But, for example, if evolution happened, according to Mendel's laws, organisms that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select from the more favorable of these, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial "factors". I would assume then, that the organisms which have evolved the longest would possess shorter reproduction cycles producing many offspring.

However, when considering humans, we see the opposite. It seems that the more complex the organism is, the longer the reproduction cycle is.

Having a short reproduction cycle and producing many small offspring is a good adaption, but only in certain environments. Very small organisms are easily eaten and are at a higher risk to die from natural hazards (Oops, I just stepped on that little bugger). Being large, and producing few, but very competitive offspring is an advantage in stable environments. The growth takes time, so large organisms only start to produce offspring later in life. Also keep in mind, that all species found on the top of the ecological pyramid are relatively large. The scientific background is deliveres by the r/K selection theory.
en.wikipedia.org...

Natural Selection - I view natural selection as a kind of elimination factor. I don't know if my views of this are what is causing my assumptions or not. However, it seems that nature "selects" genetic characteristics that are suitable for a said environment thus eliminating unsuitable genetic variations. This makes me come to the conclusion that an organism's gene pool is constantly decreasing. If natural selection does in fact limit genetic variations, how is that considered part of evolution? Wouldn't that limit biological diversity, which evolution is supposed to account for? Wouldn't natural selection be a limitation placed upon evolution in this sense?

Yes, natural selection would limit genetic diversity, but mutations provide new variations. Good evidence for this can be found, when observing the genetic structure of island species. A species living on a island usually possesses a very limited gene pool, since all of its members stem from a small founder population. But if it settled on the island a very long ago, the genetic variation increases. Even new species are generated through the process of allopatric speciation.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Mutations happen more or less random, and are in most cases either harmful or neutral. Natural selection eliminates harmful mutations and helps the species to stay adapted to the environment.

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
I will try to answer two ouf your biological questions:

Having a short reproduction cycle and producing many small offspring is a good adaption, but only in certain environments. Very small organisms are easily eaten and are at a higher risk to die from natural hazards (Oops, I just stepped on that little bugger). Being large, and producing few, but very competitive offspring is an advantage in stable environments. The growth takes time, so large organisms only start to produce offspring later in life. Also keep in mind, that all species found on the top of the ecological pyramid are relatively large. The scientific background is deliveres by the r/K selection theory.
en.wikipedia.org...

Yes, natural selection would limit genetic diversity, but mutations provide new variations. Good evidence for this can be found, when observing the genetic structure of island species. A species living on a island usually possesses a very limited gene pool, since all of its members stem from a small founder population. But if it settled on the island a very long ago, the genetic variation increases. Even new species are generated through the process of allopatric speciation.

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Mutations happen more or less random, and are in most cases either harmful or neutral. Natural selection eliminates harmful mutations and helps the species to stay adapted to the environment.

Sorry if it may take me a little bit to respond to each question in depth. I do have responsibilities that must be handled before I have my own free time. I'm sure many of you are in a similar situation. =)

What environments would you propose are NOT suitable for short reproduction cycles and many offspring? It offers much more opportunity for the existing organisms, whether a portion die off or not, to evolve and subsequently survive.

Concerning mutations, I do understand that mutations are the main resource by which "new" genetic material is available for evolution. However, I have yet to find a mutation that has produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors. I would think mutations tend to be more harmful than beneficial. Do you have any examples of mutations providing more beneficial genetic variations?

Edit: spelling correction

[edit on 10-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

Originally posted by Oscitate
reply to post by Agree2Disagree

 

Great post, I could hazzard a guess at most, but I will leave that to those who are more in tune with the sciences than I.

I've just finished reading the selfish gene by Dawkins and he discusses this at length. He argues on many fronts and I believe he does it consistently. You mention animals and so I will give you the example he used when talking about gazelles. Many people have pointed out that fit Gazelles jump and draw attention to themselves before their predators. Their interpretation is that they are sacrificing themselves in order to protect their "species". Obviously, from the perspective of the selfish gene theory this makes no sense, however this altruism makes sense to those who believe in "group selection".

In his defense he states that what acutally happens is those gazelles are statistically less prone to attack, because their display of strength and vigor that discourages their predators (who will usually kill the weakest links in order to preserve energy).

Another kind of altruism is highlighted by contemporary society and charity. What is the personal benefit in giving change to a homeless person? This behavior should make no sense. It does not increase out chances of survival, and there is no chance of our generosity being reciprocated. Dawkins answers this by saying that for hundreds of thousands of years we lived in hunter-gatherer societies where acts of altrusim would be reciprocated. The catch is that genetically we have not gotten used to living in cities, and in a sense our altrusim is a misfiring (because while we know we get nothingi n return, our genes do not, or have not yet -- because of our ability to transcend evolution)

Interesting stuff. Again, good thread.

Is the selfish gene available on youtube?

IMO, those gazelles are in fact showing signs of prowess instead of behaving in an altruistic manner. I don't think they're defending their fellow gazelles.

However, there are many instances in which dolphins, for example, have warded off sharks from scuba divers. There are also instances of family pets risking their own lives for their human counterparts(much like the television series Lassie).

As far as humans go, I don't believe altruistic behavior to even really be a factor. It does seem as though it has began to get "weeded out" by evolution. There remains only a fraction of people who would risk life and limb for someone outside their direct family. There are far fewer humans behaving in altruistic behavior than there are those that are selfish.

I don't exactly know the timeline of evolution, but I suppose the sea life came first and with that assumption, I would presume that dolphins, among others, should be much more evolutionarily advanced. That poses the question, why does it seem as though altruism is becoming obsolete within the human species, but not in others?

Originally posted by Amplifeye
S&F

My opinions align with yours almost exactly for the most part for the same reasons. That is aside from the reverse orbit of some planets and moons, perhaps even stars around the central mass of a galaxy. I haven't thought about that and I'm not necessarily sure what your correlation is between the reverse orbits and the big bang theory.

Personally I don't believe that singularities exist. I have a hard time believing in macroevolution as well. However, I'm by no means am an expert on the subjects nor very well informed of the deeper complexities of the theories.

I'll be watching the thread.

Thank you.

My correlation between reverse orbits and the big bang is this:

How can one single action have so many different reactions? That is, how does one moon or planet form seemingly different than the other, yet by the same principle(presumably gravitational attraction)?

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
I am not, by any standards, trying to dispute evolution.

Well, it wouldn't matter if you were, so long as your objections were honest and your presentation truthful. Answering them would actually help people understand evolution--something that is obviously necessay. The principle of evolution by natural selection is far from easy to understand; there is no point in pretending otherwise, and the more often people ask questions like this (and recive the correct answers), the more widely knowledge of evolution will be propagated.

However, your post raises disturbing questions.

This site, you see, is plagued by unscrupulous creationists pushing their anti-civilization agenda. If you've been here awhile, you've probably encountered some of them. So, before I waste time answering your questions, I'd like you to be so kind as to establish some bona fides.

The astrophysical questions you ask worry me. Not because I don't know the answers, but because they are questions involving some fairly specialized science, and only a physicist or a determined antievolutionist would ever dig deep enough to come up with them. As far as I can see, this leaves us with three possibilities:

[1] You are a physicist or physics student who has doubts about evolution.

[2] You read or heard these questions elsewhere, and are simply repeating them here. If this is the case, you are not being honest with us; you should have told us that the questions were not originally your own, told us where you found them, and posted a link if at all possible.

[3] You have a secret creationist agenda, which you are dissimulating in order to deceive us.

Now let us see what the internal evidence of your post suggests.

Backward spinning planets? Backward orbits? Tilted orbits and angular momentum?

Why, after 13.7 billion years of gravitational and energistic interaction, should we expect that the motion of astronomical bodies should tell us anything about conditions at the beginning of the universe? The Sun and its planets were not even formed until some seven or eight billion years later. Matter as we know it did not even come into existence until well after the Big Bang.

These questions of yours eliminate Possibility Number One. If you were truly a physicist or a physics student, you would know better than to ask them.

If relativity does in fact apply, shouldn't the orbit of moons lie very near the equatorial plane of their respective planets? Also, shouldn't the orbit of the planets lie equally near the equatorial plane of the sun?

And now we have a problem. Because this question is couched in physics language--relativity, no less. So tell us--why do you think relativity (Special or General, by the way?) implies that satellite orbits should lie close to the solar equatorial plane? What aspects of relativity theory suggest that? That's specialized physics knowledge--and we have already established that you are not a physicist.

The sun, from my assumptions, should have about 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets COMBINED.

Same comment as above, only more so. The angular momentum puzzle (now regarded as solved) is not something people unfamiliar with astrophysics are likely to know about. And 700 is a very specific figure. If you are not a physicist, how did you arrive at it? Could you please share with us the assumptions and calculations that caused you to arrive at this figure?

If you are asking honest questions it should not be hard for you to provide this information.

Your other questions on planetary evolution are all subject to the same comments. They can all be answered easily enough; none of them really hold water as objections to the principle of evolution by natural selection. But the real questions are: Who thought them up? and Why are you asking them on Above Top Secret? Shouldn't you be asking them on astrophysics and biology forums? If you were truly in search of answers and not pushing an agenda, that's what you would be doing. No-one but a very out-of-touch-with-reality conspiracy theorist would ever come to ATS for reliable information about such things.

If you can answer all the questions in my post, I promise to answer all the questions in yours. None of them, incidentally, poses the slightest objection to evolution by natural selection.

I eagerly await your reply, which will, I trust, be couched in terms as courteous as those in which I have addressed you. Thanks in advance.

reply to post by Astyanax


There's always a skeptic. However, I do understand why one has to question. I AM a physics student. I AM religious. I accept microevolution. I am on the fence with macroevolution. I do not particularly believe the big bang theory. I do NOT however, have an agenda, other than to learn and consequently deny ignorance. That is what this is about right?

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]

reply to post by Astyanax


Are you sure, 100% honest!!???, that alll that stuff you posted didn't come out of a book or someone told you about it?

If OP asked on a mainstream professional forum, he would likely have been denegrated as being ignorant also.

I found some of the questions interesting and was hoping one of you "expert" smarty pants would explain planetary motion? But I see you avoided the questions except to make a "nit pick" point about OP's reference to the timing or implications of the supposed Big Bang?

Please....have a try at explaining retrograde orbital motion via Newtonian gravity....sling shot. Or via General Relativity notion of curved space time

What environments would you propose are NOT suitable for short reproduction cycles and many offspring? It offers much more opportunity for the existing organisms, whether a portion die off or not, to evolve and subsequently survive.

There is no environment, which is NOT suitable for short reproduction cycles and many offspring. In fact you will find, that in all environments the vast majority of organisms possess these traits. Most animals and plants are short-lived and small, but they are by far outnumbered by even smaller faster reproducing microorganisms.
In many rapidly changing habitats you will in fact find only these r-strategists.

But being large and possessing a long life expectancy helps, in stable, old environments, where the species have to compete for a limited resource. Forests are a classic example: Open space is first quickly populated by small, pioneer species, which are later replaced by the larger more competitive tree species. Here light and space are the limited key resources. Here the larger species will produce much more biomass.

Concerning mutations, I do understand that mutations are the main resource by which "new" genetic material is available for evolution. However, I have yet to find a mutation that has produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors. I would think mutations tend to be more harmful than beneficial. Do you have any examples of mutations providing more beneficial genetic variations?

On this website you will find some beneficial mutations.
www.gate.net...

But even mutations, which are very harmful under most conditions, can become beneficial when there is a benefit in a certain environment. The classic example is the sickle-cell disease and the protection it offers against malaria.
sickle.bwh.harvard.edu...

Ah, and by the way interesting physics/astronomical questions.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Drunkenshrew]

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


There is no division between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". These are false terms created by creationists for the sole purpose of trying to sound scientific while trying to tear down science.

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew

There is no environment, which is NOT suitable for short reproduction cycles and many offspring. In fact you will find, that in all environments the vast majority of organisms possess these traits. Most animals and plants are short-lived and small, but they are by far outnumbered by even smaller faster reproducing microorganisms.
In many rapidly changing habitats you will in fact find only these r-strategists.

But being large and possessing a long life expectancy helps, in stable, old environments, where the species have to compete for a limited resource. Forests are a classic example: Open space is first quickly populated by small, pioneer species, which are later replaced by the larger more competitive tree species. Here light and space are the limited key resources. Here the larger species will produce much more biomass.

On this website you will find some beneficial mutations.
www.gate.net...

But even mutations, which are very harmful under most conditions, can become beneficial when there is a benefit in a certain environment. The classic example is the sickle-cell disease and the protection it offers against malaria.
sickle.bwh.harvard.edu...

Ah, and by the way interesting physics/astronomical questions.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Drunkenshrew]

Oh wow. I didn't know sickle-cell provides protection against malaria. Thank you for that.

I understand what you're saying regarding longer life cycles being the factor behind the larger organisms', as well as shorter reproduction cycles and more offspring the underlying factor behind the much smaller organisms', continual existence.

I did have another quick question for you but it seems as though I was false in my assumptions. I love google.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


While I don't know where you get your information from, I will go ahead and give you my views. You can explain to me the difference if you'd wish. I've never encountered anyone who claimed there were no divisions between the both of them.

Microevolution - small-scale genetic change over small amounts of time(i think of it as relating to the different breeds of dog, while they may be a new species, its still classified into the same family)

Macroevolution - large-scale genetic changes over large amounts of time(such as a reptile evolving into a bird)

Basically, microevolution is within a limited time restraint while macroevolution is the extension of microevolution over a long period of time which allows for more than just species variants.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


Except you're talking about the exact same thing.

What, exactly makes a bird not a reptile? Technically speaking, they are. They're part of a broad grouping of reptiles known as archosaurs - a group they shared with crocodiles, pterosaurs and dinosaurs. In fact the bird and the crocodile have more in common genetically than a crocodile and a lizard do, because of this.

Let's say you start with a robin. Go back one generation at a time. That robin's parents, its grandparents, its great great grandparents. obviously each of these birds will be genetically different. You'll start finding those that are phenotypically different after a few generations - different spot patterns as chicks, perhaps different shade on the breast feathers, longer or shorter primaries, a different tone of song... Then go back down those robin's ancestry. You'll end up at a thrush (or a flycatcher, if you're looking at a european robin) that looks a lot like a robin, but also doesn't look a lot like one.

Now that you've found the proto-robin, follow its ancestors, one at a time. You'll go through the same process of most of hte nearby relatives looking very similar, with small differences adding up the further back you go. Now you've arrived at something that is very thrushlike, kind of thrasher-like, and mildly like a mockingbird.

Follow its ancestors back, and you see the same pattern. Your thrusheringbird's closest ancestors look a lot like it, but the small differences add up until, look at this, you've found a small perching bird that looks a bit thrasheringbird-like, and just a bit wrarrowcatcher-like. And so on down the line until you've found the common ancestor of crows, then the common ancestor of toucans, then the common ancestor of woodpeckers and parrots, s on and so forth.

It's a long line of a lot of birds, but you've gotten there just by tracing the robin's ancestry. At no point in the line does a given bird look particularly dofferent from its immediate ancestors or its immediate descendants. But the little peculiarities add up.

If you go back far enough, you'll find birds without breast keels, birds with teeth, birds with articulate fingers on their wings, birds without feather diffentiation, birds without genuine vanes, then "birds" that look awfully reptile-like but with fluffy feathers, then with frizzy feathers, then with scales...

And still, at no point did you hit a mark where a critter was obviously different from what comes just before or just after.

This perhaps describes "microevolution" just fine. So what of macro-evolution? This is the fake (or, to be generous, perhaps very misconceived) term. At no point is there a "stop." There is no definitive moment where a reptile stopped being a reptile and became a bird (or a mammal). Instead you get a steady progression of organisms, each essentially the same as what comes immediately before and immediately after, but with just enough genetic difference (thanks to both mutation and sexual reproduction) to make many small differences that add up enough that, from the starting point of a thrusheringbird, the creature a hundred generations ahead of it is quite different from the creature a hundred generations behind it.

So, cut out "macroevolution" and you're left with "microevolution"... And since there is no "macro-" to justify theneed to put a "micro-" there, all you're left with is evolution.

Of course all this is pretty simplistic, since whatever lies in the robin's ancestry isn't going to look like a perfect blend of everything that came after it (there are no wrarrowcatchers, just like there are none of the famed fronkeys) but it makes a decent illustrative point.

[edit on 11-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

While I don't know where you get your information from, I will go ahead and give you my views. You can explain to me the difference if you'd wish. I've never encountered anyone who claimed there were no divisions between the both of them.

Ask these people exactly where the micro stops and the macro starts. Then ask them to explain why the dividing line couldn't be somewhere else. What exactly is a short amount of time? One attosecond or a million years? It is all subjective.

I recommend reading all but the latest of Richard Dawkings' insightful books to answer your evolution questions.

A someone else has stated, many of your questions seem to have come from a creationist manual. I now answer their "questions" with the only answer they will accept. God made it so. And of course your god, not anyone elses god.

Whilst some Creationist questions are indeed difficult to answer at present, current science doesn't know everything and some take this as proof of some supernatural being controlling everything.

That said, you may have a sensible religous view and are merely inquisitive. If this is the case, I recommend you ask your questions on more focussed forums such as PhysicsForum etc as most on here won't waste their time answering questions with a possible creationist agenda.

reply to post by LightFantastic


Why is it that when someone that is truly curious poses any kind of question about evolution they are immediately labeled a creationist? Is it not okay to question ones own beliefs? Is it not okay to be curious? I'm curious about evolution. I'd like to broaden my knowledge base. I did say that I'm religious, but don't many evolutionists try to explain to the religious side of the house exactly how it works? I'm just asking questions. I never said anything about creationism.

The simple fact of the matter is that I'm trying to piece it all together but I'm stumbling. I ask for help and I immediately run into skeptics questioning my level of education and claiming that I have a creationist agenda. Give me a break. I'm asking honest questions and I'd like to receive honest answers.

I guess here at ATS the trolls far out-number the truly inquisitive.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree


There are many threads on ATS where people ask seemingly innocent questions with the agenda of bashing evolution. In fact many of the longest threads are derailed threads with continuous to-and-fro aguments. Sometimes the opposite is the case as well.

Your combination of questions seems to have led some to believe, including myself, that this was the case here.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
I would assume then, that the organisms which have evolved the longest would possess shorter reproduction cycles producing many offspring.

However, when considering humans, we see the opposite. It seems that the more complex the organism is, the longer the reproduction cycle is.

Hi AgreeToDisagree

Seeing as you are merely curious I will attempt to answer the simplest question for you as I need to get some sleep. Life sciences aren't my area however.

In general mammalian gestation periods are linked to the physical size of the parent creature.

It is likely in mammals that the gestation period has already become as low as is practically possible. To create offspring a great deal of energy and nutrients is required which presents a considerable load onto the mother. Lowering the gestation period would increase the load on the mother, possibly lowering the survival rate of both. The more complex and/or larger the creature, the more is required.

In addition offspring need to be looked after by parents mature enough to give the best chance of survival.

Simpler creatures that lay eggs don't have to invest the same energy so can lay large amounts and in many cases don't have to look after offspring at all.

As is usually the case with evolution, everything is balanced and nothing is optimal.


[edit on 11/11/2009 by LightFantastic]

Well, I take the questions and the OP seriously. But here in Germany we have very few people, who try to disprove evolution with pseudoscience and debate their religion based alternatives. In fact, I have never encountered a person supporting intelligent design in real life. So maybe I am a bit naive.

But it is a good practice to review your own knowledge from time to time and look at the many unsolved mysteries in the field of biology. They make biology much more interesting.

Howsoever you approach the debate evolution vs. creationism, if you are interested to further your knowledge about evolution - visit the following website:
www.talkorigins.org...
Here a link to common creationist claims
www.talkorigins.org...