Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum why evolve

futher to 'things that don't fit evolutionary theory'

why evolve?

why not when life originated did life not just stay as it was or die?

what is it that makes something with life realize/believe that life (especially its life) is important enough to prolong at almost any cost?

----------------------
in my dream, i think?
in my dream, i think!
in my dream i think?
in my dream i think!
-----------------------

There is no "why." But there is a "how."

Please read this very carefully.

Evolution occurs because in ANY environment, living things will produce more offspring than that environment can possibly support. This puts pressure on those offspring. Those that are better at getting food, mating, defending themselves are more likely (on average) to live long enough to produce more offspring.

When reproduction occurs, there are mistakes in the copying process. When that happens, a mutation occurs. Many of the mutations have no immediate effect. Others kill the mutation or are otherwise harmful. But some very few of them will be beneficial and THOSE mutated offspring will have a better chance of living long enough to produce their own offspring.

thanks for the reply,

but why have reproduction, why not have the thing that initially had life, and allow that thing to continue to live, WHAT PURPOSE WOULD REPRODUCTION HAVE THEN? surely a static existence of life without reproduction would be the simplest form of life preservation?

NO REPRODUCTION=NO COMPETITON?

There would still be pressure. Things that don't starve can still be killed by asteroids, floods, spears, etc.

Life is important enough to prolong at almost any cost because that biological drive is why it's in existence now. The drive to survive is almost the essence of what life is. If something didn't reproduce then it wouldn't be around today. If it did reproduce then it is part of what it is. But I think it's as deep as the first chemicals which replicated their form. At a fundamental level I believe we would surrender all logic and reason to survive. Literally we would go mad rather than die. So it's not a logical brain choice only.

I would think,...and its just a personal theory.

The strength of life's self preservation mechanism depends upon the investment that Nature/Evolution has put into that life ?

*****Dum Spiro Spero*****
*Optimism lives for the living*
*******Mike Kremer*******

dvk ... please have someone that is not psychotic try to explain to you what you wrote: above. It is pure, unadulterated, nonsense.

It isn't that I disagree with you but rather that what you wrote is contains no recognizable thought.

Please seek professional help.
===================================================
Life forms have found a wide variety of ways of promote passing their genes into the next generation. Some involve a will to live and others a will to, in essence, commit suicide.

I think the assumption that there is a will to live is anthropomorphic at best.

Attendent to time, its universal prime, energy dissipates. Love, war, survival of the fittest, et al, are the most efficient expressions of 'energies' path of least resisitance given the constraints of physiochemical environs? Evolution marks change in those environs (inclusive of change in the efficiencies expressed therein ~

Ok Y, I have a perfect analogy for you. Imagine if you and a buddy were chillen playing video games. Evertime your buddy takes a piss, he comes back to sit down and hits you on the head. Eventually your going to evolve into avoiding that hit, ITS NATURAL MAN. Just like any living organism on earth is always going to get smarter and pass his smarts down to his offspring. Anyways what are you implying, someone just droped us off here on earth and we've never changed since, come on. Think just one hundred years ago our average age of dieing was what 40, now its what 65 or 75. We get smarter

As close as you've come to being on topic lately.
Congratulations.

You are totally off topic again.

Dan, please refrain from responding the irrational statements dkv makes. It makes that much more work for the moderators when we have to delete his stuff.

All this long diatribe that I deleted had nothing to do with the topic on hand; it was totally inappropriate.

Individuals adapt; populations evolve. Your example of learning to avoid the knock on the noggin is adaptation, not evolution.

Look in the mirror. That is what the rest of us wish to do better than.

The only safe place is behind the trigger. Ask a mouse what rights it has before a cat. Evolve or die.