Joined: Nov. 2011
|Quote (afarensis @ Nov. 11 2011,07:33)|
|Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 11 2011,06:27)|
|Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,23:27)|
Yesterday I had to go for work to Verona, which is about a 2,5 hours trip and this gave me some time to ponder some more questions which will probably come up and to which I have found no clear answer.
If evolution is continuos and you can't stop it, why are there simple organisms around? Are we to assume that bacteria "devolved" or that it continues to reform? Obviously to put forward the question I assumed that complexity indicates evolution and maybe the problem lies there. But I can't quite figure it out.
In addition to what OgreMkV said there is the question of whether there is an open niche for the population to move into as well as how well they are adapted or specialized for the niche they currently occupy. Your question seems to be a variant of the "why are there still monkeys" question
Okay I get it but supposing we do some tests on generations of Drosophila, cause they're quite easy to breed and we can do a nice time lap test on them.
But instead of doing it out in the open we do it in in a lab, where the happy flies have really eveything they need. Esentially what we are doing here is eliminating natural selection.
Since we know that mutations happen and they are cumulative. Sooner or later all the build up of cumulative random stuff has got to give way, but after thousands of generations we end up with essentially the same bug.
Shouldn't the random cumulative mutations change the bug into a random (but functional) version of a new bug.
Am I making any sense?
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin