Welcome to Gaia! ::

What is the purpose of evolution?

Why, millions of years ago, in the depths of the ocean, did some carbon atoms and other assorted matter decide to slowly form into microorganisms? Why did those microorganisms slowly change into larger and larger creatures, eventually move up to the land, and start changing even more? What was the reason for all of this?

And why is it that in the depths of the ocean, there are still an uncountable number of atoms that have not decided to make this decision? Is their existence more beneficial to them than ours is?

Well, the assumption was based on the fact that there couldn't have always been life. Thus, rudimentary life had to have come from somewhere, whether God or random atoms clumping together.

Are humans more suited to survival than bacteria?

I think there is a difference between evolution and survival of the fittest. Evolution always seems to make organisms more complex, but complexity does not ensure survival. Simple organisms like bacteria are often more likely to survive than complex organisms.

By the standard of survival of the fittest, humans seem to be the most evolutionary advanced creatures possible. Due to logic, we can quickly and easily adapt to many environments. Plus, according to the guidelines you laid, increasing the longevity and survival of a species is the most obvious goal of evolution. Considering that many creatures have extremely short lifespans even by human standards, that does not seem to be how evolution works.

Ah, I see.

Well, that phrase bothers me. Survival of the fittest. Fittest for what? To survive? Wouldn't that translate to survival of the survivors? But survivors obviously survive, so which are the fittest? How can we tell?

Based on the assumption that there was once no life, and based on my personal assumption that there is no God, I wonder how the process of evolution started. Maybe life didn't spring from a random collection of atoms and molecules, but that is what life is, in essence. Just atoms and molecules grouped a certain way, producing a certain effect. . .

Well, this is different from the meaning of life. I'm asking, more essentially, "Why does life change the way it does?'

To me, survival isn't enough of an answer. Why get more complex if survival is not more guaranteed?

First, this sentance made the biology major in me cringe, so I have to go back and address it:



Evolution does NOT aim to 'superiority' OR 'complexity.' This is a common misconception about evolutionary theory. But the word "seems" in there makes this blunder a little better. =) Evolution does NOT progress 'towards' more complex organisms precisely because of what you say in the second half of your sentance. It's all about who reproduces and who doesn't. Needless complexities will be eliminated. Useful complexities won't. And if there is no selective pressure for greater 'complexity' than evolution will not press the organism in that direction. Bacteria have been around for millions of years and they're doing just fine without all this supposedly superior complexity that we have. They outdo us in survival terms by a huge magnitude. =P



The fittest depends wholely on the environment which the organism lives. Darwinian fitness describes the organisms ability to survive and reproduce in its environment. A characteristic which confers fitness in one environment may be deletrious in another environment. For example, if you take an animal whose furr color changes to white in winter to blend in with the snow an evade predators and stick them in the rainforest, during the winter they'll be in big trouble! What made them fit before now dooms them to die off. Does this help?



Science will probably never know what started the spark. Probably the only answer we will ever have is divine intervention. Currently in science, though, there are three ideas as to life's origins

1) Shallow seas containing dissolved CO2, N, P, S, were exposed to electricity to form complex organic molecules (this has been proven to occur in laboratory settings)

2) Chemosynthetic bacteria in the deep oceans using S as energy; temperature and pressure was the 'spark' for complex organic molecules (this was proven during deep sea explorations and the discovery of life around oceanic vents)

3) Extraterrestrial origins. Asteriods have been found with high concentrations of amino acids, including some not found in Earth cells. They also contained phospholipids and other complex organic molecules.

But none of these theories truly tell you why. That, is always left up to religion. whee

And... how exactly are we defining "most evolutionarily advanced" anyway? There are PLENTY of plant species that are more complex than we are from a genetic standpoint. And all of our technology isn't strictly evolutionary, so should that even be counted?

(chuckles) Yes, it WOULD appear that way on the surface. But... to find the truly superior species in terms of survival, you need a microscope. Bacteria outpreform us a million times over as far as survival is concerned. They evolve much faster than we do, find ways around all of our vaccines and treatments given only a few decades, and have existed for millions upon millions of years across all reaches of the globe... in places humans would die extremely quickly even with our fancy pants technology.

So... then ask yourself honestly... are we all that superior? whee

I'd have to do some digging to see if this is the case, but a case example isn't really vital to discuss this. Yes, some species tend to 'stay the same' for long amounts of time. Why? They've already perfectly adapted to their environments! There is no selective pressure for them to change, so they don't! But... I think it's unlikely that either of these species haven't undergone SOME changes further adapting them against things like diseases. They probably have. Even humans have in thier short few million years of existence, for diseases like malaria.