Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by MelT, Oct 30, 2010.

  1. [SIZE=+2] Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution [/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1] Copyright © 1995-1997 by Mark Isaak [/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1][Last Update: October 1, 2003][/SIZE]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG] large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.)

    The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

    • Evolution has never been observed.
    • Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
    • There are no transitional fossils.
    • The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
    • Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.
    Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. They are brief and therefore somewhat simplified; consult the references at the end for more thorough explanations.

    "Evolution has never been observed."
    Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
    The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

    Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

    What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

    "Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."
    This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
    However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system.

    The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too.

    Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

    The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

    "There are no transitional fossils."
    A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

    To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

    The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

    Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.

    "But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." \t\t- Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994 ​
    "The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

    There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

    Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

    Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

    (One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

    "Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."
    First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

    Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

    Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

    What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

    Conclusion
    These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means. Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of "uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections here would be impossible.

    But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune. Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it.

    Further Reading
    The "FAQ" files listed below are available on World Wide Web via TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy. They are also available via ftp at ics.uci.edu, directory /pub/origins. Messages with more information on how to access them are posted regularly to talk.origins. The archive also contains many other files which may be of interest.
    For what evolution means, how it works, and the evidence for it:
    Colby, Chris. faq-intro-to-biology: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
    Mayr, Ernst. 1991. One Long Argument
    Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection
    For issues and evidence of speciation:
    Boxhorn, Joseph. faq-speciation: Observed Instances of Speciation
    Weiner, Jonathan. 1994. The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time
    For explanations of how randomness can lead to design:
    Dawkins, Richard. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker
    Bonner, John T. 1988. The Evolution of Complexity by Means of Natural Selection
    Kauffman, Stuart A. 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution [very technical]
    For a readable introduction to the 2nd law of thermodynamics:
    Atkins, Peter W. 1984. The Second Law
    For transitional fossils and the fossil record:
    Colbert, Edwin H. 1991. Evolution of the Vertebrates, 4th ed.
    Hunt, Kathleen. faq-transitional: Transitional Fossils
    For responses to many Creationist claims: Strahler, Arthur. 1987. Science and Earth History
    Isaak, Mark (ed.) An Index to Creationist Claims
     
  2. enjoyable read indeed.

    lol at the lack of knowledge on the creationist side.
     
  3. Looks good to me.
     
  4. Another misconception about evolution. If you entertain the idea of intelligent design, then you are anti-evolution. To put it another way, for evolution to happen, god must not exist.
     
  5. I enjoyed that :) Very nice article and I completely agree.
     
  6. Great article.

    I disagree with this. I don't think there is a god, and I don't think many creationists do believe in evolution, but I think the two can be compatible.

    Evolution doesn't imply abiogenesis. You can believe that an original self-replicating cell was designed by an intelligent being and that evolution took over from there.
     
  7. [​IMG] Geological strata containing an
    evolutionary sequence of fossils
    Remains of animals and plants found in sedimentary [​IMG] rock deposits give us an indisputable record of past changes through vast periods of time. This evidence attests to the fact that there has been a tremendous variety of living things. Some extinct species had traits that were transitional between major groups of organisms. Their existence confirms that species are not fixed but can evolve into other species over time.
    The evidence also shows that what have appeared to be gaps in the fossil record are due to incomplete data collection. The more that we learn about the evolution of specific species lines, the more that these so-called gaps or "missing links in the chain of evolution" are filled with transitional fossil specimens. One of the first of these \tgaps to be filled was between small bipedal dinosaurs and birds. Just \ttwo years after Darwin published On the Origin of Species, a 150-145 \tmillion year old fossil of Archaeopteryx \t [​IMG] \twas found in southern Germany. It had jaws with teeth and a long bony \ttail like dinosaurs, broad wings and feathers like birds, and skeletal \tfeatures of both. This discovery verified the assumption that birds \thad reptilian ancestors.

    \t
    \t\t \t\t\t \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t[​IMG] \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t[​IMG] \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t[​IMG] \t\t\t \t\t\t \t\t\t\tArchaeopteryx \t\t\t\tfossil \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\tArchaeopteryx \t\t\t\trecreation \t\t\t\t \t\t\t\tArchaeopteryx \t\t\t\ttail feathers \t\t\t \t\t \t\t​
    \t\t
    Since the discovery of \t\tArchaeopteryx, there have been many other crucial evolutionary gaps \t\tfilled in the fossil record. Perhaps, the most important one, from \t\tour human perspective, was that between apes and our own species. \t\tSince the 1920's, there have been literally hundreds of well dated \t\tintermediate fossils found in Africa that were transitional species \t\tleading from apes to humans over the last 6-7 million years. This \t\tevidence is presented in the last 3 tutorials of this series.
    [​IMG] \t\t Transitional Tetrapod Fossil--another \t\texample of filling what had been an evolutionary gap.
    \t\t This link takes you to a QuickTime video. To return \t\there, you must click the "back" button
    \t\t on your browser program. (length = 3 mins, 53 secs)
    \t
    \t\t ​
    \t
    \t\t
    The fossil record also provides \t\tabundant evidence that the complex animals and plants of today were \t\tpreceded by earlier simple ones. It addition, it shows that \t\tmulticelled organisms evolved only after the first single-celled ones. \t\tThis fits the predictions of evolutionary theory.

    Chemical and Anatomical Similarities
    Living things on earth are fundamentally similar in the way that their basic anatomical structures develop and in their chemical compositions. No matter whether they are simple single celled protozoa [​IMG] or highly complex organisms with billions of cells, they all begin as single cells that reproduce themselves by similar division processes. After a limited life span, they also all grow old and die.
    All living things on earth share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements. In fact, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common elements. This is not a mere coincidence.
    All plants and animals receive their specific characteristics from their parents by inheriting particular combinations of genes. Molecular biologists have discovered that genes are, in fact, segments of DNA [​IMG] molecules in our cells.
    [​IMG]
    section of a DNA molecule
    These segments of DNA contain chemically coded recipes for creating proteins by linking together particular amino acids [​IMG] in specific sequences.
    [​IMG]
    simple protein molecule
    All of the tens of thousands of types of proteins in living things are made of only 20 kinds of amino acids. Despite the great diversity of life on our planet, the simple language of the DNA code is the same for all living things. This is evidence of the fundamental molecular unity of life.
    [​IMG]
    Human arm bones
    (typical vertebrate pattern)
    In addition to molecular similarities, most living things are alike in that they either get the energy needed for growth, repair, and reproduction directly from sunlight, by photosynthesis [​IMG], or they get it indirectly by consuming green plants and other organisms that eat plants.
    Many groups of species share the same types of body structures because they inherited them from a common ancestor that had them. This is the case with the vertebrates [​IMG], which are the animals that have internal skeletons. The arms of humans, the forelegs of dogs and cats, the wings of birds, and the flippers of whales and seals all have the same types of bones (humerus, radius, and ulna) because they have retained these traits of their shared common ancient vertebrate ancestor.
    All of these major chemical and anatomical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes. These facts make it difficult to accept a theory of special and independent creation of different species.
    \t Geographic Distribution of Related Species
    Another clue to patterns of past evolution is found in the natural geographic distribution of related species. It is clear that major isolated land areas and island groups often evolved their own distinct plant and animal communities. For instance, before humans arrived 60-40,000 years ago, Australia had more than 100 species of kangaroos, koalas, and other marsupials [​IMG] but none of the more advanced terrestrial placental mammals [​IMG] such as dogs, cats, bears, horses. Land mammals were entirely absent from the even more isolated islands that make up Hawaii and New Zealand. Each of these places had a great number of plant, insect, and bird species that were found nowhere else in the world. The most likely explanation for the existence of Australia's, New Zealand's, and Hawaii's mostly unique biotic environments is that the life forms in these areas have been evolving in isolation from the rest of the world for millions of years.

    Genetic Changes Over Generations
    The earth's environments are constantly changing, usually in subtle and complex ways. When the changes are so great as to go beyond what most members of a population of organisms can tolerate, \twidespread death occurs. As Charles Darwin observed, however, not all individuals always perish. Fortunately, natural populations have genetic diversity. Those individuals whose characteristics allow them to survive an environmental crisis likely will be the only ones able to reproduce. Subsequently, their traits will be more common in the next generation--evolution of the population will have occurred.
    This process of natural selection resulting in evolution can be easily demonstrated over a 24 hour period in a laboratory Petri dish of bacteria living in a nutrient medium. When a lethal dose of antibiotic is added, there will be a mass die-off. However, a few of the bacteria usually are immune and survive. The next generation is mostly immune because they have inherited immunity from the survivors. That is the case with the purple bacteria in the Petri dishes shown below--the bacteria population has evolved.
    Evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria
    [​IMG]
    This same phenomenon of bacteria evolution speeded up by human actions occurs in our own bodies at times when an antibiotic drug is unable to completely eliminate a bacterial infection. That is the reason that medical doctors are sometimes hesitant to recommend an antibiotic for their patients and insist that the full dosage be used even if the symptoms of illness go away. They do not want to allow any potentially antibiotic resistant bacteria to survive.
    [​IMG] \t\tAntibiotic resistance--how mutation and fast reproductive rates of
    microorganisms can outpace modern medical breakthroughs. This
    link takes you to an external website. To return here, you must click
    the "back" button on your browser program.
    [​IMG] Dog variety resulting
    \t\tfrom selective breeding
    \t\tover many generations
    People have developed many new varieties of plants and animals by selective breeding. This process is similar to the bacteria experiment described above. Selection of specimens to breed based on particular traits is, in effect, changing the environment for the population. Those individuals lacking the desirable characteristics are not allowed to breed. Therefore, the following generations more commonly have the desired traits.
    [​IMG]
    Insect with a high
    reproductive potential
    Species that mature and reproduce large numbers in a short amount of time have a potential for very fast evolutionary changes. Insects and microorganisms often evolve at such rapid rates that our actions to combat them quickly lose their effectiveness. We must constantly develop new pesticides, antibiotics, and other measures in an ever escalating biological arms race with these creatures. Unfortunately, there are a few kinds of insects and microbes that are now significantly or completely resistant to our counter measures, and some of these species are responsible for devastating crop losses and deadly diseases.
    If evolution has occurred, there should be many anatomical similarities among varieties and species that have diverged from a common ancestor. Those species with the most recent common ancestor should share the most traits. For instance, the many anatomical \tsimilarities of wolves, dogs, and other members of the genus Canis are due to the fact that they are descended from the same ancient canine species. Wolves and dogs also share similarities with foxes, indicating a slightly more distant ancestor with them.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG] Genetic Tool Kit--evidence of a common set of genes for body parts shared by many, if not
    most, creatures. This link takes you to a video at an external website. To return, here, you
    must click the "back" button on your browser program. (length = 4 mins, 47 secs)
    Given the abundant evidence supporting the theory of biological evolution, it is highly probable that evolution has occurred and is still occurring today. However, there remains speculation in regards to the specific evolutionary path of some species lines and the relative importance of the different natural processes responsible for their evolution.
    Much has been added to our understanding of the nature of evolution since the 19th century. It is now known that there are six different processes that can operate independently or in consort to bring about evolution. The understanding of these processes has become the basis for an overall synthetic theory of evolution [​IMG]. This theory encompasses multiple causes, including Charles Darwin's concept of natural selection, Gregor Mendel's experimental results concerning genetic inheritance, as well as a number of crucial 20th century discoveries. The synthetic theory of evolution will be revisited with more detail in the 6th tutorial of this biological anthropology series.

    The Public Perception of \tEvolution in the United States
    Biological evolution is far from being universally accepted by Americans. Annual national polls carried out since the mid 1980's by the Center for Biomedical Communication at Northwestern University School of Medicine indicate that the percentage of Americans who accept evolution has dropped from 45% to 40%. Curiously, the number who reject evolution have also dropped from 48% to 39% over the same time period. Those who are uncertain about whether evolution occurs or not have increased from 7% to 21%. While it is encouraging that fewer people are now hostile to the idea of biological evolution, the U.S. still has a higher percentage of its population who hold this view than 33 of the 34 European nations and Japan. This is very likely a consequence of the relative emphasis placed on teaching science in public schools in the different countries. In addition, anti-evolution sentiment is far stronger in American national politics.
    [​IMG] Evolving Ideas: Why Is Evolution Controversial Anyway--reconciling a belief in science and
    areligion. This link takes you to a video at an external website. To return here, you must
    click the "back" button on your browser program. (length = 6 mins, 36 secs)
    NOTE[/B]
     
  8. Great thread! I have seen lots of these types of arguments against evolution.

    Thanks for putting this together Melt :hello:
     
  9. Thanks, but and Smokinaspliff, his is more interesting....:)

    MelT
     
  10. Thanks to smokinaspliff as well :D
     
  11. Anyone else had a evolution conversation with a die-hard christian? It's funny to say the least.

    MelT: Great thread
    smokinaspliff: Great post.

    I <3 Evolution lol
     
  12. I try not to. It never ends well. Thankfully I'm surrounded by people that are biologically inclined.
     
  13. Lucky you. My whole family believes 100% in god. It's cool in a way to be atheist. It's like you've got that little secret nobody else knows :cool:
     
  14. MelT, this topic seems like it has some sticky-worthy information (regarding your other topic). It addresses many of the common misunderstandings about evolution.
     
  15. Going the other way on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and my only rogue theory in life, is that I have this inclination to believe that complex organisms arose out of a more entropic (chaotic) state. The universe is continually getting more disorganized and that disorganization, I feel, might possibly have sparked life.
     
  16. Hmm...that's actually a pretty interesting thought I think I can agree with. To add my own little tweak (if I may :eek:) do you think there may be an optimum amount of disorganization best suited towards sparking life? To clarify, would you believe that propensity for complex life to develop has a parabolic relationship with disorganization in the universe where complex life is less likely to occur near the beginning and end (interpret how you will) of the universe and more likely to occur in the middle? Or do you believe disorganization and the propensity for life to be a direct positive correlation?

    Note: I am using loosely using the terms beginning, middle, and end when referring to the universe because we don't really know what's going to happen :smoke:
     
  17. This is a really good question. Part of me wants to say it's parabolic just from what we understand about our universe. If the universe is going to rip itself apart, it's not going to be conducive for life at the end. :p

    On the other hand, via evolution - life has sought to be self-sustaining. So I'd imagine if life came about it should always be trying to manifest itself - going along the lines of a positive correlation. It's something I'll have to think about in more detail when I get a moment.

    It's beyond hard for me to imagine what life will be like towards the end of the universe. So coming if the universe was coming to an end, I would definitely be open to the idea that the universe may not be as hospitable as it is now.
     
  18. we are part of the universe....the universe is apart of us.
    we are the universe trying to understand itself.

    -------------



    id think that the animals in the ocean would evolve to intelligence before us (cuz they have been evolving for a longer amount of time) since we came from the water.

    maybe they did....but destroyed themselves (like we are destined to do)...evolution would progress alot faster if we could fly...if your in the water "swimming is like that ability...it probably died before it could get a chance to see us..

    if they do evolve...to the point of communication...how would our society handle this.
    id think America would be the first to make the world a octopus friendly environment.lol
    would they hide from us ,knowing that we are crazy and would probably eat them or something....

    its like the show "Ugly America" or
    its like family guy...some dogs can talk, some cant...but they're all treated like dogs

    scientists would love it but religion would flip...lol


    idk its a difficult subject
     

Share This Page