Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
All it means is that eyes didn't "have" to evolve. Ears didn't "have" to evolve. Tongues didn't "have" to evolve. They did and current animals are the result. If they hadn't evolved animals would be different.
Great, and how does competition come into play?
It doesn't in the way I believe you think. On a local scale we use the word competition to describe things like competition for resources and think that mutations happens in response to competitive need. They don't, the mutations happen, they may or may not be of use to the individual. I personally have very long middle toes I'm no more likely to pass this on the next man who might have big ear lobes because it does nothing for me.
The wrong way to think about Evolution is like this, species A and species B all competing for the same resource. If species A develops a trait in response to the need that means Species A are more successful than Species B then species A survives and Species B does not. This is wrong. Competition would only be relevant in this example if we were operating in a closed system but we're not. In the real world those animals are not located in isolation and the system isn't closed.
Competition works within the same species and without it evolution would become a very random thing or may even stop altogether (as we're probably seeing with humans). It would stop because in an environment that was free from disease, where resources were infinite and where the likelihood of successful procreation was equal for all members, no mutations would provide any advantage, therefore the genetic material will just filter through the generations at the same rate.
So lets say that you take a group of 100 monkeys, 1 monkey is born with longer fingers than the others. This means he lives longer (because he's able to reach branches others are not and has a better grip) and has more time to produce offspring that then themselves gain that advantage and so pass that material down. The next generation there is a small increase in the number of monkeys with longer fingers as a percentage of the overall population. This process continues and over many, many generations all monkeys have these longer fingers. At the same time you might have Monkeys that develop other characteristics that benefit or hinder them. Mutation happens to the individual, competition happens between a collective and evolution happens within a species.
I'm gonna focus on your last paragraph.
The number of long-fingered monkeys would increase in the next generation, but only in relation to total number of long-fingered monkeys in the previous generations. However, it wouldn't increase as you suggest: an small increase as a percentage of the overall population. The percentage remains the same. It started of with 1% when there was 1 in 100 monkeys with long fingers. If every monkey had 2 children, now there are 3 long-fingered monkeys, but there is also 297 short-fingered monkeys. In other words the percentage is still 1%
You missed the part about the long fingered monkey surviving better than the others.
Admittedly his post was boring, so I don't doubt I missed a lot. But I didn't miss this. In his post he told us:
"The wrong way to think about Evolution is like this, species A and species B all competing for the same resource. If species A develops a trait in response to the need that means Species A are more successful than Species B then species A survives and Species B does not. This is wrong."
But then he told us in his monkey example: "This process continues and over many, many generations all monkeys have these longer fingers."
So which is it? Does the long fingered monkey survive better than the others? Or is that the wrong way to think about evolution? Is there competition or is there not?
John: you are smarter than that.
I know I am. The problem is that people aren't, and fill their responses with so much irrelevant information that I lose track of their point.
The reason I haven't answered a question is because you've not asked one. You've adopted a position and then requested validation.
Your assessment presupposes that the same mutation happens in all individuals within a species at the same time but this is not how it happens. Mutation doesn't happen to the collective, it happens to an individual. If a mutation is of benefit that in turn improves the likelihood of that individual procreating the next generation are then more likely to receive this genetic material. If the mutation is a hinderence you're less likely to pass on your genetic material. Over centuries and millennia these small steps create a huge effect.
If you really want a basic answer to your question my answer is no I don't agree
My apologies, I was under the impression that question marks demarcate a question. I see three question marks in my OP but I guess they are there for decoration, since I've "not asked one."
It also seems you've also repeated the OP back to me:
OP: "Examples tend to focus on one attribute and how it benefits the animal from among the competition. Conversely the competition, because they do not have that attribute, are selected against. Their population dwindles or go extinct."
You: "If a mutation is of benefit that in turn improves the likelihood of that individual procreating the next generation are then more likely to receive this genetic material. If the mutation is a hinderence you're less likely to pass on your genetic material."
This is what I call linear. One attribute in changed one generation at a time, ignoring all the others. Lets come up with a magic number for how long it takes an eye to evolve: 1,000 years. Now, either the ears, nose, and mouth all evolve simultaneously during those 1,000 years. Or each organ requires 1,000 years separately, and in the absence of any other mutation. Which do you think is the case?
"Many of the examples I see for NS are linear and one dimensional:
"Natural selection favored those with better or more photo-sensitive cells because they could detect things that would eat them that those without, or with lesser photo-sensitive cells could and so they copulated and the adaptation was continued. Each successive generation saw better and better photo-sensitive cells until eventually an image was borne."
That's great for simplification, not so much for anything else. Examples tend to focus on one attribute and how it benefits the animal from among the competition. Conversely the competition, because they do not have that attribute, are selected against. Their population dwindles or go extinct.
But organisms are not made of single attributes, but thousands if not more. Given that the underpinning mutations are mostly random and mostly negative. How do you ensure that two attributes simultaneously benefit the animal? What happens if one mutation is positive and the other negative?
For example, a mutation that adds more photoreceptors in the eye, but less hair cell receptors in the ear?"
This is your opening statement I see 3 question marks. 1 is placed at the end of a statement, 1 is a leading statement framed as a question (which also belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject) and the other, ok it's a question. So I'll answer them
How do you ensure that two attributes simultaneously benefit the animal? - You don't and you really need to go and understand some fundamentals. If I was talking to someone about car maintenance, since I know nothing about it I wouldn't start with discussing the best techniques for replacing a head gasket. I'd first figure out how to open the bonnet. Plus the use of the word 'ensure' implies a process being proactively influenced, this is not the case.
What happens if one mutation is positive and the other negative? How should I know? That's like asking if I walked forwards for a bit and then back a bit would I be backwards or forwards of my starting point? There's nowhere near enough information to reason an answer.
For example, a mutation that adds more photoreceptors in the eye, but less hair cell receptors in the ear? This is a statement, it's not even a rhetorical question.
"Natural selection favored those with better or more photo-sensitive cells because they could detect things that would eat them that those without, or with lesser photo-sensitive cells could and so they copulated and the adaptation was continued. Each successive generation saw better and better photo-sensitive cells until eventually an image was borne." - This statement implies that sight would improve through successive generation, it doesn't work in that linear way. A mutation happens and that's it, if another generation gains better sight it is down to a completely separate mutation, unrelated to the first.
Interesting side note for you, when Darwin first wrote the origin of species he was primarily having to present this idea to a society that included god in it's scientific theories. When he coined the name Natural Selection as it was a succinct title and small dig at the establishment as of course the implication behind the word 'selection' is that it is a positive action by something or someone. As he got older he regretted the use of the word 'selection' as it was being hijacked to try an prove some kind of deity influence and later copies of his book referred to the term 'natural preservation' which he felt implied the more passive reality of the process.
"How should I know?"
This sums up your entire position.
A bit rich old bean coming from someone who's picture has a blindfold on it
@Whatever-Breezy, I may be misunderstanding you, because I always feel like an elephant in the china shop of Science, but I can understand how a single mutation, if it's advantageous (not only benefitial to the very act of procreation, but because as @Benjboi explained, it gets longer life expectancy) can "easily" become a shared trait in a particular community of beings over time.
Can you explain why you ask to explain this in terms of "competition"? Because it's not a competition in the sense of a rivalty among individuals or even traits, but selection based on survival rates and repetition, isn't it?
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Humans were a successful species when we numbered in the millions. We will see if a population density in the billions will be selected. Richard Leaky said the average life span of a successful species is a million years. Between 8-900,000 years to go.
Pages