|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution and Increased Diversity | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why isn't this evidence of a naural increase in biodiversity? A natural increase in biodiversity does not mean that the process described in the Theory of Evolution necessitates diversity. That process can lead to less diversity just as it can lead to more. That we see an increase in diversity is just a correlation and not causation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So what's the problem? The problem is that the Theory of Evolution does not necessitate an increase in biodiversity. Biodiversity has increase, as exemplified by your graph. This increase was not strictly due to the process inherent in the ToE, it was also a result of changes in the environment. Sometimes creationists say that evolution must increase diversity. Basically all I'm saying is that it is not true that it must. You chart was use as a correlation of the increase in biodiversity to the process of evolution. Evolution has happened and diversity has increased. That is the correlation. But, that does not necessarily imply causation. That evolution must cause an increase. Evolution can lead to a decrease in biodiversity. Do you disagree with that statement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But isn't evolution itself associated with changes in the environment? Not always. Sexual selection and genetic drift are not associated with changes in the environment.
Evolution can lead to a decrease in biodiversity.
Yes, of course it can.
Do you disagree with that statement? That's pretty much the whole point. Evolution does not always lead to an increase in diversity.
But how then would you account for the macroscopic increase in biodiversity, per Sepkoski's graph? It due to envionmental factors.
If you say it may be a peculiar to Earth but not necessarily the case elsewhere, then I say show me some of that "elsewhere" data. Nah, I don't think its peculiar to Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Genetic drift is usually caused by environmental factors that reduce population size. No? Sexual selection could be the result of climate change or predation. No? It doesn't matter if it can, the point is that it is not that it must. Which you've already agreed to in saying that evolution can lead to a decrease in biodiversity. Evolution does not necessarily lead to an increase in diversity. Case closed.
Nah, I don't think its [life] peculiar to Earth.
Any particular reason why other than speculative faith? By "it" I was not referring to "life". I was referring to "the macroscopic increase in biodiversity". And the reason is that I have no reason to think otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yes, on a relatively short-term basis evolution can lead to decreasing diversity, which is shown in Sepkosky's graph, but on a long-term basis it clearly has increased. What data do you have to show that would contradict this? None. I don't deny that diversity has increased. What I deny is that the process in the Theory of Evolution must lead to an increase in diversity. I'm not saying that it hasn't or that it won't, I'm just saying that it is not true that it must. Also, Your argument is of the fallacy Post Hoc ergo propter hoc, which literally mean "After this therefore because of this". We have an evolutionary process and we have an increase in diversity. You're saying that because the increase in diversity comes after the evolutionary process then it is because of the evolutionary process. It is just a correlation and that does not necessarily imply causation (wait, this is all sounding familiar, kinda like my first message in this thread). here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/posthocf.html
quote: Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth. -System of a Down, "Science" He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic, would the theory of the expanding universe qualify as Post Hoc ergo propter hoc because it is a fallacy "...committed whenever one reasons to a causal conclusion based solely on the supposed cause preceding its "effect""? It doesn't really matter and is not on topic. But I would say that it is not that fallacy becuase it is not based solely on the supposed cause preceding its effect. There are other indictations that the universe is expanding. But let's not get into that here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
But you brought it up It doesn't really matter and is not on topic. I didn't bring up the expanding universe, you did. What doesn't matter is if the expanding univers theory is a fallacy or not, which is what I was referring too by "it".
and now you're taking the OT dodge instead of defending it. Defending what? That the expanding universe is not a fallacy? I most certainly did defend it right here when I said:
quote: So what the hell are you talking about? Your comprehension skills are lacking...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I was talking about evidence, hard evidence, that biodiversity increases over macroscopic timeframes. And I produced the evidence. That part of evolution is not included in the ToE, and I took the position that it should be. Hot damn! You're starting to make some sense and have a point. Thank you. That part of evolution is included in the ToE under the sections on natural selection. The environment is what drives changes in diversity, not something inherant to the process of evolving. If the environment is favorable, diversity increases, if it is unfavorable, diversity decreases. Random mutation and selective factor that are not associated with the environment, will not necessarily lead to an increase in diversity and can actually have a decrease. It the effects of the environment that effect the diversity.
No need to start in with the insults. I'm sorry but its hard when you say things like this:
Just show me some evidence that biodiversy on Earth did not increase over macro timeframes. How many times to I have to tell you that I don't think that bidiversity has not increased!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Was there ever a time on Earth that occurred "after evolution"? Before there was life on Earth there was no evolution. After life emerged and began evolving, is the time "after evolution". Now, some time after that, there was an increase in biodiversity and also Pangea expanded. To say that Pangea expanded because species were evolving is an application of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. There is no reason to think that evolution caused Pangea to expand other than one occured after the other. It is the same with the increase in biodversity. You have documented that it has, in fact, increased, but you have failed to tie the cause to the evolutionary process. Thus the fallacy. The increase in biodiversity is a result of changes in the environment, which also effect evolution. But the process inherant to evolving does not necessarily cause the increase. It is capable, but it isn't necessary. The point about Mars is that there was once life on Mars and now there is none (the ultimate decrease in biodiversity). The process of evolving is the same on Mars as it is on Earth. Mars is an example of how evolution can lead to a decrease in biodiversity, because of thenvironment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS writes:
Isn't that like saying the color of your new car is the result of your choice in the showroom and not the result of the pigmentanation in its paint? That part of evolution is included in the ToE under the sections on natural selection. The environment is what drives changes in diversity, not something inherant to the process of evolving. No. I don't see it. How so? Environmental factors drive the increase in biodiversity. Species can evolve independent of environmental factors. Therefore, evolution does not necessarily lead to an increase in biodiversity.
Are you saying that only environmental factors independednt from biological evolution can account for biodiversity? No. I'm saying that the evolutionary factors that are indpendent of the environment are capable of decreasing biodiversity. (Even the ones that are dependent on the environment are capable too.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Let me answer too.
Would you say the overall increase of biodiversity in Sepkoski's graph shown below is or is not associated with of biological evolution? Yes, the overall increase is associated with biological evolution. Evolution can use the environment for selective pressure to drive the evolution to either an increase or decrease in biodiversity.
I can agree that an increase in biodiversity is NOT the automatic outcome of biological evolution. We have plenty of evidence on lesser timescales supporting that claim. Holy Shitballs! That's my whole point. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand. It looks like you get it.
But I am saying that on a macroscopic timeframe since the Permian Extinction biological evolution has produced a overall increase in biodiversity. Correct. And that is due to a favorable environment, not because evolution must lead to an increase in biodiversity. Got it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I agree”when lesser timescales are inviolved. Under the right conditions, the timescale is irrelevant. If the environment was favorable for a decrease in biodiversity over very long periods of time, then on the macro timescle, biodiversity would decrease.
Do you think the macro timescale represented in Sepkoski's graph has any bearing on this issue? Yes, it shows that the environment has been favorable to an increase in biodiversity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Forgive me for being a bit obtuse here, but this is just a hypothetical example to illustrate the fallacy, right? Yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you let loose a population of microorganisms on the surface of a biofriendly Mars, would that population necessarily diversify without Mars' environment changing in any way? No, not necessarily. I could or it could not.
My answer: Not necessarily, if you can assume that those microorganisms would have no effect on Mar's enviromnmet. Can you assume that? Sure, but I also think it is possible for them to have an effect on Mars's and still not diversify. It depends on what effect they have. Who's Mar?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why sweat it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024