How did evolution begin?

  • #1

Main Question or Discussion Point

Dear Zapper,

I have read about evolution and agree with its explainations, atleast to the most part. My question is a bit deeper than the pressures of the environment.

The universe is made up of all these tiny "particles" (lets keep the wave nature aside for the moment) and they formed atoms and molecules and so on. Cosmos took shape (how ever improbable that is) and in that, our little tiny planet earth, and there were conditions(arguably) that were conducive for the creation of a bunch of molecules who could replicate themselves. From then on, it is said that natural selection takes over and ensures that the "fittest" survive. Its a mechanism by elimination, and eliminating the weak, it keeps the strong going and again selects from within the strong and so on. (Ignoring the obvious gaps) we can see a continuous "evolution" of things that turned (evolved) into what we see today as the life forms.

I understand uptill here. This is "how" evolution works. But my question is more fundamental. Science, as far as I know today, never explained "Why" certain molecules wanted to become more and more complex. For example, lets say, the first self replicating molecules kept replicating. With slight variations you might say, which I agree to. All these variations are but molecules and variation in their structure and "function". Out of these variations, some replicated more successfully than others. Agreed. But then suddenly, it seems, different types of molecules that eventually branched out of this whole pool of initially identical ones (may be several groups of identical ones, I dont know the specifics here), decided to "stick" to one another so that they can survive better. Light sensing tissue, for example, working together of a completely differently functional set of tissue. But the question is this. Did the molecule (of the building blocks of a certain tissue) decide to stick first and then survive later? or survived because it accedentally sticked to? If its the former, one must explain the continuation of that mutual dependence and the "tendency" to do so. New molecules that developed from these, need not grow up to stick to one another, let alone talk of whole tissues sticking together and replicating together. You see what I mean?

Not only that. Molecules replicating one another as being their "functionality" is fine. But processes involving "time" as in "cycles of functionality" is much more complex. All the living organisms that we see today are not just collections of molecules replicating independently. What we are seeing is collection of molecules working together over time in specific processes that ensure their survival. When did molecules learn "time"? Individual molecules, how ever complex, cannot be said to be "aware" of time. Yet, some how, whole systems work based on time and feedback loops!

Perception of time and working "in time" is one thing. Add to this, perceptions, judgemental capablities, assessment of environment and so on are also part of the systems that evolved. No question that they evolved. Evolution works. An overall outline of how it might work is also agreed upon. But the "why" does it work in such a way still needs to be explained.

A simpler way to ask this question, limited way is this.
Molecules started replicating using other molecules in the vicinity and the concepts of chemical bonding play a role there. Physical and chemical conditions needed for that, are a given. But after a certain level of complexity, we see molecules "Actively seeking" ways to preserve. Like searching for food. I mean, molecules can sit there and if at all anything then can work with comes into close contact with it and then utilize it for its survival is one thing. Molecules working in unison in recognizing "food" and searching and hunting for it is a whole lot more complex. The complexity is a matter of the birth of "perception" in this case. So, the question, "why did the molecules develop systems of perception?" is what I am asking. Did they "will" to survive? If so, when did that "will" appear, where did it come from and why did it come in the first place.

If molecules are "non living" and "unconscious" by nature, why did they move towards the complexity that produces such effects such as "life"? They could end up just being molecules replicating with variations and the variations surviving as long as they are more suited for their environment. But why did the whole concept of "making a conducive environment that is suitable for survival" come about? Even little concepts like preservation of body heat in higher organisms is enough to raise this question. Why do these seemingly non-living molecules actively work in precission to make the system work? They could simply stop working in precission and remain molecules.

You see where I am getting at? I am asking "when" and "why" did life arize in the first place. What does "perception" really mean at the molecular level? For any of the complex systems to happen, there needs to be a "learning" and "appreciating" mechanism. For example, even basic organisms that survive on algae, display a mechanism of "seeking" algae. What does this mean at the molecular level? When do the newly replicated organism realizes that it needs "algae" without experimenting for itself? How does it percieve algae as "edible"? What does "edible" mean to a molecule that functions precisely in a remote place of the cell?

Let alone the statistical probablity of the sustainance of complexity. "why" is a pertinent question. Several such "why"s can be asked. The more the complexity of the evolutionary organism, the more these questions are, and the more these are to be answered by science. All I am asking is "why did the molecules decide to form such complex mechanisms?" That tendency could not be explained by the chemical structure of the molecules. Simple questions of the mechanics of cellular reproduction (fission or fusion for example) are well beyond the "molecular" level. They are more at the "organism" level. The system level. But why do the individual molecules with in that organism work so well to preserve the entire organism? Do they have "information" that it is better? Are they built exactly for that? If so, why did that happen?

Evolution beautifully explains everything from biodiversity to food chains (and recently even to suggest that morals are hard wired into us by "evolution"). The theory works by saying that because this particular trait is helpful for the survival of this species, that trait must have been there in the survivers which carried forward through the generations. Others who lacked that particular trait died out. Its music to my ears.

But when did molecules learn to act by "traits"? Complex traits that individual molecules might never understand? Why do molecules "work" in precission to maintain something that they cant even comprehend? Workings of the RNA are an example of how complex these processes can be. Many such processes involve passing of time. Individual molecules cant possibly be "aware" of time and cycles. Yet they work beautifully well even in those frameworks. But why? A molecule can just stop working in an orderly fashion at any given time, right? Still, complex molecules of protien with huge numbers of atoms work as though they are meant to be.

A giraffe's neck for example (since you have taken it). The individual molecules that form the giraffe's neck will never even comprehend what a "neck" is. All the molecules that work within that system need to work precisely for a neck to grow. The neck of each giraffe is certainly seperate from the neck of another "older" giraffe. The sustainance of information that makes it possible for the neck to grow is also in the form of molecules. Molecules working with molecules at the minute level (remember, I am not even starting to go into the quantum levels of individual atoms of each such molecule) is what makes the whole thing possible. Molecules working with molecules of different types, over long periods of time, working in precission to work into "cells" (complexity of protiens is well known, one can imagine the complexity of a whole cell here) and cells working together to work as tissues, which inturn work to form parts of a bigger system and so on, shows the incredible complexity at work in each giraffe's neck. All this complexity needs to work like clock work (right from which parts of the DNA switch on and off (why do they do that is another question)) to create each giraffe's neck. All of the information needed for it to work must be there, somehow, within the DNA of the single "sperm" or "egg" that caused that Giraffe. Somehow, molecules work together from there on, copying the information and working according to it in each cell, creating different types of tissues (how each individual molecule that takes part knows the distinction between tissue types and configurations is yet another level of complexity) and then the mechanisms of maintaining such tissues has to come into place and the whole thing is very complex!

Much of the survivablity of a species started to depend on "perception" long long ago, in the age of micro organisms. Sensing heats, electrical field fluctuations, sensing light patterns (which lead to the creation of the eye in steps, through natural selection) and so on are some of the concepts that made the complexity possible. Yet theres no hint of how any single molecule or a small collection of them can develop such a sense is in question.

So, why does it all work? Why did self-regulating mechanisms occur? No individual molecule can comprehend the concept of self-regulation. yet, many of them work in feedback loops to maintain systems of self-regulation. Yet, until the system is formed, theres no sense of how the concept can be sustained. But systems are formed and then maintain self regulation. More over, systems replicate so beautifully as though they have "self regulation" hard wired.

self regulation happening as an accident in the original chemical soup is understandable. Sustaining it, and replicating it with precission are of whole different level.

Now after this long post explaining "why" does it work so well (not just how does it work, i know how it might work) is my question. Why do molecules form systems that self-regulate so that they dont disintegrate owing to the second law of thermo-dynamics? Self regulation, being so complex, need not be sustained unless there is a sense of survival within that system. If its just molecules, then there should not be any sense of replicating the whole. Still, "whole"s are replicated. Not just individual molecules.
Why?

Now they are so complex, that these systems start arguing about themselves and their innerworkings, innerworkings of the universe they "percieve", attribute sense to morals and what not. At a molecular level, none of this makes sense. Yet, molecules work perfectly in keeping up this system working. WHY?

Whole evolution seems to be working towards "more and more complex". I ask why. Why that direction. Why not work towards "simplification" so that structures exist (like structures of iron molecules. They survive longer than any organism that I know of). Infact, we find that the simpler things are, the longer they can be sustained(generally, not always. also, I think there is a simplicity threshold beyond which sutainance is again a problem, i am not sure, but somehow, i feel that there is.. i need some more research into simplicity and chaos). But no! Evolution seems to be creating more and more complex lifeforms that are more and more fragile (fragile in the chemical and molecular and system sense. not in terms of survival sense).

I know that evolution is a mechanism ( i dont know the technical term here ) that simply works! But why that prolonged sustainence of increase in complexity? protien molecules survive better than humans with lesser requirements for survival, for instance. I am simply asking "why".

That was my question.

Sheesh.. Thats a long post. It was just to prove that I wasnt applying sweeping generalities. I dont have such a habbit.

I had to write all this to get a proper answer to my question. Again, please dont think of this as an "attack". I dont intend to. I dont need theories to fall for my survival. I am just asking out of curiosity as to what scientists think about this and to improve my knowledge of it.

DJ
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
This may address part of your question.

...In Blank's experiments, not only did a good fraction of the amino acids survive the simulated comet collision, but many evolved into chains of two, three and four amino acids, so-called peptides. Peptides with longer chains are called polypeptides, while even longer ones are called proteins.
[continued]
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-is-evolution-a-beginners-guide/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
245
Man, that has got to be one of the longest posts that I've ever seen.
First and foremost, Science never answers 'why'—only 'how'.
Secondly, you can't anthropromorphize. None of those chemicals or early molecules 'decided' to do anything. It was just a matter of compatible molecules accumulating by chance.
 
  • #4
Hey Danger,

thanks for the response.

Just to ease things on the forum readers, i want to request a list of books that you guys on this forum would prescribe as "standard" and "latest" and "accepted by science" on these topics. Any web links to such resources are also wonderful.

The topics I would like to study are :

1. Evolution.
2. Neuroscience.
3. Psychology, especially relating to mystic, spiritual and religious explainations as well as those that are about hallucinations.
4. Scientific methodology. How science works, and especially, how can a layman like me propose and formulate my own experiments that are up to scientific standards. And how can i approach scientific authorities to take my experiments to the next level. I am especially considering psychology experiments.


That would spare long posts and long answers. I would take time to read them before asking questions.

Thanks a lot in advance. Great to know that science doesnt explain "why" but only "how". Is this view scientifically accepted?

Sustained increase in complexity due to evolution is something that keeps bugging me, especially considering that "will to survive" being a mechanism of higher organisms and not of the lower (who are not even said to be conscious).

And one more request.

How is "life" and "living things" defined in science? How are "consciousness" and "awareness" defined? Accurate definitions will help me discuss more accurately and spares people from pointing it out to me.

Thanks.
DJ
 
  • #5
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
245
The part about Science not asking or answering 'why' is that the term implies some sort of 'purpose'. There is no purpose; things just happen by chance in accordance to scientific principles.
As for some basic books, I'm going to risk being hissed at by everyone else on this site: I would suggest that you pick up a copy of 'The Dragons of Eden: Speculations On the Evolution of Human Intelligence' by Carl Sagan. It's 'popularized' science, and a lot is purely his own ideas, but Sagan was a well respected scientist. You will find no crackpottery in it.
 
  • #6
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,821
2,009
One could ask - how did life begin.

Here's one possible answer.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/scientistcalculationsprovelifebeganincomet;_ylt=AqdcQqB4HklMnLRQ4sqMhk4PLBIF [Broken]
Life almost undoubtedly began in space, and specifically in the hearts of comets, rather than on Earth, a new study claims.

Chandra Wickramasinghe, an astrobiologist at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom, and his team say their calculations show that it is one trillion trillion times more likely that life started inside a slushy comet than on Earth.

"The comets and the warm watery clay pools in comets are settings in which the organic molecules are transformed into living structures in comets," Wickramasinghe said. "That transformation is more likely in some comet somewhere in the galaxy than in any small pond on the Earth."

The new findings will be detailed in an upcoming issue of the International Journal of Astrobiology.

On the other hand -
But while most scientists are willing to concede that fallen comets might have delivered some of the water and organic materials necessary for life to Earth, critics say that Wickramasinghe's proposal that life originated in comets which subsequently crashed on our planet - an idea called panspermia - is speculative and not supported by evidence.

"It looks to me as if their conclusions are constructed from a series of speculations, none of which is based on much evidence. It is a theory built on air, not solidly grounded in scientific facts," said David Morrison, a senior scientist at the NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, who was not involved in the study.
I fall in the camp that believes/expects that comments may have added or introduced organic (carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen) material to the earth, but I can't seen the complex molecules, particular proteins and nucleic acids were necessarily present. I would imagine the energy from an impact would have destroyed such complex molecules, assuming they existed in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
166
1
Why it is that some people find it more likely that life came from a floating space rock rather than right here on Earth where the conditions are more suitable is beyond me..... :rolleyes:

d_jnaneswar, you seem quite preoccupied with "WHY". That seems to me to be more the territory of philosophy or religion. I agree with Danger, science doesn't concern itself with why....just what, how, and when.

Why ask why? :smile:

Why did self-regulating mechanisms occur? No individual molecule can comprehend the concept of self-regulation. yet, many of them work in feedback loops to maintain systems of self-regulation. Yet, until the system is formed, theres no sense of how the concept can be sustained. But systems are formed and then maintain self regulation. More over, systems replicate so beautifully as though they have "self regulation" hard wired.
I think you summed it up rather nicely and sort of answered your own question there. It is a mind-boggling and wonderful thing (life is), isn't it?:!!)
 
  • #8
Rade
Why ask why?:smile:
Why not ? scientists most surely ask "why" questions, some examples:

Why are hummingbirds attracted to color red ?
Why does water flow downhill not uphill ?
Why is the sky blue ?
Why does the physicist study the massless spring ?
Why can it be said that every determinate dynamic system corresponds to a single-valued transformation ? (a type of why question of science of cybernetics) ?

"At the end of the day, the spark of innovation still comes from someone asking, 'Why, why, why, why, why?'" - Glenn Edens, Director, Sun Microsystems Laboratories
 
  • #9
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,193
258
Why not ? scientists most surely ask "why" questions, some examples:

Why are hummingbirds attracted to color red ?
Why does water flow downhill not uphill ?
Why is the sky blue ?
Why does the physicist study the massless spring ?
Why can it be said that every determinate dynamic system corresponds to a single-valued transformation ? (a type of why question of science of cybernetics) ?

"At the end of the day, the spark of innovation still comes from someone asking, 'Why, why, why, why, why?'" - Glenn Edens, Director, Sun Microsystems Laboratories
Sometimes 'what' and 'why' are used interchangeably. Conceptually, though, there's a clear difference: why determines motive (generally associated with humans or animals) and what determines the actual physical events that take place. (Furthermore, one could argue that motive is a physical event in the brain)

It seems something that could easily be at the root of a semantics argument.
The 5 w's were always kind of a tragedy.

"What did you do that for?" (what used for motive)
"Why did you do that?" (why used for motive)
"What happened?" (what used for a physical event)
"Why does this happen?" (why used for the physical conditions for an event)
 
Last edited:
  • #10
77
0
What an interesting forum. Tonight in other areas I found myself at odds with Danger (no pun intended). But on this thread I totally agree with him. In the context considered, "Why" is not even a scientific word.

If one would prefer to believe there was some conscious thought involved in the beginnings of life I suggest that they simply pretend that their chosen deity ordered the Big Bang and then decided to let nature take it's course from there. This eliminates the pointless "why"s when discussing the chaos of creation.

Natural selection is not that complicated. What works lives on and reproduces more that work. What doesn't work dies out. Chaos brings mutation. Some mutations work better than the original and they live on and reproduce some of the same. The rest die out. Humans are the only creatures that have ever consciously manipulated and avoided this process. As of late, we've been supplementing machines in place of our physical evolution. Our technology evolves exponentially while our bodies suffer natural selection to decreasing degrees.

It seems obvious to me that life was simply an accident. One needn't think of the probability involved to accept it as such. It's scientifically possible. And here we are, complex carbon based life forms, suddenly self aware and looking for the answers to everything. But the answer to "why" is simply "because". More than that and we're writing and believing fictional stories to calm the primitive fear of death that only originated from natural selection in the first place.

Scientific minds are truly the bravest and thereby the deepest.
 
  • #11
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
245
What an interesting forum. Tonight in other areas I found myself at odds with Danger (no pun intended). But on this thread I totally agree with him.
Having an intellectual disagreement about something doesn't make us enemies. :smile:
 
  • #12
166
1
Why not ? scientists most surely ask "why" questions, some examples:

Why are hummingbirds attracted to color red ?
Why does water flow downhill not uphill ?
Why is the sky blue ?
Why does the physicist study the massless spring ?
Why can it be said that every determinate dynamic system corresponds to a single-valued transformation ? (a type of why question of science of cybernetics) ?
None of those questions seem scientific in the slightest. Now change them around a little and they do:

HOW do hummingbirds discern colors and WHAT is the reason for red being preferred?
HOW does gravity effect the flow of water?
HOW does light produce a blue color in our atmosphere?

Etc....:wink:
 
  • #13
664
3
Science answers both why and how, it is just that the answer to why is unfulfilled to some, who demands a stronger, metaphysical answer. Why does not necessitate a purpose.

'How' is a descriptive approach, whereas 'why' asks for cause independent of a or no purpose of that cause.

The sun shines. How does it shine? By emitting electromagnetic radiation.
Why does it shine? Because of nuclear fusion.
 
  • #14
jim mcnamara
Mentor
3,919
2,314
Since this is not a primum movens (first cause) theological discussion, rather one based on science maybe you should consider why evolution started this way: evolution is an emgergent phenomenon.

One definition is that a discernable and complex order arises from large number of random starting points. It uses fixed, simple rules.

Do you know the computer game/simulation 'Life'? The one invented by John Conway?

A very simple description - this game will create predictable, repeating , VERY complex patterns from different starting "positions" of black and white squares on your PC screen. Predicting which starting positions end up as predictable/repeating/complex can be difficult.


This is exactly what evolution does. It arises out of competition for resources and survival to reproduce. The rules are simple. It's hard to see a why-it-started to create more complex life forms because it began playing the 'game' billions of years ago. We can't work backwards to see the starting positions. Because a very large number of "starting positions" could possibly result in what we have now.

If you want see see what I mean - google for conway's game of life
 
  • #15
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
245
As a side-note here, did anyone catch on the news that a virus within a computer game has mutated? I think that it's 'World of War Craft'. A disease that was supposed to infect only a limited population in a particular area got loose and caused a pandemic. Epidemiologists (right term?) are studying it for clues into real-life infection patterns.
 
  • #16
664
3
As a side-note here, did anyone catch on the news that a virus within a computer game has mutated? I think that it's 'World of War Craft'. A disease that was supposed to infect only a limited population in a particular area got loose and caused a pandemic. Epidemiologists (right term?) are studying it for clues into real-life infection patterns.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4272418.stm
 
  • #17
77
0
Very interesting side note. What I like is how the virtual plague was carried by a player's virtual pet. I wonder if the pet was a rat. WoW.
 
  • #18
Interesting discussion about "why" and "how".

I recently read (from sciam mind, i think) that scientists are trying to define consciousness and awareness "objectively" so that it can be tested and studied without the constrains of the subjective. Sounds really interesting.

Scientists have identified chemicals that supposedly "create" emotions and effect how we behave, like dophamine and others. Also is said how different little things like aging, brain matter percentage (grey vs white) and others effect our intelligence (which again is yet to be fully understood, by the source of the article) and other things.

I was wondering if any studies have been done where a person's psychological state "caused" chemicals. You know, like "he is depressed and so this chemical is released BECAUSE of that" and so on.

What im mostly interested in, regarding this relation ship between the so called "mind" and "brain", is the "will" of the person.

That is, if someone makes fun of me in public, lets say, i got upset. That means, the stimuli of my senses and the "mental picture" that my brain built (how it builds is not completely known, isnt it?) released certain chemicals and electrical impulses in certain parts of the brain and body and thats what I call "upset". Is this right? Am I missing something in this?

But if I have a predisposition that its a "fun" thing and not an "insult" then the same words and stimuli will not make me upset, for instance. Now, what does this mean?
Does it mean that my disposition effected what chemicals are released for the same stimuli? Or is my disposition another "chemical bias" that my brain worked out?

I am reading through the wonderful links in the brain science, cognition section of the forums, and am trying to find out what scientists say of this.

Does anyone have any links to papers or resources that explain this?

If its just chemicals creating what we call "awareness" and "consciousness", then "pre-disposition" should also be just a chemical thingy right? If so, all of our endeavors are limited by the "chemical composition" of our brains, including our ideas, inspirations, inventions and discussions, right?

Does this mean that we are ultimately paralyzed by our chemical limits from finding out everything about everything? Doesnt that mean that we cannot claim as to what we think is true, but just "apt" only under the chemical dispositions and limits of our brains that make all this possible?

If this is so, can we ever hope to say that any explaination of this universe is correct?

I am wondered about how scientists are so "confident" (which again is the chemical disposition) about what they find. Did they find a way around this argument?


DJ
 
  • #19
794
1
The "why" and "how" thing comes up often. The content of the question should be 'looked' at more than anything else, I believe. I think the controversy started in philosophy, probably when physics was part of philosophy (subsets->science and religion) and 'scientists'/ ('physicists') have been trying to separate it ever since.

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

And for evolution, I bet there will be a lot more theories involving epigenetics in the role of evolution.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,821
2,009
I think evolution has much to do with success of the biological units which are evolving. Something that happens to be successful will live long enough to reproduce and ostensibly will produce successful offspring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Species

The interesting question would be - how do simple organisms develop an affinity for whatever it is that makes them successful?

Perhaps jim mcnamara's posts in Pythagorean's thread "Origin of Life and Consciousness - Physical View" in this forum provide some insight into this question.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,193
258
The interesting question would be - how do simple organisms develop an affinity for whatever it is that makes them successful?
If I'm following your line of thinking right, I think the alternate view often expressed is that they don't necessarily develop an affinity, but that it is a result of trial and error: a simplified example being you get 10 or 15 different species with random differences between them, and by chance 2 or 3 of them are able to stabilize because of their random difference.

(i.e. it's not that nature "prefers" success, it just makes such a versatile array of variations that a certain percentage is bound to get through under the current environmental conditions)

What really awes me is how consciousness came about and whether humans are the only thing that experiences "it".
 
  • #22
166
1
What really awes me is how consciousness came about and whether humans are the only thing that experiences "it".
I suppose that depends on how you would define consciousness. One could argue that all species within the animal kingdom are "conscious" to some degree or another.
 
  • #23
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,193
258
I suppose that depends on how you would define consciousness. One could argue that all species within the animal kingdom are "conscious" to some degree or another.
I think the most fundamental attribute of consciousness is asking questions and contemplating things that aren't necessary to your survival. I've often wondered if consciousness is a result of life being "too easy" for us.

We (humans) make things like music and art, things that don't seem that pertinent to our survival... we can have detailed discussions about nothing. Is this all a result of life being "boring" because we don't spend nearly half the time as other animals trying to survive?
 
  • #24
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,821
2,009
Interesting twist in evolution.

Fungus finds flaw in plant's disease-fighting gene
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/08/28/science-plant-gene.html

A team of U.S. botanists has discovered the same gene that makes a plant resistant to one disease also makes it susceptible to another infection, the first time they say this phenomenon has been observed.

The unusual finding adds a new wrinkle to how scientists working with agriculture try to develop disease-resistant strains of plants to protect crops.

While the molecular makeup of disease-fighting genes is well known, little is known about genes that promote susceptibility, said three researchers at Oregon State University, writing in this week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Pythagorean said:
the alternate view often expressed is that they don't necessarily develop an affinity, but that it is a result of trial and error
Well, I think it's a combination of both actually. By affinity, I mean the development and retention of an attribute, e.g. finding and adapting to a food source, which implies subsequent generations passing it on to successive generations, or perhaps a certain type of behavior.

On the other hand, perhaps one species develops the same characteristic as another, then there develops a competition (and perhaps conflict) that did not exist before when two species did not share a common food source or geographic location.
 
  • #25
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,193
258
\
Well, I think it's a combination of both actually. By affinity, I mean the development and retention of an attribute, e.g. finding and adapting to a food source, which implies subsequent generations passing it on to successive generations, or perhaps a certain type of behavior.
Ah, I see. I was thinking more on the genetic level, I guess.

On the other hand, perhaps one species develops the same characteristic as another, then there develops a competition (and perhaps conflict) that did not exist before when two species did not share a common food source or geographic location.
Yeah, I see this happen a lot (especially with habitat in general) between humans and every other species.
 

Related Threads on How did evolution begin?

Replies
23
Views
16K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
16K
Replies
72
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
38
Views
6K
Replies
32
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
891
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
Top