Is death a product of evolution?

[spartandude]

i think to beat death we would also need a completely different organ structure

in all animals which have beating hearts (there are some so small they dont but im focusing on the ones that do in this case) there actually seems to be an average (not always) amounr of times the heart beats, 2-3billion (lets say 2.5 billion) times before dieing of old age. smaller animals tend to have really really fast heart beats and also tend to have short lives, where as larger animals tend to have longer lives and a more steady heart beat (several other factors do fit in to this such as human medical science), but it does seem that in order to achieve immortality we may need to do something about this

 

[Yopaz]

So there's a gene in cats that make cats white and in many cases the same gene makes them deaf. They do not survive in the wild because they lack one of their most important characters. They do not reproudece and create offspring that is deaf which goes towards creating a new species because being deaf is bad. This is a random mutation that's negative. Do you honestly think it will survive and create a deaf population?

Read my entire post and you will see that I said evolution is a product of random mutations, but random muttions are not evolution. Evolution affects more than one individual. More than one line. Evolution is the process of adapting to the environment. Do you think that it is by chance that the polar bear is white or do you think that those with different colours weren't fit to live there? Evolution is both the process of mutations and the process of picking out what is beneficial. The ones that don't adapt will have a lower fitness and their genes will dwindle in the gene pool.

if i recall that gene is in all cats that have all white fur and blue eyes, very cute cats but sadly are deaf. its still arguably evolution its just if it werent for us humans breeding them. natural selection would have killed them off

in terms of your polar bear example, it is partly by chance that bears in the region had pale fur (after a few centuries of breeding would get white fur, same thing with white lions) the bears with white fur could hunt in the snow, while those with darker would starve due to competition and stayed in forest ares.
evolution is the mutation, natural selection is getting rid of the weaker species
for the most part i think we agree with eachother but we worded it and a bad way which is why we are arguing

but the thing i do disagree with you on was that you said evolution does come out of need. you tried to argue it but i didnt get your explanation of it
but i do disagree with the idea it comes out of need

Do you think it is random that life on land started around the time when the resources in the ocean were sparse and the oxygen levels were too low?
Evolution is an arms race. In order to survive you need to be able to compete. Evolution makes one adapt to new niches and new habitats. Bird species that are closely related sometimes have a different diet. One may eat fruit, one can eat nuts. Is it random that the one that needed to adapt to eat nuts adapted to eat nuts?

ok i think you and i both thinking the same thing here, its just we've worded it in two ways which make it seem like we disagree.
the mutations are largely random, you get one which may let the organism eat a new food sorce, such as the bird being able to process nuts, it can eat the new food which others cant, it passes this on, the ones dont have that trait die off. we're saying the same thing just in different ways which is where they argument is coming from, but animals are always evolving even when theres no need.

Actually the difference between our thoughts is that you don't understand evolution as well as you think. The mutations in one individual and the recombinants of 2 mating individuals is not evolution.
You seem to be under the impression that one individual is all we have to consider when we look at evolution and that natural selection isn't related to evolution. Evolution is a product of both random mutations and natural selection. It spreads over several generations and spreads in a population. A mutated gene that is either rare or even disappears after some time is not evolution. That is a random mutation. Evolution doesn't have to be a major change, but it is always to increase fitness.

or maybe you dont understand my argument as well as you think? or maybe i havnt explained it very well aslo a possibility because youve more or less said what i think. except its not always fitness it can also be about improving the brain.

edit2: actually we need to clear on definition of "fitness" one of the most successful multicelular organisms around is whats is commonly refered to as Grass, but if we were to compare the fitness of a chimp to grass i think the chimo would win in a fight yet grass is much more widely spread

edit1

Actually maybe you dont understand evolution as well as YOU think (yes i can be very arrogant as well ) for one i have never said Natural selection and evolution werent related, i just said they arent the same thing, reason for that, look at humanity now, (at least in western society) we have advanced medical science which has allowed genes which would have died out in the wild to survive, and in the event we do get some kind of new gene (im living under the assumption my X gene hasnt kicked in yet and i'l soon have super powers) the republicans would demand the execution of those with the new trait

also ive never focuse exclusively on the individual, but more a small group in a species, which is how the new gene/trait for evolution to start. you know organism X gets Y mutation, it either proves to be an advantage or doesnt hinder its ability to reproduce, trait gets passed on. natural selection comes in when theres too much comptetition and those with out useful traits, or those that are now outclassed by those with superior traits dont live long enough to reproduce or are otherwise unable to reproduce
another reason i seem to focus on small groups rather than the whole species is because a species doesnt always evolve in to one new one, it can take sveral different routes, example would be Homo Heidelbergensis mutating into Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis

Fitness is an expression we use when we look at how well an organism is fit to live and reproduce in its habitat. Advanced brain = increased fitness. New niche = increased fitness.

This is quite basic level evolution and you have obviously never heard of it. Basic level evolution and you have never heard of it at all. YTou imply that I don't understand evolution while not knowing the basics?

Every argument you have ever made has been that evolution is nothing more than a random muitation. That clearly means you rule out natural selection or population dynamics from the equation. When I tried to explain how it worked you said something along the lines of "that's not evolution, that's natural selection". Also do you think that random mutations occur in all members of the species at the same time since you say you're not considering only one individual?

Now I will let you in on a little secret. Random mutations happens in individuals not populations. If evolution is only random mutations you are looking one single individual. I might have understood you wrong, but that is what you have said numerous times now and at length all the times. Have I understoof you wrong or do you simply realize you're wrong and you're too ashamed to admit it?

 

[spartandude]

So there's a gene in cats that make cats white and in many cases the same gene makes them deaf. They do not survive in the wild because they lack one of their most important characters. They do not reproudece and create offspring that is deaf which goes towards creating a new species because being deaf is bad. This is a random mutation that's negative. Do you honestly think it will survive and create a deaf population?

Read my entire post and you will see that I said evolution is a product of random mutations, but random muttions are not evolution. Evolution affects more than one individual. More than one line. Evolution is the process of adapting to the environment. Do you think that it is by chance that the polar bear is white or do you think that those with different colours weren't fit to live there? Evolution is both the process of mutations and the process of picking out what is beneficial. The ones that don't adapt will have a lower fitness and their genes will dwindle in the gene pool.

if i recall that gene is in all cats that have all white fur and blue eyes, very cute cats but sadly are deaf. its still arguably evolution its just if it werent for us humans breeding them. natural selection would have killed them off

in terms of your polar bear example, it is partly by chance that bears in the region had pale fur (after a few centuries of breeding would get white fur, same thing with white lions) the bears with white fur could hunt in the snow, while those with darker would starve due to competition and stayed in forest ares.
evolution is the mutation, natural selection is getting rid of the weaker species
for the most part i think we agree with eachother but we worded it and a bad way which is why we are arguing

but the thing i do disagree with you on was that you said evolution does come out of need. you tried to argue it but i didnt get your explanation of it
but i do disagree with the idea it comes out of need

Do you think it is random that life on land started around the time when the resources in the ocean were sparse and the oxygen levels were too low?
Evolution is an arms race. In order to survive you need to be able to compete. Evolution makes one adapt to new niches and new habitats. Bird species that are closely related sometimes have a different diet. One may eat fruit, one can eat nuts. Is it random that the one that needed to adapt to eat nuts adapted to eat nuts?

ok i think you and i both thinking the same thing here, its just we've worded it in two ways which make it seem like we disagree.
the mutations are largely random, you get one which may let the organism eat a new food sorce, such as the bird being able to process nuts, it can eat the new food which others cant, it passes this on, the ones dont have that trait die off. we're saying the same thing just in different ways which is where they argument is coming from, but animals are always evolving even when theres no need.

Actually the difference between our thoughts is that you don't understand evolution as well as you think. The mutations in one individual and the recombinants of 2 mating individuals is not evolution.
You seem to be under the impression that one individual is all we have to consider when we look at evolution and that natural selection isn't related to evolution. Evolution is a product of both random mutations and natural selection. It spreads over several generations and spreads in a population. A mutated gene that is either rare or even disappears after some time is not evolution. That is a random mutation. Evolution doesn't have to be a major change, but it is always to increase fitness.

or maybe you dont understand my argument as well as you think? or maybe i havnt explained it very well aslo a possibility because youve more or less said what i think. except its not always fitness it can also be about improving the brain.

edit2: actually we need to clear on definition of "fitness" one of the most successful multicelular organisms around is whats is commonly refered to as Grass, but if we were to compare the fitness of a chimp to grass i think the chimo would win in a fight yet grass is much more widely spread

edit1

Actually maybe you dont understand evolution as well as YOU think (yes i can be very arrogant as well ) for one i have never said Natural selection and evolution werent related, i just said they arent the same thing, reason for that, look at humanity now, (at least in western society) we have advanced medical science which has allowed genes which would have died out in the wild to survive, and in the event we do get some kind of new gene (im living under the assumption my X gene hasnt kicked in yet and i'l soon have super powers) the republicans would demand the execution of those with the new trait

also ive never focuse exclusively on the individual, but more a small group in a species, which is how the new gene/trait for evolution to start. you know organism X gets Y mutation, it either proves to be an advantage or doesnt hinder its ability to reproduce, trait gets passed on. natural selection comes in when theres too much comptetition and those with out useful traits, or those that are now outclassed by those with superior traits dont live long enough to reproduce or are otherwise unable to reproduce
another reason i seem to focus on small groups rather than the whole species is because a species doesnt always evolve in to one new one, it can take sveral different routes, example would be Homo Heidelbergensis mutating into Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis

Fitness is an expression we use when we look at how well an organism is fit to live and reproduce in its habitat. Advanced brain = increased fitness. New niche = increased fitness.

This is quite basic level evolution and you have obviously never heard of it. Basic level evolution and you have never heard of it at all. YTou imply that I don't understand evolution while not knowing the basics?

Every argument you have ever made has been that evolution is nothing more than a random muitation. That clearly means you rule out natural selection or population dynamics from the equation. When I tried to explain how it worked you said something along the lines of "that's not evolution, that's natural selection". Also do you think that random mutations occur in all members of the species at the same time since you say you're not considering only one individual?

Now I will let you in on a little secret. Random mutations happens in individuals not populations. If evolution is only random mutations you are looking one single individual. I might have understood you wrong, but that is what you have said numerous times now and at length all the times. Have I understoof you wrong or do you simply realize you're wrong and you're too ashamed to admit it?

i have not dismissed natural selection at all, i have said several times the evolution it self is the result of mutation with natural selection getting rid of those who arnt adapted well enough.
and in my previous post i explained why i look at the individual. but if you like i can expand it to the general population very easily

lets say we have species A and in this organisms y and z have produced organism X with trait 1 (this is going to have alot of letters and numbers in it) trait 1 proves to be useful/does not hinder X reproducing. X reproduces and this trait is passed on, the offspring of X then reproduces and more and more eventualy have trait 1. those originally part of species A who dont have this trait begin to die out due to competition or another group has mutated a different trait, after half a million years species A has died out but those with trait 1 have formed species B and now have a population of their own

 

[Yopaz]

So there's a gene in cats that make cats white and in many cases the same gene makes them deaf. They do not survive in the wild because they lack one of their most important characters. They do not reproudece and create offspring that is deaf which goes towards creating a new species because being deaf is bad. This is a random mutation that's negative. Do you honestly think it will survive and create a deaf population?

Read my entire post and you will see that I said evolution is a product of random mutations, but random muttions are not evolution. Evolution affects more than one individual. More than one line. Evolution is the process of adapting to the environment. Do you think that it is by chance that the polar bear is white or do you think that those with different colours weren't fit to live there? Evolution is both the process of mutations and the process of picking out what is beneficial. The ones that don't adapt will have a lower fitness and their genes will dwindle in the gene pool.

if i recall that gene is in all cats that have all white fur and blue eyes, very cute cats but sadly are deaf. its still arguably evolution its just if it werent for us humans breeding them. natural selection would have killed them off

in terms of your polar bear example, it is partly by chance that bears in the region had pale fur (after a few centuries of breeding would get white fur, same thing with white lions) the bears with white fur could hunt in the snow, while those with darker would starve due to competition and stayed in forest ares.
evolution is the mutation, natural selection is getting rid of the weaker species
for the most part i think we agree with eachother but we worded it and a bad way which is why we are arguing

but the thing i do disagree with you on was that you said evolution does come out of need. you tried to argue it but i didnt get your explanation of it
but i do disagree with the idea it comes out of need

Do you think it is random that life on land started around the time when the resources in the ocean were sparse and the oxygen levels were too low?
Evolution is an arms race. In order to survive you need to be able to compete. Evolution makes one adapt to new niches and new habitats. Bird species that are closely related sometimes have a different diet. One may eat fruit, one can eat nuts. Is it random that the one that needed to adapt to eat nuts adapted to eat nuts?

ok i think you and i both thinking the same thing here, its just we've worded it in two ways which make it seem like we disagree.
the mutations are largely random, you get one which may let the organism eat a new food sorce, such as the bird being able to process nuts, it can eat the new food which others cant, it passes this on, the ones dont have that trait die off. we're saying the same thing just in different ways which is where they argument is coming from, but animals are always evolving even when theres no need.

Actually the difference between our thoughts is that you don't understand evolution as well as you think. The mutations in one individual and the recombinants of 2 mating individuals is not evolution.
You seem to be under the impression that one individual is all we have to consider when we look at evolution and that natural selection isn't related to evolution. Evolution is a product of both random mutations and natural selection. It spreads over several generations and spreads in a population. A mutated gene that is either rare or even disappears after some time is not evolution. That is a random mutation. Evolution doesn't have to be a major change, but it is always to increase fitness.

or maybe you dont understand my argument as well as you think? or maybe i havnt explained it very well aslo a possibility because youve more or less said what i think. except its not always fitness it can also be about improving the brain.

edit2: actually we need to clear on definition of "fitness" one of the most successful multicelular organisms around is whats is commonly refered to as Grass, but if we were to compare the fitness of a chimp to grass i think the chimo would win in a fight yet grass is much more widely spread

edit1

Actually maybe you dont understand evolution as well as YOU think (yes i can be very arrogant as well ) for one i have never said Natural selection and evolution werent related, i just said they arent the same thing, reason for that, look at humanity now, (at least in western society) we have advanced medical science which has allowed genes which would have died out in the wild to survive, and in the event we do get some kind of new gene (im living under the assumption my X gene hasnt kicked in yet and i'l soon have super powers) the republicans would demand the execution of those with the new trait

also ive never focuse exclusively on the individual, but more a small group in a species, which is how the new gene/trait for evolution to start. you know organism X gets Y mutation, it either proves to be an advantage or doesnt hinder its ability to reproduce, trait gets passed on. natural selection comes in when theres too much comptetition and those with out useful traits, or those that are now outclassed by those with superior traits dont live long enough to reproduce or are otherwise unable to reproduce
another reason i seem to focus on small groups rather than the whole species is because a species doesnt always evolve in to one new one, it can take sveral different routes, example would be Homo Heidelbergensis mutating into Homo Sapien and Homo Neanderthalensis

Fitness is an expression we use when we look at how well an organism is fit to live and reproduce in its habitat. Advanced brain = increased fitness. New niche = increased fitness.

This is quite basic level evolution and you have obviously never heard of it. Basic level evolution and you have never heard of it at all. YTou imply that I don't understand evolution while not knowing the basics?

Every argument you have ever made has been that evolution is nothing more than a random muitation. That clearly means you rule out natural selection or population dynamics from the equation. When I tried to explain how it worked you said something along the lines of "that's not evolution, that's natural selection". Also do you think that random mutations occur in all members of the species at the same time since you say you're not considering only one individual?

Now I will let you in on a little secret. Random mutations happens in individuals not populations. If evolution is only random mutations you are looking one single individual. I might have understood you wrong, but that is what you have said numerous times now and at length all the times. Have I understoof you wrong or do you simply realize you're wrong and you're too ashamed to admit it?

i have not dismissed natural selection at all, i have said several times the evolution it self is the result of mutation with natural selection getting rid of those who arnt adapted well enough.
and in my previous post i explained why i look at the individual. but if you like i can expand it to the general population very easily

lets say we have species A and in this organisms y and z have produced organism X with trait 1 (this is going to have alot of letters and numbers in it) trait 1 proves to be useful/does not hinder X reproducing. X reproduces and this trait is passed on, the offspring of X then reproduces and more and more eventualy have trait 1. those originally part of species A who dont have this trait begin to die out due to competition or another group has mutated a different trait, after half a million years species A has died out but those with trait 1 have formed species B and now have a population of their own

OK... you never said that.

evolution is the mutation, natural selection is getting rid of the weaker species

Or maybe you did. I think you remember this incorrectly. This is quoted from you. You are separating evolution and natural selection. There's no need denying it cause this is an unedited quote of your post. Evolution is both mutations and natural selection. That's why there's a word for ,utation and a word for evolution. They are two different things.

Now don't try and inform me about alopatric, sympatric or parapatric evolution here. I know that stuff. I know that mutations and selection are a part of evolution. Unlike you I know there's a difference between evolution and mutation.

If you want to keep this up please tell me you got some more education than high school biology and watching documentaries or reading some extra out of interest. Because I am getting tired of trying to convince you that one mutation in our DNA does not mean we evolved.

 

[Puzzlenaut]

Evolution is a product of Death. Not the other way round.

 

[spartandude]

snip because it was very very long

i could become a politcian and deny saying that

however i do stand by that point, and its what ive said several times and given examples of why ive said it!
evolution is the mutation and passing on of genes/traits where as natural selection is getting rid of weaker ones. the thing we are arguing about is you saying it is evolution and me saying it is merely closely related to evolution. and i even went into detail about this in my previous post

 

[spartandude]

Evolution is a product of Death. Not the other way round.

i shall give you sir an internets

 

[someonehairy-ish]

I would say it's the other way around. For evolution to happen via natural selection anything that has poor adaptations for its environment will die off and anything that is well adapted will live and pass on its genetic material.
If things didn't die, adaptation wouldn't be necessary.

 

[Vegosiux]

Depends on the scale of death we're talking about. An individual organism's death hardly matters - one ant less on the cosmic scale. Evolution is the product of the threat of not death, but extinction.

 

[Yopaz]

snip because it was very very long

i could become a politcian and deny saying that

however i do stand by that point, and its what ive said several times and given examples of why ive said it!
evolution is the mutation and passing on of genes/traits where as natural selection is getting rid of weaker ones. the thing we are arguing about is you saying it is evolution and me saying it is merely closely related to evolution. and i even went into detail about this in my previous post

You're wrong. Evolution isn't one separate process. It is a process built up by several minor processes where mutations is one of the more important processes, but not the only one. Selection is one of the4 mechanisms too. I would explain it to you in great details if I thought you would actually care about facts. I could probably show you my university text books and you would not believe it.
For there to be evolution there has to be mutations, gene flow, selection, changes in the environment, and recombination.

Qt least this can be found in 2 of my books. Do you have the education to turn down the work of several biologists with a Ph.D. on the subject or at least find a source to back up that mutation=evolution?

 

[spartandude]

. I would explain it to you in great details if I thought you would actually care about facts. I could probably show you my university text books and you would not believe it.

before this gets ugly, im walking away, i am not taking back anything i have said, but if you wish to believe you have won so be it, im really not going to bother with you anymore after that

 

[lwm3398]

Evolution is the product of death, not vice versa.

 

[Olas]

There is no evolutionary benefit to dying. Living long gives a creature anple opportunities to reproduce and therefore makes them more fit to survive as a species. Animals in nature rarely ever die of old age. They usually die of being eaten, struck by lightning or some other act of god. Therefore there's no need for most animals like birds and squirrels to have a long lifespan since they rarely live for long anyway.

Some more well protected animals however, like hippos and tortoises, are likely to survive for much longer in the wild because they are physically tough and have slow matabolisms that require very little coloric intake to survive. Since they have a low probability of dying of natural causes the possibility of them surviving a long time in the wild is high and evolution has given them long, fertile lifespan to live out.

Thus evolution results from death, not the other way around.
An immortal species wouldn't even need to evolve.