As I understand it, according to Evolution Theory, in the vast passage of time in the past a species has gradually evolved (and will evolve in future) into another species when (1) the instinct to survive has "warned" a species that its survival was doomed through rise of some hostile element in the environment unless the species somehow got itself ("automatically") adapted through some clever means during perhaps a million years thence before it was too late, and (2) either by chance or through a deliberate "action" by some High Intelligence an evolved species got "automatically" adapted and evolved before it was too late. (If either by chance or through a deliberate "action" by some High Intelligence, a species did not happen to get suitably adapted in time, it became extinct.)
Is my above understanding of Evolution Theory at least broadly correct? If it is correct, then in fact item (1) in the above paragraph has no significance whatever; for to intellectually comprehend the "warning" of item (1) a species certainly needs high intelligence, and the species needs even MUCH, MUCH higher intelligence to "consciously think" then of a way to proactively adapt and evolve during the next million years before it is too late, and thus survive.
Now, even if it was by chance that an evolved species got itself "automatically" adapted and evolved before it was too late for surving, the high cleverness of whatever means of adaption/evolution of any species does indicate existence of some High Intelligence behind it. (Human intelligence is electrobiochemical activity in the physical entity of human brain. The nature of the High Intelligence remains a mystery.)
During evolution over millions of years, when fish evolved, why would not fish of all kinds (species) have adapted to be of more or less of the same size so that all species could survive (eating perhaps sea weeds) without threat of extinction for smaller fish species by being devoured by bigger fish? Again, in that scenario, adaption/nonadaption by sea weeds for their own survival (by developing perhaps cactus-like needles so that fish could not devour them) remains an interesting speculation. Which of the two might have proved "more fit" to survive: the fish or sea weeds?
It seems that Evolution Theory boils down to "(1) whatever happens (and happened) to BE in Nature happens (and happened) to BE that way in respect of evolution, survival, and extinction of different live species, and (2) there is clearly some mysterious High Intelligence behind the existence of the cosmos the way it is." The highly popular phrase "survival of the fittest" then conveys nothing meaningful at all since the Theory does not explain WHY a particular species has turned out in the past and will turn out in future "fittest" (or "more fit") while another did not or will not. If any scientific theory in any field does not enable us to PREDICT something, its value is small.
I shall highly appreciate illumination by people who are knowledgeable about the Evolution Theory.
During evolution over millions of years, when fish evolved, why would not fish of all kinds (species) have adapted to be of more or less of the same size so that all species could survive (eating perhaps sea weeds) without threat of extinction for smaller fish species by being devoured by bigger fish?
Because being a bigger fish eating more protein holding foods had a clear advantage above smaller fish eating weeds. So bigger fish had less problems to reproduce and therefore grew their numbers and increased their own survival rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champ
... a species has gradually evolved (and will evolve in future) into another species when the instinct to survive has "warned" a species that its survival was doomed through rise of some hostile element in the environment unless the species somehow got itself ("automatically") adapted through some clever means during perhaps a million years thence before it was too late ....
All members within a species gradually evolve. Most adaptations are not an advantage. Only in extreme circumstances one or more adaptations to changed conditions will be fast and observable, because no adaptation or to slow adaptation will result in extinction of that non-adapted lineage.
As I understand it, according to Evolution Theory, in the vast passage of time in the past a species has gradually evolved (and will evolve in future) into another species when (1) the instinct to survive has "warned" a species that its survival was doomed through rise of some hostile element in the environment unless the species somehow got itself ("automatically") adapted through some clever means during perhaps a million years thence before it was too late, and (2) either by chance or through a deliberate "action" by some High Intelligence an evolved species got "automatically" adapted and evolved before it was too late. (If either by chance or through a deliberate "action" by some High Intelligence, a species did not happen to get suitably adapted in time, it became extinct.)
Is my above understanding of Evolution Theory at least broadly correct?
No. This understanding is quite INcorrect. There is no warning because an organism isn't adapting to something in the future but to what's happening right now. OP is viewing adaptations as happening entirely in big chunks.
Instead, those individuals that happen to be better adapted to the CURRENT environment leave more offspring. In the next generation, that type is overrepresented compared to others that had fewer offspring. IF the next generation experiences a similar environment, and there's no guarantee they will, the selection will continue in the same direction. Because OP's initial assumptions are wrong, everything else leads to further misunderstanding.
And since the OP posted this three years ago and has not been back, I am not going to address it.
Because being a bigger fish eating more protein holding foods had a clear advantage above smaller fish eating weeds. So bigger fish had less problems to reproduce and therefore grew their numbers and increased their own survival rate.
All members within a species gradually evolve. Most adaptations are not an advantage. Only in extreme circumstances one or more adaptations to changed conditions will be fast and observable, because no adaptation or to slow adaptation will result in extinction of that non-adapted lineage.
i have to nitpick, for which I apologize.
SOMETIMES, bigger predatory fish have an advantage over smaller herbivorous ones. Obviously, this is not a consistent rule or we would have both living today and we wouldn't also have big herbivorous fish and small predaceous fish. Similar animals tend to evolve away from each other, becoming different from each other so they compete less. This is one of the rules of ecology, called niche splitting or competitive exclusion. Once you get into the details of evolution and ecology, everything gets more complicated and you often have to start looking at particular cases to try to figure out exactly why something evolved.
The basics are simply that one group of genes swamped another group of genes.
Maybe I'm not answering OP's question though. I confess I didn't read all the way to the end because it seemed to be going so very far off track and s/he is gone...
Re. your "How did you even find this old question?" : just read the last lines at the bottom of a topic.
There it refers to "similar topics". I found this one to be interesting , and reacted ! I am certainly NOT checking page after page of old topics ....
As to your remarks : of course it is not a consistent "rule". The existence of any species and change within species depends on it's success rate in fitting in it's environment. And these conditions may change, causing previously proper fitting species to become extinct. Butterflies are a clear example of that (the ones that "hide" on a tree with their camouflage). If the environmental conditions change (and trees change for whatever reason their bark color), the butterflies have to change camouflage too, or are all eaten and become extinct.
Of course. I usually don't look at similar topics. although, looking now, I see Champ posted the same question in paleontology and got an answer there.
The trouble that most people have with the idea of evolution is that it is a natural progression from a simple state to a more complicated state of being.
Evolution just means that an organism will change over time and sometimes very quickly, so suit its environment at the time. An example of this is a moth that lives on trees in northern england. before the industrial revolution there were mainly light coloured ones and only a few black or dark ones. the white one were difficult to see by their preditors; birds. however, once the burning of coal became so widespread and the soot from these coal fires settled on the trees, the white ones were easily seen and the black ones wern't. So the black ones came to prominence. Once the clean air act came into force the reverse happened and the white one were once more the dominant colour.
A species evolves according to the pressures exerted by nature. If a flood occurs somewhere then only those organisms that can swim etc will survive to produce young. Or if a drought occurs then those organisms that can survive longer without water will live on. You can see this happening today with antibiotics, because of the heavy handed use of these drugs germs are becoming resitant to them so the resistant germs propagate and the others die out.
Of course if you are religious then I have just wasted my time.
It just started raining here. It is winter in this mediterranean climate.
I love the word "antipodes."
Most of the discussions of evolution occur in the "religious discussions" forum of this site, which is a place for conflict about religion (as opposed to the christianity forum which is for christians to talk to one another). Anyway, hardly any interest in evolution in the science section. Biology is dominated by students posting homework questions.
Linear Mode
