By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
tombi123 on 10 February 2008
Edit Thread
appolose said:
tombi123 said:
appolose said:

Tombi, you say that evolution (evolution, meaning change in descendents or information increase) is on the opposite pole of randomness and chance. This does not work for two reasons: First, natural selection does not necessarily mean the strongest will survive, it means that the strongest have a better chance. Second, random mutation is needed for the other type of evolution. That is a major, major component to the idea. Note that the word there is "random".


 1) The most adaptive species survive not the strongest, thats evolution.

2) The mutations ARE random, but the mutations that survive and the mutations that die ARE NOT random. 


 

Yes, that' s what I meant by strongest. Again, thats tend to survive. A slighty quicker prey will not necessarily escape its predator. Again, natural selection is less random, but random mutation must first occur. Creatures do NOT necessarily mutate to meet their needs. They have to get lucky for that, because its random. That part is left entirely up to luck.

The mistake you are making is that you are looking at it from an individuals perspective. In general the slowest prey will get caught by the predator and the quickest will survive. Therefore in general the 'quickest' gene survives. So the 'quick' gene generally gets passed down the generations. And the 'slow' gene dies out (extinct). In other words, it isn't by chance or random that the 'quick' gene survived and the 'slow' gene died.

Most mutations make no difference. The gene mutations that hinder the animals chances of survival ('slow' gene) generally go extinct. The gene mutations that help the animals chances of survival ('quick' gene) generally survive. 

Also, evolution has no will.