Question about evolution??

M

mysticalsilence

Active member
Messages
27
Reaction score
4
I would like non muslims to look at this issue as well see what peoples opinions are..

I was thinking today and I thought to myself well if evolution is all about survival and reproduction. Why do we have such short life spans?

I mean if evolution can cause us to have this body which is pretty complex.

We could in theory live longer if ours did not stop regenarating cells because of our biological clock.

I dont know anything about this that is why its a question...

Time/Decay has been the greatest threat to every living organism since the beginning! So wouldent adapting to this decay by constant regeneration of our cells be something that is more likely and easyer than developping complex organs?

And why do diffrent species have diffrent biological clocks or regenaration limits?
 
mysticalsilence said:
I would like non muslims to look at this issue as well see what peoples opinions are..

I was thinking today and I thought to myself well if evolution is all about survival and reproduction. Why do we have such short life spans?

I mean if evolution can cause us to have this body which is pretty complex.

We could in theory live longer if ours did not stop regenarating cells because of our biological clock.

I dont know anything about this that is why its a question...

Time/Decay has been the greatest threat to every living organism since the beginning! So wouldent adapting to this decay by constant regeneration of our cells be something that is more likely and easyer than developping complex organs?

And why do diffrent species have diffrent biological clocks or regenaration limits?
Click to expand...


Mutations are random so it doesnt think this would be better.
It is not directed. Now once mutations have occured there is a nonrandom process in selection. Those mutations that aid or are neutral in general are passed on into the population. THose that are harmeful are in general selected out.
 
ranma1/2 said:
Mutations are random so it doesnt think this would be better.
It is not directed. Now once mutations have occured there is a nonrandom process in selection. Those mutations that aid or are neutral in general are passed on into the population. THose that are harmeful are in general selected out.
Click to expand...

Many would argue that a mutation such as in sickle cell anemia where glutamic acid at position 6 is replaced by a valine was very directed as it was beneficial on the account that Malarial parasites cannot live in sickled cells-- a disease very much prevalent in Malaria infested regions!.. does that contradict random? I think it does-- it seems very directed to me--- Also, how do your above proposals apply to say Fragile X syndrome?
In this case-- once the mutations occur they neither aid nor become neutral-- in fact it become more harmful with each successive generation that it is passed down to.
Try to study a theory from every angle... and cover all the holes before hypothesizing pls...

peace
 
PurestAmbrosia said:
Try to study a theory from every angle... and cover all the holes before hypothesizing pls...

peace
Click to expand...

Well said.

When some people attempt to cover some loop hoes in a theory they certainly come up with some new idea or a new theory. They may or may not be able to cover any of the holes but they contribute positively with their new findings.
 
iqbal_soofi said:
Well said.

When some people attempt to cover some loop hoes in a theory they certainly come up with some new idea or a new theory. They may or may not be able to cover any of the holes but they contribute positively with their new findings.
Click to expand...

I find "loop hoes" an interesting concept-- Nonetheless-- you need to rethink what you mean by contributing positively -- there is such a thing as idle talk, idle thought and idle hypothesis!-- you know the type? -- misleads and goes no where!

peace!
 
Last edited:
I appears to me that the result of the evolutionary process is not a maximizing condition (making everything as perfect as it can), but rather a sufficient condition (making it just possible enough to survive and reporduce with a good margin of error).

Mutations have different costs and benefits to differing degrees, so it looks like its often a trade off between different characteristics of the creature.

Plus once a creature reproduces it has to raise its kid to be self sufficient, but at that point they become competitors for resources. So the old has to go.

Just my thoughts as to why we don't have longer lives and why different creatures have different characteristics.
 
Gator said:
I appears to me that the result of the evolutionary process is not a maximizing condition (making everything as perfect as it can), but rather a sufficient condition (making it just possible enough to survive and reporduce with a good margin of error).

Mutations have different costs and benefits to differing degrees, so it looks like its often a trade off between different characteristics of the creature.

Plus once a creature reproduces it has to raise its kid to be self sufficient, but at that point they become competitors for resources. So the old has to go.

Just my thoughts as to why we don't have longer lives and why different creatures have different characteristics.
Click to expand...

Thats pretty reaonably said. Evolution is essentially survial of the good enough and not of the fittest as many people believe.
 
PurestAmbrosia said:
Many would argue that a mutation such as in sickle cell anemia where glutamic acid at position 6 is replaced by a valine was very directed
they would be wrong.

as it was beneficial
and thus it was selected through natural means. As I am sure you know that sickle cell anemia does not show up just where malaria is. In the case of malaria it is a benefital mutation in other cases it is usually a bad mutation.

on the account that Malarial parasites cannot live in sickled cells-- a disease very much prevalent in Malaria infested regions!.. does that contradict random?
Nope, As we have discussed elsewhere you do not understand it.

I think it does-- it seems very directed to me---
Just as directed as those that have that mutation and gain no benefit. None. Of course if you could explain how it is directed rather than just saying it is then you might have a better case.

Also, how do your above proposals apply to say Fragile X syndrome?
In this case-- once the mutations occur they neither aid nor become neutral-- in fact it become more harmful with each successive generation that it is passed down to.
If it is a bad mutation then it will eventually select it self out of the gene pool. Im not sure what your point is. Can bad mutations be passed on form gen to another, yes. Will lethal mutations? No becuase they die before they are assed on. If a mutation is normally harmfull but provides a benefit in the case of malaria then its faults may be outweighed by the benefits and be benefitial.


Try to study a theory from every angle... and cover all the holes before hypothesizing pls...

Holes? Im all for thinking outside of the box but you realy need to make your self clear.
One reason Why I am on this forum is to let people point out what they perceive as holes and see if we can both get a better understanding.


peace
Click to expand...


So please contribute, please show us what is wrong rather than making poor arguments that you dont back up.
 
ranma1/2 said:
If it is a bad mutation then it will eventually select it self out of the gene pool. Im not sure what your point is. Can bad mutations be passed on form gen to another, yes. Will lethal mutations? No becuase they die before they are assed on.
Click to expand...

I can't be bothered with all this drivel-- however and I make this point because I think it will save you in the real world where people aren't mere screen names---
Rather than replying back to you with a scathing response and run a high risk of publicly humiliating you as to your above statement.. go and read up on fragile X and Huntington's Disease-- trinucleotide repeat expansion and anticipation .. Stop making an A$$ out of yourself with uneducated arguments. You can find your way to wikpedia and readily quote it... now try reading it before posting.

Peace!
 
Last edited:
Evolution is a theory with some facts that may or may not point to how God did it. As with any science, man tries to understand, the best he can, the clues that nature (God) is giving him. These facts should be questioned and re-questioned.

Can able body people of another culture study the rock record and confirm or deny the existing theory?

The beauty of science is that scientist want people to study and never stop questioning, for to do so is to stop growing.

AB517
 
PurestAmbrosia said:
I can't be bothered with all this drivel-- however and I make this point because I think it will save you in the real world where people aren't mere screen names---
Rather than replying back to you with a scathing response and run a high risk of publicly humiliating you as to your above statement.. go and read up on fragile X and Huntington's Disease-- trinucleotide repeat expansion and anticipation .. Stop making an A$$ out of yourself with uneducated arguments. You can find your way to wikpedia and readily quote it... now try reading it before posting.

Peace!
Click to expand...

more insults . more insults and more insults,. thats all you do and thats all i expect from you. You have not made any points, you have only asked questions that you dont understand.

As of this point Im ignoring your posts till you act civil and actually try to contribute wiht out resorting to grade school insults.
 
The points/ and or questions posed to you. you didn't answer.. see comparitive religion under the topic you startred. It is my sincere hope that you'll indeed refrain from answering before reading!

peace
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top