yes.. I did it.. I solved evolution (read I'm taking a wild guess), and it is such an easily understandable (read weird) solution, that I don't understand why no one else ever thought of it (read I haven't bothered to see if someone has thought of this).


You see.. one of the main problems with the theory of evolution, the big problem, deals with how the changes actually occur. If we are to believe that these changes are not mutations, which they can't be since that would mean it'd take billions of years just for little mice to probably exist, then it would also mean something is in some way directing the DNA so that it will alter. What could this be? Some giant Santa-esque bastard who points at you and turns you into mush if you do something bad? Naw..... that's a stupid idea.. religion is ridiculous, mostly. Was it aliens, did they come down and plant their seeds within the earth and cause these animals to spring up? Maybe, but I've always believed that considering aliens our creators a way of skirting about the issue.

So what does that leave us? Well, I figured out what that leaves us. I was thinking about this while taking my shower last night (read I got bored and watched the droplets on my arm hairs), and I finally realized that ants were the clue to solving this mystery.


Why ants? Because they're socially perfect. They have a hive mind, and they're small compared to us, and therefore what I believe makes even more sense. You see, what exists and causes these changes in the DNA are symbiotes. Hive-mindish thingies, perhaps even energy itself, or something which was caused as an accidental result of the creation of the planet, but in the end these things are impossible to detect, at the moment, since they're just so darn miniscule, so minute.. soooooo smaaaallll.

What do they do? Well, they, working together like a colony of ants, reside within a living being, and then alter the DNA slightly, so that the offspring will be born with even better differences, which in turn occurs again, and again, and again. This would mean that in about 10 generations changes that would prove beneficial would probably be easily seen.


Erm... time to go die. *runs off to play AvP*

Maybe...though Surivial of the Fittest seemed to explain it pretty well if you ask me.

yeah, that's not so much evolution from one species to the next, but more like already existing things getter 'better'. survival of the fittest again as said.

but how would it change from one thing to another?

i'm still curious about the whole gaining different organs thing.

mutations don't make sense to me.

- in the sense that it would be beneficial...

IMHO, mutations may be different. One thing is when a living being changes to adopt to the changes that happened in the world. That may well be beneficial for that being. Completely different is a mutation caused by some error (like because of radiation or pollution effect). And error is an error, it may completely screw things up. The last variant is the one that is more commonly understood as a mutation, the first - something that is actually closer to evolution.

i'm not getting the evolution changing from one thing to a completely new thing. apart from radiation - which usually makes things defunct rather than better [apart from in comics].

say animal A has no eyes. animal D has a pair of them.

to get from A to D there may be as many animals in between. but what would they be like? would there be animals with partly formed eyes? if so, that is like saying that they began to form this new organ in anticipation that somewhere along the line, animal D would come about and be able to make use of them.

the partly formed organs situation doesn't make sense. say we're to have an arm in the middle of back in the future - say we'll have use for them under the circumstances. how would this change come about? would we start by having a bone come under the skin around that area and develop a lump there that over generations becomes an arm? those first few generations would have a defunct lump that has no purpose. if you stop evolution right there, that would be seen as a mutation i suppose and completely useless really. so why would the mutation continue this way?

the way i see it, this kinda thing would either have to happen all at once - radiation would do the trick or not at all.

wow, this thread is complicated, isn't it?

Well, haven't ever seen an animal with some useless organs or something, so supposedly changes happen faster.
An example about organ changes, considering the theory that most life forms came from water... Fish lives in water, it has fins. Those are good in water, but would be useless on earth. Then there are animals like seals, that have something between fins and legs, and since they are most of the time in water and spend some time on shore, this part legs/part fins are good for them. Then there are amphibians, who actually have webbed feet and feel themselves good both in water and on earth. Then there are animals who spend almost all the time on surface and they no longer have webbed feet or fins, because they are useless for them. Then they are humans, who have their front legs changed to what we call hands, so that we could use them for purposes other than walking. If you follow the changes, you can see some evolution here.
The problem i see here is how those changes actually accured. I haven't ever seen or heard of a lifeform giving life to some different life forms that would have different organs or something like that (ohh, so many times using the word life in one sentence...). Or maybe those changes appear so slow that is difficult for us to notice. Like if you live with somebody for 10 years, you don't notice how he changes getting older, but if you meet somebody whom you haven't seen for 10 years, you see a lot of changes.
Another example would be about cockroaches. If you try to poison them with some chemical, but some of them survive, they will develop immunity to it in later generations. Isn't that a kind of evolution, trying to adopt to the changes around? So, maybe for a life form to have some drastic changes like new organs, there needs to be a big change in the world around them like some cataclysm or something?
Well, maybe i'm all wrong about those examples, but to be honest i am a bit lost on the subject myself. But nevertheless it is a very interesting thread.

Question:

How did the changes occur which in turn allow for the fittest to survive? Mutations? Well, as already stated mutations occur at a very slow rate, and most probably 1% of all evolution was caused by this survival of the fittest baloney.

You ever learn about Darwin's finches he studied? They all came from the mainland and settled on various islands off the coast (Maybe the Galapagos Islands? I don't remember.) and he found that they all adapted to their separate island environments, creating many different species of finches.

Survival of the fittest is what allows these changes to occur. And it will eventually lead to the creation of other species.

How did the finches adapt though? And why were some of them different so that some would die off and some would survive?

Survival of the fittest does not solve evolution, it just solves what survives out of whatever gets evolved.

Evolution is the mutation of genetic information in the replication process as an organism grows. In asexual reproducing organisms(single cell life forms) the mutations occur in the splitting of the chromosomes(long chains of DNA which code for specific groups of traits, eg gender, facial appearance). The 'daughter' organism is supposed to be an exact replica or clone of the 'parent' but often they are not. Because the replication process has no failsafe where by an agent checks that the genetic information has been replicated accurately, and corrects the mistakes, the 'daughter' continues existing with the mistakes or mutations. These are not necessarily beneficial, and more often than not they are detrimental. The beneficial mutation is anything which provides advantage and therefore better survival skill. They then breed and pass on their advantage, though not always, the advantageous genes may be replicated incorrectly and mutated into something detrimental, it is a matter of chance.

Sexually reproducing creatures are always multi-cellular. The cells though still reproduce asexually, therefore they can come out with errors, these errors may may them incapable of performing their programmed task, to their detriment, or better at their task, benefit. There is a natural tendency for rejection of unique mutant cells, the same is true in organisms, therefore they tend to breed with each other, this forms a stronger group which competes with the mainstream and becomes dominant(the new mainstream) these traits are then attractive in reproductive pursuit and become stronger as the population becomes filled with the beneficial mutation. At some point there was a finch which had a beak which made it better at feeding due to a mistake in the gene replication process, it bred and soon all the finches with out the new 'super beak' were out competed. Really its far more detailed but I can't be bothered explaining further.

How did it all happen so fast by mutations? You'd be talking about something wherein a series of accidents all happen in such a specific order and in an extremely short period of time, although it has been proven it takes a large period of time for mutational evolution such as you're talking about to occur.

Evolution is not some problem to solve. Its is a processSurvival of the Fittest is what evoultion essentially IS. Its not what survives out of whatever gets evolved. The ones who are best suited for the environment are the ones who survive to reproduce. Those desirable traits are passed on to the following generations, and the process continues on through the line of the species. They evolve in that way.

Survival of the Fittest is a TOOL OF EVOLUTION you damn dirty bastard.

It does not cause the alterations, but merely helps enhance the amount of life forms which have it.

There's a bunch of fringe minds that are talking about the fact that it's nto competition that improves the level of life, it's cooperation... that's talking on all levels of life, even the microbiotic.

i think it is competition; at least when considering survival......for example, on certain remote islands, bats no longer need to fly because there is less competition on the ground for insects as well as less danger from bigger animals......on other remote islands, where some food is scarce, birds (other than penguins) discovered that eating marine life helps, so they adapted to become swimmers.......

evolution is based on survival......even the mind has been considered as an evolutionary product of survival.....for example, animal A1 watches animal B eat fellow animal A2; therefore, animal A1 learns that animal B is a threat, and somehow through evolotion all animal A's know animal B is a threat

Knowing what is dangerous is learned, not inherent. Instincts, however, such as knowing when there's a loud noise to be prepped for running like the dickens, are inherent.

sixxx, competition eliminates many, and grants to few, how can you call that survival, when the majority suffers?

it elimanates many, but grants to many, not few.....competion has winners and losers, and the strongest survive......but there is not just competetion among animals, elements must be considered as well......