I've tried to read this recently (gave up!) because I have a problem with one aspect of Darwinism and thought the book might have clarified it.
I understand the concept of the survival of the fittest only because of the vast 100s of millions of years where the occasional rogue gene turns up and makes a difference.
But what about procreation? Whilst the ancestors of the amoeba that crawled from the 'soup' could eventually develop limbs for instance,how could even the simplest form of reproduction develop during a single lifetime?
So Richard Dawkins couldn't help me, so I'm appealing to the Oracle that is Hammerschat !
If by procreation you mean sexual reproduction, thats been around for between 1 and 1.5 billion years...and it would have evolved like anything else, through a combination of natural selection , adaption, random gene mutations and genetic reproductive success of the species over millions upon milliions of generations....
The book does explain explain it but maybe not in a one sentence summary...
Im wondering when they'll rename it The Principles of Evolution as i no longer see it as purely theoretical, rather as proven...
Do you mean how organisms went from asexual reproduction that require only one parent and the offspring are identical to the parent, to sexual reproduction where 2 parents are needed and the offspring are different to the parents? If that's the case, the origins of sexual reproduction has been a bit of a mystery to science for years but in 2005 scientists working in Australia may have found the missing link and in turn it may go some way for us to start understanding how evolution was able to begin creating more complex organisms - That's how I read it anyway...
Sexual reproduction is just a specialised delivery system for sharing genetic material. Closed systems tend toward entropy, so in order to evolve life has to share genetic material.
You just have to look at Millwall supporters to see what happens when breeding is kept in the family (a closed system).
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations.
Mikeveep wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2020 6:25 pm
I've tried to read this recently (gave up!) because I have a problem with one aspect of Darwinism and thought the book might have clarified it.
I understand the concept of the survival of the fittest only because of the vast 100s of millions of years where the occasional rogue gene turns up and makes a difference.
But what about procreation? Whilst the ancestors of the amoeba that crawled from the 'soup' could eventually develop limbs for instance,how could even the simplest form of reproduction develop during a single lifetime?
So Richard Dawkins couldn't help me, so I'm appealing to the Oracle that is Hammerschat !
Many years ago I tried to read The Origin of Species. But it might as well have been written in a different language. The English language was very different in Darwin's day.
But whilst reading it I became aware of Almost Like a Whale by Steve Jones. It's basically a modern re-write of The Origin of Species, following the original structure of Darwin's work but in a modern and understandable English, and with more up-to-date examples. It was a very informative and often humorous book. I can't remember if it answers your question but it was a very good read. Recommended.
The title of the book refers to Darwin's comments at the time that a bear, swimming in a lake and catching insects in its mouth, could eventually evolve into an animal "almost like a whale". Darwin was roundly ridiculed for that statement at the time.
So if one of the swamp dwellers (I guess there would have to be one initially) would have had to have developed all the sophisticated equipment necessary to reproduce in its own lifetime? Or had it there initially, but how random if it came into life with all that was necessary for procreation.
BillyDWhizz wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:47 pm
Do you mean how organisms went from asexual reproduction that require only one parent and the offspring are identical to the parent, to sexual reproduction where 2 parents are needed and the offspring are different to the parents? If that's the case, the origins of sexual reproduction has been a bit of a mystery to science for years but in 2005 scientists working in Australia may have found the missing link and in turn it may go some way for us to start understanding how evolution was able to begin creating more complex organisms - That's how I read it anyway...
BillyDWhizz wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:47 pm
Do you mean how organisms went from asexual reproduction that require only one parent and the offspring are identical to the parent, to sexual reproduction where 2 parents are needed and the offspring are different to the parents? If that's the case, the origins of sexual reproduction has been a bit of a mystery to science for years but in 2005 scientists working in Australia may have found the missing link and in turn it may go some way for us to start understanding how evolution was able to begin creating more complex organisms - That's how I read it anyway...
i think youre missing the point....for something like sexual reproduction it would have taken millions of years and generational iterations...not a lifetime
