Is death a product of evolution?

spartandude

New member
Nov 24, 2009
2,721
0
0
Yopaz said:
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
 

thom_cat_

New member
Nov 30, 2008
1,286
0
0
I would say that if a long living animal did evolve, it's ability to reproduce would probably have been lost before the age came, so there would be no reason for natural selection to occur towards the trait.

So I would think the opposite. Death is not a product of evolution. Age is just not a product.
 

orangeban

New member
Nov 27, 2009
1,442
0
0
Well, I think it's more that death is inevitable. I don't think we could evolve to never die, (and if we did, then we'd pretty much be the ultimate species, which would mean evolution had done its job). Also, I think it's less that evolution leads to death, and more that death leads to evolution.
 

DSK-

New member
May 13, 2010
2,431
0
0
As Monty Python said "Life's a laugh and death's a joke".

The thing is, everything we currently know about in the Universe dies. Sun's die. Planets die. Animals die.

If such things 'die', then how can we possibly expect to be any different?
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
spartandude said:
Yopaz said:
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?
 

Logiclul

New member
Sep 18, 2011
293
0
0
Everyone in this thread who isn't saying exactly this:

Logiclul said:
Interesting title, but no.

Evolution is a product of death, and that answer should be obvious. The fact that things die, and risk dying off, forces a species to evolve. Evolution would not, could not, exist without death.
Needs to get a reality check. Evolution is NOT completely random. That is so false it's ridiculous. I could cite thousands of examples to this.

I answered this thread irrefutably a while back, it can now die.
 

DrOswald

New member
Apr 22, 2011
1,443
0
0
Logiclul said:
Everyone in this thread who isn't saying exactly this:

Logiclul said:
Interesting title, but no.

Evolution is a product of death, and that answer should be obvious. The fact that things die, and risk dying off, forces a species to evolve. Evolution would not, could not, exist without death.
Needs to get a reality check. Evolution is NOT completely random. That is so false it's ridiculous. I could cite thousands of examples to this.

I answered this thread irrefutably a while back, it can now die.

Ok, I am going to be as generous as possible. You may not realize it, but you are coming off as extremely cocky here. It might be a good idea to calm down a bit. Besides, I think you missed the main point of the thread. Perhaps the OP could have worded the title a bit better, but from reading the OP it seems the point is closer to "does a shorter life span increase the potential of a species to adapt to extinction events?" Basically, the discussion as put forward by the original post is about the advantages of a long lifespan vs a short life span (in terms of adaptability and evolutionary advantage.) This is a question that has no simple answer and is worth discussing. Did you read the OP? from your initial and second post, it doesn't really seem like you did.

Of course, there is the possibility you are just a troll looking for a rise. In which case I apologize that I assumed you are a reasonable individual who made a mistake.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
bad rider said:
I assume it is reasonable to assume death (in this case, specifically, the process of ageing) is a product developed as an evolutionary tactic to encourage faster adaptation to our environment.
Not really. I think it's more than fair to say that Entropy has existed far longer than Life; and Death is just the cessation of Life through Entropy. What you may assume is that Life mutations that are more able to slow Entropy are more likely to add to the evolutionary tract, and thus Death is a subtle factor in our Evolution.

TL;DR: No, but it is a factor.
 

spartandude

New member
Nov 24, 2009
2,721
0
0
Yopaz said:
spartandude said:
Yopaz said:
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.
 

darksakul

Old Man? I am not that old .....
Jun 14, 2008
629
0
0
Not really. Death isn't a product of Evolution, but it is a hugely influencing force in evolution.
 

spartandude

New member
Nov 24, 2009
2,721
0
0
darksakul said:
Not really. Death isn't a product of Evolution, but it is a hugely influencing force in evolution.
this guy is getting a cookie and a blow job from yours truly
 

RagTagBand

New member
Jul 7, 2011
497
0
0
"I assume it is reasonable to assume death (in this case, specifically, the process of ageing) is a product developed as an evolutionary tactic to encourage faster adaptation to our environment."

It isn't reasonable and it isn't a product of evolution, Your view of evolution as being able to plan is absurd.
 

breese

New member
Jun 7, 2010
4
0
0
Can someone here define what we're referring to as evolution? Because I feel like a lot of these arguments are simple misunderstandings in regards to what we mean when we say "evolution". Also it is important to note that "Darwinian" evolution, aka the theory that Darwin came up with 150+ years ago has basically been proven false, or rather, been wholly unproven. "Punctuated Equilibrium" is the new buzz evolutionary theory of the day.

Regardless of the definition of evolution however, death simply cannot be a biproduct of genetic variation. Why? Because it would either have to exist at the start of genetic information (as has already been stated when people talked about Entropy) or it would have to be ADDED later. Which makes no sense, because evolution is a self-proclaimed "naturalistic" theory. This means that NOTHING could EVER effect ANYTHING if it can't purely be explained by molecules and atoms and such. Evolution presupposes that life sprang from nothing, by nothing and for nothing, so new information cannot be added later during evolution (i.e. some type of genetic kill switch).

Frankly, I really wish we'd stop assuming that micro-evolution (proven genetic variation within species) is the cause of macro-evolution (unproven species advancement through natural selection).
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
spartandude said:
Yopaz said:
spartandude said:
Yopaz said:
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.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
So if death is a product of evolution, it must post-dated evolution, and therefore immortals do exist!
 

darksakul

Old Man? I am not that old .....
Jun 14, 2008
629
0
0
It is like this, Death which is apart of entropy which gets into the laws of Thermodynamics.
In simpler terms stuff breaks down over time, batteries loose there charge even when not in use, the Sun will burn out of its fuel and go nova, then no more earth. things will fall apart. Even if you follow the theory of Stephen Hawking Black Holes will eventually fizzle out of existence. Death is not a byproduct of evolution. Also you can not engineer true immortality as all systems will break down eventually; which is going back to the laws of Thermodynamics. Depending on how you look at it, death was around before life was.

Death is a factor in evolution because, if you die before you procreate you can't pass on your DNA, simple as that.

Also as the theory goes mass extinction of several species open opportunities for others. Giant Insects and Crustaceans when extinct which open the way for giant reptiles. Those Reptiles died out and open the way for the Dinosaurs, the Dinosaurs died out and open the way for mammals. And how the current theory goes the non-specialist scavenger ape-man could adapt enough to eventually be the ancestor to the humans race.



spartandude said:
this guy is getting a cookie and a blow job from yours truly
I accept the cookie, on the other hand I am not sure of the BJ; but I take the compliment any ways.
 

bad rider

The prodigal son of a goat boy
Dec 23, 2007
2,252
0
0
DrOswald said:
Perhaps the OP could have worded the title a bit better, but from reading the OP it seems the point is closer to "does a shorter life span increase the potential of a species to adapt to extinction events?"
My titles snappier :p
 

bad rider

The prodigal son of a goat boy
Dec 23, 2007
2,252
0
0
Lilani said:
bad rider said:
I think death is something that happens to every creature, and we've failed to evolve out of it. Evolution is not any sort of a conscious choice, or a result of logic. Traits are passed down, and some stick around due to being extremely common in the ones that make it to the age where they can breed. Evolution is about survival, not making the optimization of a species's gene pool an efficient process.

Even if there are "death genes" and "live longer genes," the death gene wouldn't aid in that. Obviously the ones who live longer would pass on their live longer genes to more children than ones with the death genes. So I'm afraid your explanation doesn't make much sense.
I think you may have missed my point. Essentially my argument is that long life cycles are a detrimental trait. It puts pressure on resources and discourages breeding. Therefore it's likely genes that become faulty faster will make the species adapt faster by producing more variations by breeding. Allowing the species that dies faster more apt to adapt to the environment.

While there isn't ""death genes" and "live longer genes,"" Well. I think Biscuit trousers best summed it up

Biscuit trousers
"People use to think if you threw human cells into a dish and fed them, the culuture would divide and die at the same rate forever. However we now know that because of scenesence these cells would stop dividing after roughly 90ish divisions (hayflicks limit for humans) and then the culture would die.

That happens in humans and its why bodies break down and cease working with age. We evolved this natural death process because it prevents rampent cancer in multicelled organisms. A long time ago when our single celled ancestors were little protazoa and evolved to become multicelled organisms we developed this cell suicide technique to keep our bodies from becoming rampant tumors from birth, rather than killing ourselves biologically at around 100. Apoptosis takes place when you get that old, and your body literally kills the cells in you at a faster rate than they are made, until eventually vital systems cannot be maintained. Then you die of old age. Caused entirely by you. If you add huge amounts of telomerase you can have a cell live forever. However it then becomes a tumor. Lesser of two evils im afraid. The main difference between cancer and regular cells is no scenesence."
 

spartandude

New member
Nov 24, 2009
2,721
0
0
Yopaz said:
spartandude said:
Yopaz said:
spartandude said:
Yopaz said:
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