Specific Evolution Discussion: Can things stay the same?

[Mnemolth]

This is not a general discussion on evolution, so let's not rehash all of that again. No, what we have here is a specific discussion relating to the possibilities of living organisms staying the same within the paradigm of evolution doctrine (in whatever shape or form you wish to take that, new, old or even your own personal view). This thread was created specifically made to address the issues that Deus brought up in the Israel and Palestine thread, and were not appropriate for that thread.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Deus Ex Machina [/i]
[B]OK, I'll elaborate on exactly what I mean.

Let's say you have a load of bacteria, and then you decide to kill them all with some antibiotic. Ideally, they all die, but in practice a few sometimes survive because they happen to have a resistance to that antibiotic. That resistance wasn't there [i]because[/i] the antibiotic was present, but it helped the bacteria out in the long run. Hence the future generations replicated from those bacteria will carry the same resistance.

The same principle applies with higher organism evolution. The changes are absolutely random-- The plants have those viens, but there are probably a load of other ways- many of which may be more effective- of acheiving the same effect. The reason the plants have those veins is that they happened to evolve that way.

I know what you're taught in school, and at the time I was in school I'd have the same standpoint, but as you go higher into education, those teaching you have a tendency to tell you that everything you've already learned is nothing but a vague generalisation, or an earlier theory on what there's actually a lot more to.

The thing is, evolution is dependent on the envirionment only to select which slight changes are better than others. Humans have an opposable thumb because it was a random change which happened to be favoured by their surroundings- those without them didn't have the same capabilities and their genes gradually faded out through the generations.

So yes. I know that until a certain point people are generally told that evolution is all about animals responding to their surroundings with a slight change over time- but what it's really about is a series of random changes, which may or may not be favourable to the species. Characteritics that are favourable tend to be passed on, those that aren't favourable aren't passed on. The most severe example of an unfavourable characteristic is when the baby dies instantly (or never really lives) as a result of it. Obviously, that baby would never have a chance to have kids, so it's genes don't get passed on. It's kind of the same for evolution as a whole, but on a more gradual level.

If the world stops changing then it doesn't necessarily mean evolution would stop- but things would take a more random approach rather than being "selected" by the environment. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree with Deus. However, I believe that the environment plays a greater factor than you make out. Of course the environment does not [i]cause[/i] the mutations, the mutations themselves are random, but the interactions between the two are complex and profound. Living organisms shape their environment and the environment, in turn, has an influence on determining what mutations are may be successful and stay so, which ones may continue to develop and which may fail.

With regard to organisms staying the same for millions of years, I would reiterate that evolution is [i]non-linear[/i]. This means there are many branches, some develop more, some die out, and within the branches there are organisms that don't develop but remain in existence and there are those that may continue to develop, and within those there are those that develop more and others less. What I'm trying to emphasize is the multitude and the various ways in which these multitudes of branches may behave.

[Guest cloricus]

Mnemolth Deus studies this stuff. You don't. His post was to define what he had said earlier for me. I don't think there is a need for a thread on it. Because if this is the basic outline of what science (on the most part) thinks the only debate can be between religious people and science people with only a small amount of room for a real debate. And we all know what happens when the religious people on these boards and the science people get into a debate were neither side want to move. Do we really want to go there?

Eps ? Yeah.

[James]

[color=#808080]Mnemolth, I understand your reasoning for creating this topic. And with that said, I don't want to sound harsh or unreasonable.

But there are two points to be made here, I think. Firstly, Deus' summary of evolution is something I wholeheartedly agree with.

Most people who reference the term "evolution theory" and so on are mostly doing so from a perspective of ignorance. And, as past threads on this subject have demonstrated, it can be hard to have a reasoned discussion when so few are really educated on the subject. Further still, I tend to find that all sorts of other issues get intermingled with the raw discussion -- which may or may not have its own merits, depending on your take -- and so, that can become cumbersome and drive the thread into the ground.

I believe that Deus' explanation was quite comprehensive and understandable. And I also feel that your own interpretation is quite valid and reasonable.

But, as much as I [i]hate[/i] to admit it (because it is one of the biggest downfalls of this board), people [i]will[/i] start to interject with unrelated tripe. And more often than not, as I said above, it really hurts the conversation.

So at this point I'd make a suggestion. I strongly recommend that this discussion continue; but perhaps via PM with Deus. It seems to me that this discussion is primarily a back-and-forth situation between you guys. I understand that you might want to get the view of others here...but I think it's reasonable to reference other evolution threads on OB. The reason I say that is because, if you can wade through the emotional, non-related rhetoric, you [i]will[/i] find that some people have put forward quite colourful and varied views in terms of specifics of evolution. And quite a few of these discussions have been very interesting.

And so, with that said, I do feel that this is something we've covered before (and recently), even though it's probably been done in a disjointed and clumsy fashion.

I realize that some of you really do like to have some serious discussion and debate. But Mnemolth, you yourself have complained in the past that OB is "too serious" and that I'm possibly wrong for fostering such an atmosphere. I don't believe that I deliberately encourage seriousness or whatever; these are just the threads people make. I don't control that. The unfortunate thing though, is that with many of these threads, civil discussions can be few and far between. When they happen, they're usually good. But I'm not convinced that the boards are really ready to see these threads on a regular basis.

Anyway, that's really diverging a bit. Basically, I think it'd be most appropriate for you and Deus to discuss this topic between yourselves. I understand that you may disagree with my decision to close the thread and I sincerely hope that I've provided enough of an explanation. If you need further clarification or wish to discuss it with me, you should always feel free to PM me. I'm happy to discuss my decision making, especially on threads like this.

But ultimately, I feel that closing this thread is the right thing to do. I apologize if that annoys anyone, but I'd really like to [i]try[/i] and get some more variation in discussion. Or at the very least, not discuss evolution in detail for another few months -- as with any other subject. I don't expect everyone to know when we last discussed something, of course, but I guess that's why I'm here...for a frame of reference or something.[/color]