theory of evolution, a big mistake.

[umair]

i have been having a few questions in my mind which i would like to put up, regarding the theory of evolution.


as according to the theory, evolution takes place wherever it is needed or required, then what i was thinking was that what was the need for life to originate at all, in this virtually dead universe, and henceforth what was the need for such complicated life forms to evolve.

and the second thing which i wanted to discuss was , that as we know, we as humans have the tendency to use only a little percentage of our brain, then why has our brain evolved to into such a complicated mass,when the need possibly never existed?

these are amongst the questions which defy the theory.

[Goat]

well, i still do not have the answers ,specially to my first point

You first point is critically flawed. It makes the assumption that nature somehow has a desire, or as you put it, need.

well i could only make it that way,

as according to darwin,
the finches developed different types of beaks because they ate different types of fruits,
ie:it was out of need that their beaks evovled.,

the humans started walking because they wanted to move on land, unlike the monkeys , (who according to this never wanted to develop.)ie: even this appears to be out of need.

and possibly all the points that i can associate with the theory are out of need,then why do you find my question invalid?

That is not quite true. It wasn't out of need, but out of random variation followed by a filter of allowing the birds to access a different food source. That isn't 'need', but a mindless filter that promotes surviviablity.

[daedalus 2.0]

well, i still do not have the answers ,specially to my first point

You first point is critically flawed. It makes the assumption that nature somehow has a desire, or as you put it, need.

well i could only make it that way,

as according to darwin,
the finches developed different types of beaks because they ate different types of fruits,
ie:it was out of need that their beaks evovled.,

the humans started walking because they wanted to move on land, unlike the monkeys , (who according to this never wanted to develop.)ie: even this appears to be out of need.

and possibly all the points that i can associate with the theory are out of need,then why do you find my question invalid?

You don't understand evolution.

The birds didn't evolve because of a need. They evolved because if the food became scare and they couldn't reach it with short beaks, they died. The ones with longer beaks survived, and had chicks with longer beaks. These chicks grew and took food from deeper places, and the birds with slighty less longer beaks died. Did they need longer beaks? No, it was just a advantage.

And humans didn't start walking because they wanted to move on land unline the monkeys. They walked upright because it became an advantage for their environmental niche.

It's not rocket science.

The formation of the universe is a different thing - or, at least, is not covered under the Theory of Evolution.


if you want my completely unscientific opinion: The random quantum fluxuation that started the BB started a cascade of "will". Had the universe been different, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

[umair]

well, i still do not have the answers ,specially to my first point

You first point is critically flawed. It makes the assumption that nature somehow has a desire, or as you put it, need.

well i could only make it that way,

as according to darwin,
the finches developed different types of beaks because they ate different types of fruits,
ie:it was out of need that their beaks evovled.,

the humans started walking because they wanted to move on land, unlike the monkeys , (who according to this never wanted to develop.)ie: even this appears to be out of need.

and possibly all the points that i can associate with the theory are out of need,then why do you find my question invalid?

You don't understand evolution.

The birds didn't evolve because of a need. They evolved because if the food became scare and they couldn't reach it with short beaks, they died. The ones with longer beaks survived, and had chicks with longer beaks. These chicks grew and took food from deeper places, and the birds with slighty less longer beaks died. Did they need longer beaks? No, it was just a advantage.

And humans didn't start walking because they wanted to move on land unline the monkeys. They walked upright because it became an advantage for their environmental niche.

It's not rocket science.

The formation of the universe is a different thing - or, at least, is not covered under the Theory of Evolution.


if you want my completely unscientific opinion: The random quantum fluxuation that started the BB started a cascade of "will". Had the universe been different, we wouldn't be here to talk about it.

well, which theory is that,

the birds on the group of island had different beaks according to the type of friut and its shape,
and it was not natural selection, which you have been trying to point out.

this is what is called evolution of their beaks due to need.

[nygreenguy]

The birds didn't evolve because of a need. They evolved because if the food became scare and they couldn't reach it with short beaks, they died. The ones with longer beaks survived, and had chicks with longer beaks. These chicks grew and took food from deeper places, and the birds with slighty less longer beaks died. Did they need longer beaks? No, it was just a advantage.

Actually, this isnt totally true. It has to do with the differing food types. Insects, fruits, seeds, etc...

And then we had the issue of phenotypic plasticity within these groups which allowed for some adaptation when the weather changed. Heres a good article thats related.

[nygreenguy]

well, which theory is that,

the birds on the group of island had different beaks according to the type of friut and its shape,
and it was not natural selection, which you have been trying to point out.

this is what is called evolution of their beaks due to need.

Need? I wouldnt call it need at all. It was simply taking advantage of a new niche, which turned out to be a successful step. There wasnt necessairly a need to diversify, all thats required is something beneficial and it will work.

I guess I dont really get what your saying, your english is a bit off.

[daedalus 2.0]

The birds didn't evolve because of a need. They evolved because if the food became scare and they couldn't reach it with short beaks, they died. The ones with longer beaks survived, and had chicks with longer beaks. These chicks grew and took food from deeper places, and the birds with slighty less longer beaks died. Did they need longer beaks? No, it was just a advantage.

Actually, this isnt totally true. It has to do with the differing food types. Insects, fruits, seeds, etc...

And then we had the issue of phenotypic plasticity within these groups which allowed for some adaptation when the weather changed. Heres a good article thats related.

Yes, true, i've simplified it terribly.

[umair]

The birds didn't evolve because of a need. They evolved because if the food became scare and they couldn't reach it with short beaks, they died. The ones with longer beaks survived, and had chicks with longer beaks. These chicks grew and took food from deeper places, and the birds with slighty less longer beaks died. Did they need longer beaks? No, it was just a advantage.

Actually, this isnt totally true. It has to do with the differing food types. Insects, fruits, seeds, etc...

And then we had the issue of phenotypic plasticity within these groups which allowed for some adaptation when the weather changed. Heres a good article thats related.

well i suspect that you read it again , with my point in your mind,
because even in this case of evolution, it was the need which arrived for the smaller species to get their food, which led to their evolution for smaller beaks to eat the left over or smaller seeds.


my stand has been clear that evolution arrives out of need, and so far it cannot be denied, and hence my question still remains valid, that what was the need for life to originate in this virtually dead universe?

[Goat]

The birds didn't evolve because of a need. They evolved because if the food became scare and they couldn't reach it with short beaks, they died. The ones with longer beaks survived, and had chicks with longer beaks. These chicks grew and took food from deeper places, and the birds with slighty less longer beaks died. Did they need longer beaks? No, it was just a advantage.

Actually, this isnt totally true. It has to do with the differing food types. Insects, fruits, seeds, etc...

And then we had the issue of phenotypic plasticity within these groups which allowed for some adaptation when the weather changed. Heres a good article thats related.

well i suspect that you read it again , with my point in your mind,
because even in this case of evolution, it was the need which arrived for the smaller species to get their food, which led to their evolution for smaller beaks to eat the left over or smaller seeds.


my stand has been clear that evolution arrives out of need, and so far it cannot be denied, and hence my question still remains valid, that what was the need for life to originate in this virtually dead universe?

Do you think that by repeating an invalid question over and over again, when it is pointed out where your premises in your question are invalid, makes it valid again? Does repeating a lie often enough make it true? Or, do you wish to close your eyes, cover your ears, and yell out your misunderstandings?

[JoeyKnothead]

Evolution comes about through mutations that provide a benefit in the survival of a species. It only fills a need in that the benefit can then be described as a need. The only need a species has is to survive. Survive through eating to stay alive, and mating to continue the species, and moving or hiding to stay away from predators.

As to the bird's beaks, the need to eat is already there. What happens though is there is a greater ability to fulfill the need to eat. If the food gets bigger or harder to open, then that bigger beak fulfills that need. If the food gets smaller or easier to open, then the need becomes one of using less energy to create a beak, and more to provide this energy in other areas.

Just like with fish. The need to move around in the water is fulfilled with fins. As fins become finer tuned for moving left and right, and up and down, they fill the need for better control of movement. As the fish starts moving onto land, these fins become finer tuned to moving on land, and on and on until these fins have become arms and legs.

The 'need' does not necessarily have to exist, what has to happen is for a mutation to occur. If this mutation is then better able to help the animal survive, then it fills whatever need it now useful for.

Look at giraffes. The need to eat has always been there, but why the need for a long neck? As giraffes developed, it was beneficial to those who could reach leaves higher in trees, where other species could not. So that where all these other species where eating the leaves at say 10 feet, this animal was stretching, stretching, and making it to 10 feet 6 inches. Now this ain't much, but it's now everything at 10 feet, and everything at 10 feet 6. And so on until the animal can now feed to some twenty feet in height. Of course there was a trade off. Now the animal can't eat at 10 feet (comfortably anyway), but he's got all this food at 20 feet to himself. Now he has little to no competition at that height, and is better able to survive.

Some adaptations can actually come about by a shift in needs. Whales come from animals that once walked on land. Now its all great to have legs to move around on land, but no so great in water. So what happens? The need to better move around in the water favors legs that become more and more like the fins of fish, and that is exactly what we find, progressive steps toward fins.

So evolution fills needs. It doesn't really create them, but it has been wonderfully able to fulfill them.

[umair]

Evolution comes about through mutations that provide a benefit in the survival of a species. It only fills a need in that the benefit can then be described as a need. The only need a species has is to survive. Survive through eating to stay alive, and mating to continue the species, and moving or hiding to stay away from predators.

As to the bird's beaks, the need to eat is already there. What happens though is there is a greater ability to fulfill the need to eat. If the food gets bigger or harder to open, then that bigger beak fulfills that need. If the food gets smaller or easier to open, then the need becomes one of using less energy to create a beak, and more to provide this energy in other areas.

Just like with fish. The need to move around in the water is fulfilled with fins. As fins become finer tuned for moving left and right, and up and down, they fill the need for better control of movement. As the fish starts moving onto land, these fins become finer tuned to moving on land, and on and on until these fins have become arms and legs.

The 'need' does not necessarily have to exist, what has to happen is for a mutation to occur. If this mutation is then better able to help the animal survive, then it fills whatever need it now useful for.

Look at giraffes. The need to eat has always been there, but why the need for a long neck? As giraffes developed, it was beneficial to those who could reach leaves higher in trees, where other species could not. So that where all these other species where eating the leaves at say 10 feet, this animal was stretching, stretching, and making it to 10 feet 6 inches. Now this ain't much, but it's now everything at 10 feet, and everything at 10 feet 6. And so on until the animal can now feed to some twenty feet in height. Of course there was a trade off. Now the animal can't eat at 10 feet (comfortably anyway), but he's got all this food at 20 feet to himself. Now he has little to no competition at that height, and is better able to survive.

Some adaptations can actually come about by a shift in needs. Whales come from animals that once walked on land. Now its all great to have legs to move around on land, but no so great in water. So what happens? The need to better move around in the water favors legs that become more and more like the fins of fish, and that is exactly what we find, progressive steps toward fins.

So evolution fills needs. It doesn't really create them, but it has been wonderfully able to fulfill them.

well partially to your correction that even the giraffe had to stretch its neck and the so said whale had to develop its fins, due to some or other need, because without need nothing would make an effort to evolve, or lets frame it like this:

why will the giraffe extend his neck it he could easily get its food in the lower branches,
why will the whale jump to water if it was happy on the land,
or the most important, why did the monkeys started walking if they were happy on the trees.

well possibly because they felt the need to do so,
ie:from any of the possible example of evolution you can find that changes occur only when the need exists,

so possibly what was the need for life to evolve?