Batting clean up in the fourth spot, Evolution...

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

Science is king, imho there's no debating that but I do have a question or two on evolution.

#1 Is there a way to disprove it? If so how? It sometimes seems to me that what ever is found just feeds the assumption that its true. Kinda like a dragon eating it's tail.

#2 To borrow a term from my son's vernacular, where are all the op (over powered) creatures? If survival of the fittest is a key component in the advancement of life shouldn't we expect more deadly predators? Tigers with poison? Blackwidows that fly?
I guess what I'm saying is that advantages in species seem to be suppressed to a certain level. Shouldn't we see more creatures that can kill everthing?

[benchwarmer]

Science is king, imho there's no debating that but I do have a question or two on evolution.

#1 Is there a way to disprove it? If so how? It sometimes seems to me that what ever is found just feeds the assumption that its true. Kinda like a dragon eating it's tail.

Of course there is. Look at the DNA of any offspring. Is it completely different than the parents? i.e. does it contain no trace at all of its parents? This would call into question the ability to trace lineage via DNA. Is it exactly the same as one of the parents or a 'perfect mix' of both parents with no mutations? i.e. do mutations ever show up in offspring? Can you find fossil remains of modern humans that predates dinosaur remains? I'm sure there are many more.

I think by asking this question you may be showing you don't understand the supporting evidence behind the theory of evolution.

#2 To borrow a term from my son's vernacular, where are all the op (over powered) creatures? If survival of the fittest is a key component in the advancement of life shouldn't we expect more deadly predators? Tigers with poison? Blackwidows that fly?
I guess what I'm saying is that advantages in species seem to be suppressed to a certain level. Shouldn't we see more creatures that can kill everthing?

Are there tigers and black widows alive today? Yes? Then I guess they were fit enough to survive. Where in the theory of evolution does it say that anything must become overpowered? This would just be a ridiculous progression that never ends.

Survival of the fittest simply means that anything that survives long enough to reproduce was fit enough. Spontaneously acquiring super powers is not part of the theory.

[Divine Insight]

#2 To borrow a term from my son's vernacular, where are all the op (over powered) creatures? If survival of the fittest is a key component in the advancement of life shouldn't we expect more deadly predators? Tigers with poison? Blackwidows that fly?
I guess what I'm saying is that advantages in species seem to be suppressed to a certain level. Shouldn't we see more creatures that can kill everthing?

Actually it would not be advantageous for a species to be extremely proficient in killing off its entire food source. In fact, on a bacterial level there are species of bacteria that do tend to kill off their host rather rapidly. But then the bacteria also quickly dies off.

If there was nothing to restrain super efficient predators they would quickly gobble up their own food source and end up starving to death due to lack of food. In fact, we as humans may be rapidly approaching that very condition). The only thing that is saving us for the moment is our ability to domesticate our prey and control its reproduction.

Don't forget, if the predator is that good at killing its food source it would also be very good at multiplying so you would quickly end up with a lot of this super efficient predator, and that's not a situation that can last very long. So that's why such super-predators don't exist. There's a limit to how efficient they can become before they become a nemesis to the survival of their own species.

In fact, humans are the "super-predator" that you are seeking. And we may very well be approaching a point where we over populate the planet and outgrow even our own ability to grow the foods we need.

Keep in mind that dinosaurs were around for a couple hundred millions of years. Humans haven't even come close to being around that long. We may indeed become extinct very soon, precisely because we have become such proficient predators.

Having become "super predators" may ultimately be our evolutionary demise.

[Tcg]

If survival of the fittest is a key component in the advancement of life shouldn't we expect more deadly predators?

No, given that survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily mean being the most deadly predator. Consider the mouse which has proven to be fit by adapting to numerous environments and avoiding predators.

• "Cats, wild dogs, foxes, birds of prey, snakes and even certain kinds of arthropods have been known to prey heavily upon mice. Nevertheless, because of its remarkable adaptability to almost any environment, the mouse is one of the most successful mammalian genera living on Earth today."
  
  "Primarily nocturnal animals, mice compensate for their poor eyesight with a keen sense of hearing, and rely especially on their sense of smell to locate food and avoid predators."
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mouse

Could a tiger kill a mouse?

Not if it can't find one.



Tcg

[EarthScienceguy]

Science is king, imho there's no debating.

Whether or not science is King or Theology is at the core of this discussion. What are the correct assumption that created the universe in which we inhabit.

Science is nothing more than a method in which to systematically observe and describe the forces that produce an event. We describe the limit of these forces as laws. If there are no forces there can be no science.

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

Thank you for replies. Good stuff to look at and learn from.

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

From my position in left field it seems like maybe i have found a head scratcher. Of course i am self educated and not the brightest bulb in the aisle but here is my thought.
Can evolution be disproven? Im not sure that it can but perhaps it may be shown to need major modifications or an idea could lead us to consider a pause in thought.
Now i am not claiming this thought fits the bill but perhaps it may.
I will start by saying that I did some googles and at least tried to make myself feel stupid but i was unable to find anything close to my inquiry so....
Be gentle....

I assume that the basic life span of animals would increase over time. In my head it should be a slam dunk should it not? Longer life may mean more procreation and well a longer life more chances at the survival of the fitest lottery?

The Eye seems like to evolve it would take many dormant periods of overall effect to get to eyes. Baggage so to speak, But longevity seems like instant gratification.
You live longer pass on your trait and boom you eventually get a two day med fly. Or at,least evidence that animals are living longer over time. (Not counting humans due to their ability to circumnavigate evolutionary effect.
So my question is does that make sense? Is it occuring? If not why?

[kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

Is that the type of logic that could cast doubt on the process or path evolution take? Evidence of lack of a trait that on paper seems like it would be natrually selected?

[DeMotts]

[Replying to kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

Why do you assume that the "basic life span of animals" will increase over time?

Try this: in science we don't assume anything. We hypothesize and then test the hypothesis. So your hypothesis is "animal lifespans in general will get longer and longer as time passes". Does any data support this hypothesis?

Your next point - "Longer life may mean more procreation and well a longer life more chances at the survival of the fitest lottery?" - Old and weak animals have a reduced chance of successfully raising young. Generally animals procreate when they are in their most capable and physically strongest period of their lives. Producing offspring takes a huge amount of energy and effort, animals generally only do this when they have an acceptable chance at success. Do you think that human women giving birth at 70 or 80 would be advantageous?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by kcplusdc@yahoo.com]

So, let's deal with this one question at a time.

Can evolution be disproved?

Yes*. Darwin makes some quite specific claims:

1) Adults produce derived, but not identical, progeny.
2) The progeny that survive themselves to adulthood and breed in turn, will tend to be those most suited to their environment.
3) And so on, so that over time, the population as whole will adapt to their environment.

So, any of these claims can be challenged. If the progeny does not share in (most of) the adult's traits, or if they are identical, or if the progeny that survive is a purely random matter rather than suitability to the environment, as examples, these would all be reasons to reject Darwinism. But so far, his claims have not been rejected by science, and rather, the research that has been conducted has been found to confirm Darwin's ideas.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*As an aside, for those interested in the philosophy of science, then according to Karl Popper the thing that makes science, science, is the possibility of the falsification of a theory. If there was no way to refute Darwin, his ideas would not be science at all, just a 'closed' philosophical system, such as those of Marx and Freud.