Come to think of it, my dad is one hairy dude.
Come to think of it, my dad is one hairy dude.
TMI shared???
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
So can "survival of the fittest" and "evolution" be considered the same thing? They both weed out the least adaptable.
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda
Evolution requires the survival of the fittest?
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
There's never TMI shared. Not here. Not now.Originally Posted by Scheherazade
TMI shared???
I am not an expert in this subject area (actually, I am probably not an expert in any subject area), but I believe the theory: Survival of the Fittest fits under the Evolution umbrella. They were both derived by Darwin, if I am not mistaken. Is that the correct usage? Derived?
It seemed as though no one addressed my questions. So if anyone is looking to continue with science class, please attempt the following...
1.) Is the definition of Evolution subjective?
2.) What is Evolution? Do you see it at work in our daily lives? Do you have examples of what you believe is Evolution? Do you believe in Evolution?
3.) If Evolution exists. If you believe in Evolution. How would you categorize it within the science world? Is it a force of nature? Is it an aspect of nature? Etc.
I believe that the sea-otters smashing those shellfish could hardly be considered an evolutionary thing. I mean, it's not genetical (unless there was some really big freak "accident" at the early levels of the otter's development so it had become an instinct) You cannot inherit knowledge nor info genetically, unless it's an instinct as I remember.
And evolution is a genetical thing in my opinion.
And I hardly believe that the orange thingy could be considered evolution. You don't inherit it, do you?
If you believe even a half of this post, you are severely mistaken.
But Taliesin, one key aspect of Evolution is data surrounding Homo Habilis. After Homo Erectus (who was the first man to walk upright), Homo Habilis was the first person to use tools. The use of tools, and the knowledge of that discovery, we teach as Evolutionary progress.
So now, what the discussion comes down to is what is Evolution? Is the definition subjective? Because if it is, I would like to define Evolution as a constant force that drives a species to better living. Eating that orange was better living for me. It was easier, juice didn't splatter all over my face and I enjoyed my orange much more than I had ever in the past. How can you argue that that occurrence is not evolutionary progress.
If Homo Habilis was evolutionary progress, then the sea otters have to be characterized as evolutionary progress. If that is the case, I would argue to say that evolution is a constant force around our lives every, single day.
Last edited by Shore Dude; 12-14-2004 at 01:22 PM.
*blames Scher*
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evolution
I have a plan: attack!
Jay, can you cut and paste the definition? For some reason, dictionary.com and Merriam Webster's are only giving me advertisements. They are no longer providing me definitions.
This is from Wikepedia:
This article is about biological evolution. For other possible meanings, see Evolution (disambiguation).
Evolution generally refers to any process of change over time; in the context of the life sciences, evolution is a change in the genetic makeup of a group - a population of interbreeding individuals within a species. Since the emergence of modern genetics in the 1940s, evolution has been defined more specifically as a change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next.
The word "evolution" is often used as a shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection. This theory states that all species today are the result of an extensive process of evolution that began over three billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms, and that evolution via natural selection accounts for the great diversity of life, extinct and extant.
As the theory of evolution has become universally accepted in the scientific community, it has replaced other explanations including creationism and Lamarckism.
I typed in Evolution and got a whole page of possible definitions.
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
2.
a) The process of developing.
b) Gradual development.
3. Biology
a) Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b) The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.
I have a plan: attack!
I find the perception of evolution being subjective - what human consciousness decides what species seems the strongest/fittest/longest living? We cannot perceive it wholly, in my opinion, due to being a part of evolution; we still have long to go.
I am not very sure about this. But I think that the reason is that the Homo Erectus/Habilis had a great brain mass and was capable of passing on knowledge i.e teaching. A great brain mass is the product of evolution, but the tools itself aren't evolution. I would take the tools a "side-effect"
You are a species? Does your orange-biting change the human race?
Anyway, I would define evolution (Why Do You Say "evolution" With Big E?) differently.
But will this be a linguistical argument? How do you define.....?
The usage of tools is a side-effect in my opinion. The evolution caused the brain mass to increase and so the otter was capable of learning/teaching the trick. Because I cannot imagine (unless it is an instinct which I doubt) how can this trick be something you inherit from your parents genetically?
BTW, did We use a singular form when speaking of Us??
If you believe even a half of this post, you are severely mistaken.
From a Michigan State website:
The genus Homo followed the Australopithecus, where a great amount of brain expansion was observed(1). The believed tool making capabilities of this particular species is the reasoning behind its species name of "habilis," which means "handy man."
Well, I am part of the human species. If you think of Evolution as a part of natural science, it takes thousands upon thousands of years for an evolutionary change to be significantly noticed. Now if you think about that continuum, take that orange-biting experience. I plan to pass that on to my children one day. When I have a four year old little girl, and I am eating with her, her first orange, I plan to teach her to use her bottom incisor teeth to eat. It's easier. It's more enjoyable.
So go back now to this evolutionary continuum. Could an essay be written which talks about point in time occurrences that could feed to the evolutionary change of a species? Do these occurrences happen all the time, but simply go un-noticed?
Just a stylistic preference. I think a linguistical debate is possible with the Evolution subject.
Since it was the reason for the name of the species, I would venture to say it is a much more important characterstic. And the change or knowledge acquired (use of tools) may not be a genetic change per say, but the acquisition of knowledge has furthered the species along. This development, builds an organism much more fit to survive (Darwin), which in turn allows stronger, more intelligent beings (that's the genetic part) to survive, where the less intelligent ones do not.
Yes, the 'perception' of evolution would indeed require an observer of the phenonenon. But just because no one was around for the first 3.5 billion years to observe life evolving doesn't mean it did not happen.
And as for the decision as to what species are the strongest/fittest/ longest living (not too sure that latter term applies here) is concerned, all one must do is look at currently surviving forms of life on the earth. These are the species that have evolved over time as adaptive, or non-adaptive behaviors, dictated survival rates.
Environment changes constantly. Those species (whether bacteria or mammal, etc.) or particular lifeforms able to adapt to new requirements survive. Those that don't, perish. Ridiculously simple really.
And as far as evolution simplifying things is concerned, the more adapted or adaptive a species is, regardless of how complicated the specie's rituals for living, the more simple its existence. Simplicity in evolution does not mean an amoeba's presentation, but how adapted a species is to its environment.
Posting Permissions
