You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
0
SryServiceDown on scored.co
29 days ago0 points(+0/-0)1 child
Rationalize a mechanism that constantly reduces aspecies population, and then explain how said process instead grows it.
Is your thought process that a single cell held all the biodiversity we enjoy? And that while presumably competing over the same resources, diverted into predator/prey?
What? I don't think that makes any sense. The point is very simple: Successful specimen reproduce more while failing specimen reproduce less (or die out). There is no "reducing" or "increasing" population... at least it doesn't make sense in this context. This is observable even today in every life form, including humans, and it is also common sense. It is even used in machine learning - you run millions of iterations, and the successful ones get scored higher, and you let those with the highest scores get a little variance. Then, using that next generation, you repeat the process.
> Is your thought process that a single cell held all the biodiversity we enjoy?
That's like asking if a piece of iron is "holding" the death of hundreds before it got forged into a sword. Evolution is a process of continuous change, so if there is a point in time where there are 1000000 cells, it's quite possible that all of life emerged from those over a large time span. It's also possible that all of humanity evolved from a single cell that simply spread via cell division and eventually changed into getting bigger, having limbs and having sexual reproduction. It's possible humans, niggers, apes all evolved from a single cell.
But this is not something you can predict. It's only hindsight that skews your view. Or do you already know that in 1000000 millions years we evolve into hairless, gray skinned, less muscular, big brain, alien-looking humanoids, where the relation from humans today to that is the same as apes to humans? They might even be as reluctant to accept they evolved from homo sapiens as we are to accept that we evolved from apes.
29 days ago-1 points(+0/-0/-1Score on mirror)1 child
>What? I don't think that makes any sense. The point is very simple: Successful specimen reproduce more while failing specimen reproduce less (or die out).
If you have 10 frogs and 2 of them are the "fittest" and the rest die off. That's the system that continually culls members of a system. Always paring down.
>This is observable even today in every life form, including humans, and it is also common sense.
Evolution is not common sense. It's counter intuitive. We all came from a single organism but throughout human history we haven't seen any critter evolve?
>It is even used in machine learning - you run millions of iterations, and the successful ones get scored higher, and you let those with the highest scores get a little variance. Then, using that next generation, you repeat the process.
A continual system that pares down.
>That's like asking if a piece of iron is "holding" the death of hundreds before it got forged into a sword. Evolution is a process of continuous change, so if there is a point in time where there are 1000000 cells, it's quite possible that all of life emerged from those over a large time span.
No, it's nothing like that. Do you think that all carbon based lifeforms came from a single, common, simple organism?
>It's also possible that all of humanity evolved from a single cell that simply spread via cell division and eventually changed into getting bigger, having limbs and having sexual reproduction. It's possible humans, niggers, apes all evolved from a single cell.
So you would agree then that all of human biodiversity came from a single cell? What other possibility would there be?
>But this is not something you can predict. It's only hindsight that skews your view.
I'm not the one believing we came from rocks. I'd review your views before commenting on mine.
>Or do you already know that in 1000000 millions years we evolve into hairless, gray skinned, less muscular, big brain, alien-looking humanoids, where the relation from humans today to that is the same as apes to humans?
In fact I do know. We will not evolve into homonovus because we have never evolved in the past.
>They might even be as reluctant to accept they evolved from homo sapiens as we are to accept that we evolved from apes.
We didn't evolve from apes. There is no missing link. Nothing on planet earth has ever evolved into anything. Speciation, adaptation sure. Nothing else though.
28 days ago-1 points(+0/-0/-1Score on mirror)1 child
> If you have 10 frogs and 2 of them are the "fittest" and the rest die off.
And then the 2 lay hundreds of eggs, and 20 of them survive to have the opportunity to reproduce. And merely dying is not the determining factor - genetic reproduction is. The point is that certain *genes* die off or thrive. And in general we are talking about tendencies, not absolutes.
> We all came from a single organism but throughout human history we haven't seen any critter evolve?
They are not pokemon, where you can watch them "evolve" within seconds. Evolution fundamentally occurs when you have 2 specimen, and they reproduce, getting children. These children carry the genes of both specimen plus a little variance. For humans 1 generation is around 20-30 years, meaning it is a single instance of genetic variation. When you get a child, that's where one instance of evolution just occurred. And your child is probably unspectacular as its parents, so what "evolution" do you expect to witness anyway?
Noticeable changes occur over the span of many generations, so it takes many years - aka multiple human lifetimes. But you can observe it in a laboratory with bacteria and fruit flies in the span of less than a year... but I assume you'd dismiss that anyway.
> No, it's nothing like that. Do you think that all carbon based lifeforms came from a single, common, simple organism?
No. But that doesn't really relate to what I said...
> So you would agree then that all of human biodiversity came from a single cell? What other possibility would there be?
We don't know. Why should I muster up certainty about it? Maybe.
> I'm not the one believing we came from rocks.
I'm not believing the anthropomorphized God, one day when he was bored, did a little magic and poof every lifeform existed, kissed Earth and then flew away. This is a childish idea. That's why I wonder if people seriously believe that. If yes - I guess it's typically USA. Neither Europeans nor Orientals believe that, not even Christians.
> Nothing on planet earth has ever evolved into anything.
If that were the case, life couldn't exist, because there would be no mechanism to make life forms adapt to new environments. If Earth's average temperature would change +10°C or -10°C, a lot of species would simply die out. And such harsh temperature changes DID occur in the past - little and big ice ages.
Also you must believe that the children do not carry the genes of their parents, because that is what the theory of evolution is based on. IF you believe that, I don't understand how you can think specieses cannot change over generations. What if the same process occurs for 1 million years? Sure a lot of would change, right? There you go, evolution.
>And then the 2 lay hundreds of eggs, and 20 of them survive to have the opportunity to reproduce.
The hope is they lay 20. But what if they lay 10?
>Evolution fundamentally occurs when you have 2 specimen, and they reproduce, getting children.
That's reproduction bud. Not evolution lmao
>These children carry the genes of both specimen plus a little variance.
How many generations until we can fly?
>But you can observe it in a laboratory with bacteria and fruit flies in the span of less than a year... but I assume you'd dismiss that anyway.
I remember reading about the fruit flies. I think they did 100k generations. And you know what happened? Slightly different fruit flies? Doesn't that disprove your point?
>But that doesn't really relate to what I said
Common ancestors don't have anything to do with evolution?
>We don't know. Why should I muster up certainty about it? Maybe.
You don't know. I do.
>I'm not believing the anthropomorphized God, one day when he was bored, did a little magic and poof every lifeform existed, kissed Earth and then flew away.
Uneducated on both evolution and Christianity? You're a dual threat!
>This is a childish idea.
As opposed to believing we essentially came from rocks? You ought reexamine your belief system.
>That's why I wonder if people seriously believe that.
The great irony here is that men throughout history who were smarter, more accomplished and better than you, and you have the gall to call their belief childish. Laughable.
>If that were the case, life couldn't exist, because there would be no mechanism to make life forms adapt to new environments.
Evolution is a theory. Adaptation is observable.
>Also you must believe that the children do not carry the genes of their parents, because that is what the theory of evolution is based on.
No. You don't understand the argument. I d not believe we carry within our DNA the ability to grow wings, or gills, or anything else similar.
>IF you believe that, I don't understand how you can think specieses cannot change over generations.
Species do change in the micro. But not the macro. We have no evidence that a cat can become a fish, or a fruit fly can be anything other than a fruit fly.
>What if the same process occurs for 1 million years? Sure a lot of would change, right? There you go, evolution.
Adaptation and speciation sure. Evolution? Nah.
The fruit flies themselves disprove your theory. But your faith in it blinds you.
They lay a lot more, and only a fraction of them survive. The point is that better adaptation grants a higher survival rate.
> That's reproduction bud. Not evolution lmao
THAT is the essence of evolution: The reproduction of genes. Or what did you think what it was about?
> Slightly different fruit flies? Doesn't that disprove your point?
The fact that they changed proves evolution right... or what do you mean? Should they have changed more?
> Common ancestors don't have anything to do with evolution?
It is entirely irrelevant, and we don't know anyway. You see, we started recording our history around 5000 years ago, and a lot got lost. What you refer to happened what, a billion or more years ago? And it's irrelevant to the topic of evolution being a valid theory.
BUT I just happen to find an [article](https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/how_genetically_related_are_we_to_bananas) that expands on it:
> By sequencing the entire genome of various organisms, including yeast, rice, and frogs, researchers have found that all living things on our planet have some similarities in their instruction manuals. The overlap exists because we all evolved from a common ancestor, a single-celled organism that lived three or four billion years ago, known as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). Many of these common genes have been conserved through billions of years of evolution.
It appears all life on Earth today evolved from a single-celled organism that multiplied itself. It's like binary code for computers... or Assembly. You could say Assembly is the common ancestor to ALL programming languages.
> Uneducated on both evolution and Christianity? You're a dual threat!
So you just happen to say that reproduction is unrelated to evolution, and you call me uneducated on evolution? And as of Christianity, the essence of what I said is true, if you ignore the sarcastic undertone. God created humans by his image, and he created the world in 7 days. If you go to the extreme, you have creationism, and if you go a little further, flat Earth theory.
> As opposed to believing we essentially came from rocks?
[Microbes were detected on a meteorite from Mars](https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/cosmic-horizons-book/fossil-microbes-mars), which implies that yes, life can indeed "just" emerge from something. I for one can settle for not knowing how it can happen.
> Evolution is a theory. Adaptation is observable.
Yes, a theory that is on very solid foundation. It's a good theory, and also the best we have. And if adaptation is observable... you see, evolution is that, scaled over orders of magnitudes longer time periods.
> I d not believe we carry within our DNA the ability to grow wings, or gills, or anything else similar.
A weird phrasing... but your question is answered [here](https://www.quora.com/Can-humans-grow-gills-to-breathe-underwater): No, we cannot grow wings or gills, because both come in tandem with a plethora of body structure changes we are too far away from. Fish are cold blooded and therefore require much less oxygen. We have to expend a lot of energy to regulate our body temperature. It would require an environmental pressure and millions of years... and it must be gradual, otherwise immediate extinction would occur instead.
We DO however "carry within our DNA" the ability to do photosynthesis, as banana for example [shares 60% of our genome](https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/how_genetically_related_are_we_to_bananas).
> Many of the “housekeeping” genes that are necessary for basic cellular function, such as for replicating DNA, controlling the cell cycle, and helping cells divide are shared between many plants (including bananas) and animals.
> Species do change in the micro. But not the macro
See, there are 2 factors you have to consider. 1. As evolution occurs, it applies to all life forms, meaning ALL are evolving with consideration for all other life forms. While the predator evolves to become faster, so does its prey. Meaning the time is of essence, and if you put in a gazelle with 30% less speed than today, they will be hunted down easily by the predators - possibly so easy, that they'd go extinct even. It's like a continuous arms race.
And 2., with regards to that, there is a phenomenon of genetic tunnels. Cats for example can no longer evolve radically into fish, birds or whatever, because the time frame where it would have been possible is over. The last opportunity might have been somewhere millions or more years ago.
In programming, these tunnels can occur. Imagine you create a learning AI that learns to walk. And it does some absurd silly walk, like using a single leg, dragging the rest of its body along, and it gets caught into doing and improving it, up to a point where it is no longer able to try anything else like using 2 legs for walking. The speed it could have achieved would have been much higher if it used 2 legs, but at the beginning it just happened that some silly movement using 1 leg worked better than all others.
So yes, TODAY it will be very difficult to perceive radical changes in species, even if we could cut the middleman (the multiple human lifetimes of time frame).
Is your thought process that a single cell held all the biodiversity we enjoy? And that while presumably competing over the same resources, diverted into predator/prey?
The *theory* of evolution doesn't make any sense.
What? I don't think that makes any sense. The point is very simple: Successful specimen reproduce more while failing specimen reproduce less (or die out). There is no "reducing" or "increasing" population... at least it doesn't make sense in this context. This is observable even today in every life form, including humans, and it is also common sense. It is even used in machine learning - you run millions of iterations, and the successful ones get scored higher, and you let those with the highest scores get a little variance. Then, using that next generation, you repeat the process.
> Is your thought process that a single cell held all the biodiversity we enjoy?
That's like asking if a piece of iron is "holding" the death of hundreds before it got forged into a sword. Evolution is a process of continuous change, so if there is a point in time where there are 1000000 cells, it's quite possible that all of life emerged from those over a large time span. It's also possible that all of humanity evolved from a single cell that simply spread via cell division and eventually changed into getting bigger, having limbs and having sexual reproduction. It's possible humans, niggers, apes all evolved from a single cell.
But this is not something you can predict. It's only hindsight that skews your view. Or do you already know that in 1000000 millions years we evolve into hairless, gray skinned, less muscular, big brain, alien-looking humanoids, where the relation from humans today to that is the same as apes to humans? They might even be as reluctant to accept they evolved from homo sapiens as we are to accept that we evolved from apes.
If you have 10 frogs and 2 of them are the "fittest" and the rest die off. That's the system that continually culls members of a system. Always paring down.
>This is observable even today in every life form, including humans, and it is also common sense.
Evolution is not common sense. It's counter intuitive. We all came from a single organism but throughout human history we haven't seen any critter evolve?
>It is even used in machine learning - you run millions of iterations, and the successful ones get scored higher, and you let those with the highest scores get a little variance. Then, using that next generation, you repeat the process.
A continual system that pares down.
>That's like asking if a piece of iron is "holding" the death of hundreds before it got forged into a sword. Evolution is a process of continuous change, so if there is a point in time where there are 1000000 cells, it's quite possible that all of life emerged from those over a large time span.
No, it's nothing like that. Do you think that all carbon based lifeforms came from a single, common, simple organism?
>It's also possible that all of humanity evolved from a single cell that simply spread via cell division and eventually changed into getting bigger, having limbs and having sexual reproduction. It's possible humans, niggers, apes all evolved from a single cell.
So you would agree then that all of human biodiversity came from a single cell? What other possibility would there be?
>But this is not something you can predict. It's only hindsight that skews your view.
I'm not the one believing we came from rocks. I'd review your views before commenting on mine.
>Or do you already know that in 1000000 millions years we evolve into hairless, gray skinned, less muscular, big brain, alien-looking humanoids, where the relation from humans today to that is the same as apes to humans?
In fact I do know. We will not evolve into homonovus because we have never evolved in the past.
>They might even be as reluctant to accept they evolved from homo sapiens as we are to accept that we evolved from apes.
We didn't evolve from apes. There is no missing link. Nothing on planet earth has ever evolved into anything. Speciation, adaptation sure. Nothing else though.
And then the 2 lay hundreds of eggs, and 20 of them survive to have the opportunity to reproduce. And merely dying is not the determining factor - genetic reproduction is. The point is that certain *genes* die off or thrive. And in general we are talking about tendencies, not absolutes.
> We all came from a single organism but throughout human history we haven't seen any critter evolve?
They are not pokemon, where you can watch them "evolve" within seconds. Evolution fundamentally occurs when you have 2 specimen, and they reproduce, getting children. These children carry the genes of both specimen plus a little variance. For humans 1 generation is around 20-30 years, meaning it is a single instance of genetic variation. When you get a child, that's where one instance of evolution just occurred. And your child is probably unspectacular as its parents, so what "evolution" do you expect to witness anyway?
Noticeable changes occur over the span of many generations, so it takes many years - aka multiple human lifetimes. But you can observe it in a laboratory with bacteria and fruit flies in the span of less than a year... but I assume you'd dismiss that anyway.
> No, it's nothing like that. Do you think that all carbon based lifeforms came from a single, common, simple organism?
No. But that doesn't really relate to what I said...
> So you would agree then that all of human biodiversity came from a single cell? What other possibility would there be?
We don't know. Why should I muster up certainty about it? Maybe.
> I'm not the one believing we came from rocks.
I'm not believing the anthropomorphized God, one day when he was bored, did a little magic and poof every lifeform existed, kissed Earth and then flew away. This is a childish idea. That's why I wonder if people seriously believe that. If yes - I guess it's typically USA. Neither Europeans nor Orientals believe that, not even Christians.
> Nothing on planet earth has ever evolved into anything.
If that were the case, life couldn't exist, because there would be no mechanism to make life forms adapt to new environments. If Earth's average temperature would change +10°C or -10°C, a lot of species would simply die out. And such harsh temperature changes DID occur in the past - little and big ice ages.
Also you must believe that the children do not carry the genes of their parents, because that is what the theory of evolution is based on. IF you believe that, I don't understand how you can think specieses cannot change over generations. What if the same process occurs for 1 million years? Sure a lot of would change, right? There you go, evolution.
The hope is they lay 20. But what if they lay 10?
>Evolution fundamentally occurs when you have 2 specimen, and they reproduce, getting children.
That's reproduction bud. Not evolution lmao
>These children carry the genes of both specimen plus a little variance.
How many generations until we can fly?
>But you can observe it in a laboratory with bacteria and fruit flies in the span of less than a year... but I assume you'd dismiss that anyway.
I remember reading about the fruit flies. I think they did 100k generations. And you know what happened? Slightly different fruit flies? Doesn't that disprove your point?
>But that doesn't really relate to what I said
Common ancestors don't have anything to do with evolution?
>We don't know. Why should I muster up certainty about it? Maybe.
You don't know. I do.
>I'm not believing the anthropomorphized God, one day when he was bored, did a little magic and poof every lifeform existed, kissed Earth and then flew away.
Uneducated on both evolution and Christianity? You're a dual threat!
>This is a childish idea.
As opposed to believing we essentially came from rocks? You ought reexamine your belief system.
>That's why I wonder if people seriously believe that.
The great irony here is that men throughout history who were smarter, more accomplished and better than you, and you have the gall to call their belief childish. Laughable.
>If that were the case, life couldn't exist, because there would be no mechanism to make life forms adapt to new environments.
Evolution is a theory. Adaptation is observable.
>Also you must believe that the children do not carry the genes of their parents, because that is what the theory of evolution is based on.
No. You don't understand the argument. I d not believe we carry within our DNA the ability to grow wings, or gills, or anything else similar.
>IF you believe that, I don't understand how you can think specieses cannot change over generations.
Species do change in the micro. But not the macro. We have no evidence that a cat can become a fish, or a fruit fly can be anything other than a fruit fly.
>What if the same process occurs for 1 million years? Sure a lot of would change, right? There you go, evolution.
Adaptation and speciation sure. Evolution? Nah.
The fruit flies themselves disprove your theory. But your faith in it blinds you.
They lay a lot more, and only a fraction of them survive. The point is that better adaptation grants a higher survival rate.
> That's reproduction bud. Not evolution lmao
THAT is the essence of evolution: The reproduction of genes. Or what did you think what it was about?
> Slightly different fruit flies? Doesn't that disprove your point?
The fact that they changed proves evolution right... or what do you mean? Should they have changed more?
> Common ancestors don't have anything to do with evolution?
It is entirely irrelevant, and we don't know anyway. You see, we started recording our history around 5000 years ago, and a lot got lost. What you refer to happened what, a billion or more years ago? And it's irrelevant to the topic of evolution being a valid theory.
BUT I just happen to find an [article](https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/how_genetically_related_are_we_to_bananas) that expands on it:
> By sequencing the entire genome of various organisms, including yeast, rice, and frogs, researchers have found that all living things on our planet have some similarities in their instruction manuals. The overlap exists because we all evolved from a common ancestor, a single-celled organism that lived three or four billion years ago, known as the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). Many of these common genes have been conserved through billions of years of evolution.
It appears all life on Earth today evolved from a single-celled organism that multiplied itself. It's like binary code for computers... or Assembly. You could say Assembly is the common ancestor to ALL programming languages.
> Uneducated on both evolution and Christianity? You're a dual threat!
So you just happen to say that reproduction is unrelated to evolution, and you call me uneducated on evolution? And as of Christianity, the essence of what I said is true, if you ignore the sarcastic undertone. God created humans by his image, and he created the world in 7 days. If you go to the extreme, you have creationism, and if you go a little further, flat Earth theory.
> As opposed to believing we essentially came from rocks?
[Microbes were detected on a meteorite from Mars](https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum-collections/cosmic-horizons-book/fossil-microbes-mars), which implies that yes, life can indeed "just" emerge from something. I for one can settle for not knowing how it can happen.
> Evolution is a theory. Adaptation is observable.
Yes, a theory that is on very solid foundation. It's a good theory, and also the best we have. And if adaptation is observable... you see, evolution is that, scaled over orders of magnitudes longer time periods.
> I d not believe we carry within our DNA the ability to grow wings, or gills, or anything else similar.
A weird phrasing... but your question is answered [here](https://www.quora.com/Can-humans-grow-gills-to-breathe-underwater): No, we cannot grow wings or gills, because both come in tandem with a plethora of body structure changes we are too far away from. Fish are cold blooded and therefore require much less oxygen. We have to expend a lot of energy to regulate our body temperature. It would require an environmental pressure and millions of years... and it must be gradual, otherwise immediate extinction would occur instead.
We DO however "carry within our DNA" the ability to do photosynthesis, as banana for example [shares 60% of our genome](https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/how_genetically_related_are_we_to_bananas).
> Many of the “housekeeping” genes that are necessary for basic cellular function, such as for replicating DNA, controlling the cell cycle, and helping cells divide are shared between many plants (including bananas) and animals.
> Species do change in the micro. But not the macro
See, there are 2 factors you have to consider. 1. As evolution occurs, it applies to all life forms, meaning ALL are evolving with consideration for all other life forms. While the predator evolves to become faster, so does its prey. Meaning the time is of essence, and if you put in a gazelle with 30% less speed than today, they will be hunted down easily by the predators - possibly so easy, that they'd go extinct even. It's like a continuous arms race.
And 2., with regards to that, there is a phenomenon of genetic tunnels. Cats for example can no longer evolve radically into fish, birds or whatever, because the time frame where it would have been possible is over. The last opportunity might have been somewhere millions or more years ago.
In programming, these tunnels can occur. Imagine you create a learning AI that learns to walk. And it does some absurd silly walk, like using a single leg, dragging the rest of its body along, and it gets caught into doing and improving it, up to a point where it is no longer able to try anything else like using 2 legs for walking. The speed it could have achieved would have been much higher if it used 2 legs, but at the beginning it just happened that some silly movement using 1 leg worked better than all others.
So yes, TODAY it will be very difficult to perceive radical changes in species, even if we could cut the middleman (the multiple human lifetimes of time frame).