Cockroaches

[Vending]

if apes developed into man, why haven't worms developed into

something far different from a worm ?

 

ah, but they have.

 

you seem to think that if a species evolves, then that species must nessesarily dissapear. This is not the case. Every individual of a species does not recieve the same mutation, only one at a time. Then that mutation must be passed on to its offspring and to its offspring's offspring. And so on.

 

Imagine this;

 

There is a species A wich lives in to different locations 1 & 2. These locations are physically quite seperated, such that there is no inbreeding between the two. Now, through time, species A in location 2 evolve into species B. Durring this time, species A in lovataion 1 stays species 1. Once those in location 2 have evolved into species B, it happens that species A in location 1 is able to migrate to location 2. Now what do we have? We have a location in which there is species B (which has come from A) and also the original species A!

 

Now of course this is contrived, however, i think you get the point. A species can evolve into another, new species, and yet the old species can persist. Thus, worms could have evolved into vertabrates and give rise to man, while the original worm persists.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Scientifically speaking, there is no better theory for why we have such abundant varieties of life than by evolution through natural selection. Of course,, there are other theories, it is just that in the word of sicence, natural selection is the best.

[Boerseun]

I think that if macro-evolution is true, it doesn't mean that a species will evolve past its needs. So once a species is perfect, it will have no need to evolve anymore. Yes I am saying that the cockroach is perfect.... ewww....

So where lies perfection? The ability to design and build thermonuclear bombs, or the ability to survive one?:evil:

[questor]

Vending, you're making quite a jump, worm to man. where are the intermediary species ?

the genetic material change for what you propose has never been seen. the fact is that primitive man may have begat modern man, but primitive worm did not and could not.

that's why a cockroach is still a roach after 300 million years. what species or animal mutated into anciet man ?we don't have a fossil record showing any species that could have done this.

[rockytriton]

So where lies perfection? The ability to design and build thermonuclear bombs, or the ability to survive one?:eek:

 

The ability to survive in your environment, since our environment contains nuclear missles, I guess that would mean that we would eventually evolve to be immune to extreme heat and radiation! :evil:

[Vending]

Vending, you're making quite a jump, worm to man.

 

I am sorry for the confusion. I am not saying that the earthworm in your backyard turned into man a long time ago. I was simply making the point that one species can turn into another and still remain the same -- essentially providing two species (the old and the new). I was merely trying to emphasize that this is the same process that one might envision for the evolution of man. A steady progression of species evolving into new species, but also the old species remaining.

 

the genetic material change for what you propose has never been seen. the fact is that primitive man may have begat modern man, but primitive worm did not and could not.

that's why a cockroach is still a roach after 300 million years. what species or animal mutated into anciet man ?we don't have a fossil record showing any species that could have done this.

 

well. If you are asking for the supposed "missing link" i definately cannot provide this. However, if you are asking for a progression that makes sense, then one might imagine that we came from other primates, whose earliest examples were a shrew-like creature. Where did this come from? Most likely an earlier vertebrae. Unfortunately, this is not my specialty and i am unable to name the species involved from the top of my head.

 

IS the problem you have with evolution the fact that there are ancient species around? Or is it that there are apparent "gaps" in the fossil record? Or is it both? Or are there other problems?

 

I personally find nothing wrong with there being ancient species around. THere is no reason to expect that absolutly no species can survive for as long as cockroaches have. In fact, the existance of cockroaches speaks to it feasibility. However, ancient species are by far the exception, the rule being that most species we have now are quite discinct from those that were around several million years ago.

 

As far as gaps in the fossil record. Well, i can only say that there will always be doubts. We will never find every skeleton for every creature that has existed. The earth is large, and we can not dig it all up. Even if we did, then not all skeletons were preserved. What we must do then, is be responsible, trying to form a theory that is consistant with all the data that we do have. What we see is that a long long time ago, there was not the compexity of life that we have now. The question then is, where did all this "new" life come from? The best answer we have as of now is natural selection acting on the results of mutation.

 

Or is there a better theory, in your eyes? (i am honestly curious)

[pgrmdave]

Nature doesn't look for perfection, just a workable solution. The cockroach isn't perfect, but it is incredibly successful at what it does.

[questor]

Vending, the problem i have is that although many primitive organisms have a much longer history than man, they are still primitive organisms. they have had millions of more years to evolve into higher, more intelligent life forms, but they haven't. then along comes man's ancestor ( whatever it was ) and within a relatively short span becomes the king of the heap. developing thought, the opposable thumb and whatever else it needed to become nature's highest achievement. ( please don't mention that cheetahs run faster )

[pgrmdave]

But there was no need for cockroaches to become intelligent - they were successful already. Humans, on the other hand, would not be successful if it weren't for their intelligence.

[Mercury]

But there was no need for cockroaches to become intelligent - they were successful already. Humans, on the other hand, would not be successful if it weren't for their intelligence.

 

Besides, to them (primitive organisms), they may considered themselves quite intelligent already.

 

A cockroach may have the ability to survive in harsh conditions, it is still easily squashed under a heavy boot. :evil:

[Tormod]

they have had millions of more years to evolve into higher, more intelligent life forms, but they haven't

 

Who said intelligence is the most important thing for a species? Only a "more intelligent" species would consider itself a "higher life form" - most life on our earth has no notion of intelligence.

[questor]

some say evolution occurs for adaptation. suppose there is no need to adapt? does evolution still occur? is it not notable that man is the only animal that has developed a brain capable of mathematics, discovering physical laws and living in any environment? what was man adapting to ? he had no challenges as great as other animals who haven't developed thought. as i said, primitive animals far older than man have not developed sentient thought even though this development seems to be the highest achievement of evolution.

[Drosera]

Hi Questor.

 

You seem to be operating on several false assumptions, as far as I can tell. For starters, it seems to me that you think that change *must* occur within set periods of time to all species. Why do you think that? If you believe at all in evolution, than we can take it as a fact that this is certainly not the case. The existance of ancient creatures is a fact we can see, by seeing living animals of a given species, and fossil evidence for those same species. So if those creatures don't fit into your idea of evolution, how do you account for them yourself?

 

You also seem to be under the assumption that evolution leads to perfection, and that intelligence is a step towards that. This is also incorrect, according to current ideas on evolution. What evolution leads to is best 'fits'. Species one fits best into niche one, species two fits best in niche two, and so on. And intelligence, nice as it is, is not a superior adaptation to others. It is an adaptation to the niche that we fit into.

 

How did we get this adaptation? Through speciation and survival of the fittest of course.

 

Why did we develop this adaptation? Again, if you believe in evolution, then some benefit was gained by being smartest. I'm sure there are several theories out there which try to explain why we developped intelligence, but here's my proposition. It is probable to me that our ancestral primates developped higher than average intelligence due mainly to social influences, though other influences such as searching for food, avoiding predators, etc, probably played a role as well. Intelligence, as you speak of it, not only gave them an advantage in coping with their environment, predators, and so on, but it began to play a role within their societies. The smartest probably lived longer, or at least gained social advantage, allowing them to produced more young. And this adaptation seems to have really flourished in subsequent species, finally ending up with us.

 

You mention that we developed into this wonderfully intelligent species, capable of understanding so much within, and without, our environment. But don't forget, even though math is a pure science, we still have to interpret the results into a way that our minds, such as they are now, can understand. These interpretations may not always be correct, in that maybe there are things out there we *cannot* understand, at least in theory anyway. In essence, we haven't adapted to know more than we already can. (So to put it. It would be real interesting to see how an alien civilization views the universe and all that's in it. :evil:

 

Sorry for the long winded posting. I do go on, and you probably already know much of this. But I thought elaborating and bringing up possibilities might help you to understand.

 

Take care!

[questor]

Drosera, your quote:

''You seem to be operating on several false assumptions, as far as I can tell. For starters, it seems to me that you think that change *must* occur within set periods of time to all species''

i do not think this is so, but if you know why change does occur,please tell me.

 

your quote:

''You also seem to be under the assumption that evolution leads to perfection, and that intelligence is a step towards that. This is also incorrect, according to current ideas on evolution. What evolution leads to is best 'fits'. Species one fits best into niche one, species two fits best in niche two, and so on. And intelligence, nice as it is, is not a superior adaptation to others. It is an adaptation to the niche that we fit into.''

i do not think evolution necessarily leads to perfection, but do you think it is random or do you think evolution has a purpose ? if it has a purpose, what is the purpose ?

 

you said:

''It is probable to me that our ancestral primates developped higher than average intelligence due mainly to social influences''

please tell me how a social influence can cause genetic change? ants and gorillas also have societies and have been around longer than man. why haven't they developed higher intelligence ? are they more intelligent than when they started ?

[Edge]

please tell me how a social influence can cause genetic change? ants and gorillas also have societies and have been around longer than man. why haven't they developed higher intelligence ? are they more intelligent than when they started ?

 

Here's your answer, questor. Tormod posted it a little ago:

 

Who said intelligence is the most important thing for a species? Only a "more intelligent" species would consider itself a "higher life form" - most life on our earth has no notion of intelligence.

[goku]

Unlike humans, for instance, who decided to get out of the trees to exploit the savannahs.

because the grass is always gree................., no, the bananas are always, bananaier, on the ground?

millions of years ago yet people know exactly what happened.

[Drosera]

Hello again!

 

''You seem to be operating on several false assumptions, as far as I can tell. For starters, it seems to me that you think that change *must* occur within set periods of time to all species''

i do not think this is so, but if you know why change does occur,please tell me.

 

To sum up my answer simply, "Pressure". Pressure from a changing environment, form predators, pressure to catch more prey, social pressure, etc.

 

There have been some well verified experiments conducted (or observed) where evolution has happened within a short enough time for us to see it directly. The famous moth incident in England springs instantly to mind. They were originally almost white in colour, but when a factory was set up in a town, the soot darkened to whole surrounding region. This caused the pale moths to stand out to predators. Within a few short years, the population of these moths within the area turned very dark gray. Bacteria and virii seem to always be finding ways to adapt to new medicines. I bring these up to show how change can occur.

 

I'd also like to add this point. As you clearly have difficulty understading why some ancient creatures are still around. I ask you to consider this. Concerning only the catastophic events that have taken place on the Earth, such as the one that killed the dinosaurs, creatures evolved from those species which could survive the new conditions *as they were*. They did not need to change to continue surviving. But such major events leave niches open to whoever is quickest to adapt to them. To bring up the cockroaches again, their niche was relatively undisturbed by the cataclism. However, I imagine most of their predators were eliminated. This allowed them to become more venturesome. Some of the cockroaches ended up leaving the original niche altogether. Many of them died because they were not entirely fit to survive the new conditions. But some few had *a little something extra*, be it more strength, better survival strategies, procreating sooner than fello roaches, creating a new line of organisms more able to survive the new conditions. To put into the simplest terms I can think of, one pair of cockroaches decided to stay home because their home had always been good to them. But another pair wanted to see more, so they went on vacation, and liked the new place so much, they never came back. This sort of variation even occurs within our species.

 

i do not think evolution necessarily leads to perfection, but do you think it is random or do you think evolution has a purpose ? if it has a purpose, what is the purpose ?

 

I think it is neither. Having a purpose, to me, denotes having a reason or need to do something. To me, evolution is a property of life, a natural progression, in a sense no different from the natural progression of a sun to first burn Hydrogen, then Helium, and so on, until it reaches Iron, and then explodes.

 

If you are asking me to put this into some kind of more anthropomorphic terminology, I would say that evolution *has* a drive to fill empty spaces (niches). Nothing more, nothing less. The process of creating continually *superior* species is only a (pleasant) side effect of this process, not a goal.

 

 

please tell me how a social influence can cause genetic change? ants and gorillas also have societies and have been around longer than man. why haven't they developed higher intelligence ? are they more intelligent than when they started ?

 

Why does having bigger antlers help the male deer to pass on his genes? Why does being more aggressive with pack members help the alpha wolves in the same way? Why does a redwing blackbird need the best territory to be his? These are all examples of how social pressure can lead to genetic change. Being the boss within your immediate group, or if your group is better at standing up to another group (of your species) when they try to assert their dominance, allows you to pass on your (ever so slightly better) genes.

 

In regards to ants and other similar forms of society, they live in a completely different type of society altogether. (colonies) One which does not at all resemble the kind of societies were speaking of. For one thing, they all carry the same gene code. And only the queen, during the non-mating time of the year, can produce youung. There is no drive to become the lead ant within the family group. From time to time, there certainly is a need to fight off same species invaders, so that could drive some change occassionally.

 

All that being said, they have no need for intelligence as we describe it. They are perfectedly adapted to their niche without it. I sometimes prefer to think of them as natural automotons, working on environmental, chemical, and instinctual cues. Evolution will not create a trait without their being a need for it. Sometimes we don't always understand the need, but the principle is still true nonetheless.

 

And gorillas may well be more intelligent than their ancestors. In fact, I believe this to be extremely probable. And had we not come around to limit their environment and natural challenges, they could have developped a new (or not) species that became even more intelligent and so on. Now we'll never know. :evil:

 

Here's a couple more things for you to consider. Evolutionary *reversions* have also been shown to happen. The ancestors of Cetacea (whales, dolphins) were terrestrial. Yet they returned to the water. Some groups of dinosaurs did the same. I'm sure there are better examples of higher order beings reverting to lower ones, but I can't think of any right now.

 

FWIW, I believe we as a society are in the midst of the same sort of reversion, with intelligence. (I see some of your eyes popping out lol ) As a species we are smarter than we have ever been. But it is not the smartest of us who are producing more young, with more chance to survive our niche. It is the less intelligent people who are breeding far more. Their descedants will mostly do the same. Unless some radical change happens within our society (and it could) the descendants of today's man will have less intelligence, not more. Given the nature of our society to continually interact, I see no chance of speciation any time soon.

 

Also, I think you are having difficulty understanding that evolution is not a linear process, like the burning process of the sun. It is a dynamic one. One thing affects a couple of other things, which affect other things, and so on, but that same thing does not affect these things.And the next thing has its' own effect on certain things, and not others.

 

I'll stop there for the moment.

 

Take care!

[questor]

you should not try to put words in my mouth. i do not think evolution is linear, neither do i think we have explained the processes that occur to cause evolution. i think there are other forces, reactions and changes which we have not yet discovered. if evolution is random, then advanced

intelligence may not be a goal, however there seems to be , at least in man, that drive toward intelligence. why not for other animals ?