My alternate view on evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2010, 03:10 AM
My alternate view on evolution
Random Evolution
by Brandon Verdier

Let me start by addressing that I do accept evolution. Let me also start by saying that I do acknowledge natural selection, and I do understand that natural selection is by definition a non random event. However, I believe that an alternate force is the key to evolution.

DNA mutations are known to be highly random and not under intelligent control. There is no force "driving" DNA mutations, however I do beleive that DNA mutations are driving evolution. Natural selection, in my opinion, supplements DNA mutation. A species that mutates positively to it's environment has a better shot at survival than one that either doesn't mutate or mutates negatively. This is easy to understand.

I am not saying that humans (or any other highly evolved organism) have any more "information" than any other speices. Amoebas do indeed have many times the amount of "information" in their genome, so I will not use that as evidence for my claims.

I will instead address the randomness of life itself. Extinctions are random events, we cannot predict them (to an extent we can see them comming, such as noticing a giant asteroid heading towards us, but we cannot fully predict something like a massive earthquake or somethingl like that). The same is true with DNA mutations. We cannot predict exactly what will mutate, whether or not it will mutate, or what it will mutate "into", so to speak.

It shouldn't be hard to see where I am going with this. Over the course of 4.6 billion years it is easy to fathom the possibility of our existance being random. But let me put it another way - it HAD to work out that way inorder for us to beg that question. Something HAD to work in our favor, otherwise we wouldn't even be thinking about it. If we didn't appear, randomly or non randomly, than we could not possibly think about how we got here in the first place. It is entirely possible that billions of years before our planet many other planets tried at natural selection but failed because the DNA mutations simply didn't work out the way they should. But, our planet's did, and because our planet's did, we CAN beg the answer to how we got here.

It's like winning the lottery, SOMEONE has to win. You may fail 100 times, but then you finally win once. Would you then claim, by that same logic, that that one win was non-random? That you winning the lottery once was not an act of chance, even though it entirely was? Just like picking numbers from a selection, mutating DNA is completely random, and even though it may fail over and over again, it can work eventually.

Sure, you can claim that lottery tickets are man made and cannot reproduce, like DNA can. But, the mechanism of randomness is the same. The actual winning numbers are random, they are randomly drawn from a bucket. Just like bingo numbers are randomly drawn from a bucket, you can claim that you getting a bingo in the first five drawings was non random, since an intelligent force was behind picking the numbers, but the force behind this was picking them AT RANDOM, just like natural selection favors the RANDOM mutations that go along with the environment.

Fight the system,

~~~but don't mute the opposition!~~~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2010, 05:48 AM
RE: My alternate view on evolution
Why can't I figure out what's so different in 'your view'? Mutations happen non-predictably (not randomly) and selection selects what stays and what doesn't.
Is it the importance of mutations that you're highlighing?

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2010, 08:40 AM
 
RE: My alternate view on evolution
I would say that nothing in random. Randomness is used to describe something we cannot predict with any degree of accuracy. Everything happened the way it did because of a chain of events spanning back to the beginning of everything. But that's another topic altogether...

Are you trying to say that even if a mutation arises and fails, there's no reason it cannot arise again and succeed later? Which by extension means that the tree leading to humanity was inevitable to exist because eventually the circumstances came about for the mutation to succeed?
Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2010, 08:57 AM
 
RE: My alternate view on evolution
(18-12-2010 03:10 AM)latvianxave8 Wrote:  just like natural selection favors the RANDOM mutations that go along with the environment.[/align]

Mutations are random, this is true. However, evolution is not. Natural selection does not operate at random. This is the opposite of how it works. You stated it yourself. Natural selection favors mutations that increase organisms' fitness. This does not produce a random change, but a change that benefits the gene pool. Individual mutations within a single organism may or may not produce a more fit organism. Changes within a single organism may be random, but evolution occurs on the scale of a population, and changes within a population as a whole are not random.

It seems like you are basically arguing for what evolution is accepted to be. Perhaps you can clarify what your contention with the consensus opinion is?
Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2010, 10:32 AM
RE: My alternate view on evolution
(18-12-2010 03:10 AM)latvianxave8 Wrote:  DNA mutations are known to be highly random and not under intelligent control. There is no force "driving" DNA mutations, however I do beleive that DNA mutations are driving evolution. Natural selection, in my opinion, supplements DNA mutation. A species that mutates positively to it's environment has a better shot at survival than one that either doesn't mutate or mutates negatively. This is easy to understand.

You are of course correct. all mutations are random and, like you say, the mutations that make the organism best fitted for survival are passed on to the following generations. In fact I canĀ“t find anything in your post that i disagree with. The part of your post I have highlighted is a perfectly good representation of what natural selection is.

I agree with ThruthAddict, we need some clarification because the way I read what your saying your not disagreeing with natural selection at all.

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2010, 11:12 AM
RE: My alternate view on evolution
I don't disagree with the idea , though at some points the article seemed to try and point towards a predefined purpose that was achieved by guiding the evolution process.
I feel a bit of ID in it.Did anyone else get that ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2010, 01:26 PM
RE: My alternate view on evolution
(18-12-2010 05:48 AM)Kikko Wrote:  Why can't I figure out what's so different in 'your view'? Mutations happen non-predictably (not randomly) and selection selects what stays and what doesn't.
Is it the importance of mutations that you're highlighing?

Yes, it is the importance of mutations that I am arguing for. Most evolutionists claim that natural selection is the main force driving evolution, I am stating that DNA mutations are the main force and natural selection is a supplement.
(18-12-2010 08:40 AM)Lukisod Wrote:  I would say that nothing in random. Randomness is used to describe something we cannot predict with any degree of accuracy. Everything happened the way it did because of a chain of events spanning back to the beginning of everything. But that's another topic altogether...

Are you trying to say that even if a mutation arises and fails, there's no reason it cannot arise again and succeed later? Which by extension means that the tree leading to humanity was inevitable to exist because eventually the circumstances came about for the mutation to succeed?

That is more philosophy than science IMO.

Fight the system,

~~~but don't mute the opposition!~~~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2010, 01:36 PM
 
RE: My alternate view on evolution
I think your alternative view is entirely superficial, IMO.
Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2010, 01:37 PM
RE: My alternate view on evolution
(18-12-2010 01:36 PM)TruthAddict Wrote:  I think your alternative view is entirely superficial, IMO.

How do you mean?

Fight the system,

~~~but don't mute the opposition!~~~
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2010, 01:44 PM
 
RE: My alternate view on evolution
Sorry, I should have elaborated. Mutations themselves do not cause evolution. It is the selection of advantageous mutations that cause evolution. Without mutations, natural selection has nothing to select for, but without natural selection, mutations do not advance beyond the isolated organism that the mutation originated in.

The way you explained just made it seem like you were dealing with wording rather than actual theory. I don't think your view differs from the consensus in any way.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: