Evolution and Increased Diversity

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.

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?

Not always. Sexual selection and genetic drift are not associated with changes in the environment. That's pretty much the whole point. Evolution does not always lead to an increase in diversity. It due to envionmental factors. Nah, I don't think its peculiar to Earth.

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. 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.

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:

---

Exposition:
The Post Hoc Fallacy is committed whenever one reasons to a causal conclusion based solely on the supposed cause preceding its "effect". Of course, it is a necessary condition of causation that the cause precede the effect, but it is not a sufficient condition. Thus, post hoc evidence may suggest the hypothesis of a causal relationship, which then requires further testing, but it is never sufficient evidence on its own.

---

---

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"

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.

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". Defending what?That the expanding universe is not a fallacy? I most certainly did defend it right here when I said:

quote:

---

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.

---

So what the hell are you talking about?Your comprehension skills are lacking...

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. I'm sorry but its hard when you say things like this: How many times to I have to tell you that I don't think that bidiversity has not increased!?

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.

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. 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.)

Let me answer too. 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. Holy Shitballs! That's my whole point. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand.It looks like you get it. Correct. And that is due to a favorable environment, not because evolution must lead to an increase in biodiversity.Got it?

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. Yes, it shows that the environment has been favorable to an increase in biodiversity.

Yes.

No, not necessarily. I could or it could not. 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?

Why sweat it?