One thing people often forget is that evolution requires not only a vast amount of time but a huge amount of luck, as well. For every primitive cell that figured out a way to remove waste or protect itself from the environment or undergo division, there were trillions of failed cells that were...

+42 One thing people often forget is that evolution requires not only a vast amount of time but a huge amount of luck, as well. For every primitive cell that figured out a way to remove waste or protect itself from the environment or undergo division, there were trillions of failed cells that were killed by inadequacy. Meaning that every existing species is a culmination of the luckiest .0000000...1% of cells that have been evolving for millions of years, amirite?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Idk if i would call it luck cause its like spraying bullets at a wall in an attempt to hit a dot. One of them have to hit it

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think that luck is meant from the cells', or the bullets', point of view. As in, a cell that survived has beaten the odds, thereby earning the label "lucky," assuming that survival is the aim of the cells. You make it seem that it was God, who was spraying bullets at a target, that is meant as the lucky one for hitting the target.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Luck implies an objective or purpose. We don't know what the purpose of the universe is. As such, the most fit organisms can't be called lucky unless the objective is known. LSS: I wouldn't call it luck.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Although I agree with it not being luck, isn't the objective survival?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well yeah the odds of one evolutionary step producing a complex organism is quite small but after enough time anything 'unlikely' can happen, taking into consideration conditional probability.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I see your meaning. Although at a glance it looks like someone skeptical of evolution by saying evolution required insane luck.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Not what I'm saying at all :)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Evolution does not always have to have a "huge amount of time." People often forget that adaption in general over a period of time is evolution. One example I remember is a certain type of moth. It was a plain grey color to match the trees that were common in its environment. Then something happened to the trees(they got diseased or they were mostly cut down, I don't remember) and over a few years the moths evolved to use other ways to camouflage into the new environment.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I was talking more about extremely primitive life forms, i.e. the very first cells on the planet. But you're right, microevolution can often happen quite quickly; in just one generation, in the most extreme cases.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I know of the moth incident you are talking about i think. The trees changed colour due to human pollution. However these moths DID NOT evolve. The moths contained different genes for colour. When the trees changed colour from say brown to white, the brown moths could no longer hide from predators eg birds. And the white coloured moths could hide more safely and breed. This is called natural selection. It is Survival of the fittest as the white gened moths could hide and the brown moths could not. Again this is not evolution. On a side note i think the moth incident happened somewhere in the uk.. but i could be wrong about that. Also evolution takes a long time relative to the livespan of the organism. Something that lives for a month like some insect will evolve and physically change faster then a tortoise that lives for 150 years.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That example is considered to be micro evolution. Natural selection is simply the mechanism by which evolution occurs.

by Anonymous 11 years ago