Question for Atheistic Evolutionists

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ilovequestions's picture
Question for Atheistic Evolutionists

Hey peoples :) I've wondered this and I would like to know what you all think.

The purpose of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" and other things like that is to build species that have a few things:

1. High survival ability
2. High procreational ability (with the ability to have numerous offspring, etc.)
3. Et cetera, things that have to do with the ability to live advantageously in terms of evolution.

For me, natural selection and survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily have anything to do with leading to species that can live life comfortably or pleasurably (like humans), but just surviving and procreating (like animals). Correct me if I'm wrong.

Alright, that was the groundwork for my question:

If natural selection and survival of the fittest lead to species that can have qualities #1-3 , why did we evolve past creatures like tardigrades (water bears) and Deinococcus radiodurans/extremophilic microbes (radiation-resistant bacteria)? They are much more suited to living life than humans. They can survive just about anywhere.

Aren't these creatures the height of evolution? They can survive much better than humans (who can only live in certain environments). Aren't these the best results of natural selection and survival of the fittest?

Why did evolution continue past these creatures? The ability to survive and procreate generally decreases with the increase of organism complexity.

What do you all think?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Ilovequestions - "The purpose

Ilovequestions - "The purpose of 'natural selection'..."

You should probably stop right there. Natural selection does not have a purpose. It is just a description of the way the world works: even the simplest forms of life require time, the right conditions, and materials to reproduce. If they fail to get those things, they won't have offspring, which ends their genetic lineage. When you starting trying to add a purpose or a goal, you are drifting towards a cartoon version of evolution, which you will later find impossible to accept (rightfully so!).

Ilovequestions's picture
I apologize, you are

I apologize, you are completely right. I should've put "the result" of natural selection... etc.

Travis Hedglin's picture
You seem to have confused

You seem to have confused purpose with results, it is not the purpose of the sneeze to spray snot everywhere, but rather the result of sneezing when your nose is stopped up. Likewise, evolution is neither conscious or willful, it has no goals. Sometimes things evolve to the point where they can survive, and sometimes they go extinct, MOST of the life that has ever existed on earth has gone extinct. So, first, let us change the question to fit the reality of evolution:

"If natural selection and survival of the fittest lead to species that can have qualities #1-3 , why did we evolve past creatures like tardigrades (water bears) and Deinococcus radiodurans/extremophilic microbes (radiation-resistant bacteria)? They are much more suited to living life than humans. They can survive just about anywhere."

Variation continues despite a creature reaching homeostasis.

"Aren't these creatures the height of evolution?"

No, this would imply evolution has a goal, it doesn't.

"They can survive much better than humans (who can only live in certain environments). Aren't these the best results of natural selection and survival of the fittest?"

In some areas, in others, not so much.

"Why did evolution continue past these creatures?"

Because it has no end. Evolution doesn't just "stop", it is a process that will exist as long as life does; as long as a single reproductive organism survives, evolution does.

"The ability to survive and procreate generally decreases with the increase of organism complexity."

Huh? Who told you that? Multicellular organisms generally live longer than unicellular ones, adapt faster, and can reproduce just as well.

"What do you all think?"

I think you have some misconceptions about evolution.

Ilovequestions's picture
Thanks for the feedback,

Thanks for the feedback, Travis :)

"No, this would imply evolution has a goal, it doesn't."

But does it? Evolution itself doesn't have an explicit goal, but descriptions of how it operates sure do (survival OF THE FITTEST and natural SELECTION). I'm not talking 100% about evolution, but about these other two descriptions that evolutionists use as well. Also, you have to admit, many atheistic apologists (Dawkins, etc) sure talk about evolution as if it has a goal (I can give quotes if you'd like). I get what you are saying, but evolutionists often talk as if evolution has a goal, so I hope you can forgive me if I do as well.

"Because it has no end. Evolution doesn't just "stop", it is a process that will exist as long as life does; as long as a single reproductive organism survives, evolution does."

I definitely understand :) However, just because evolution doesn't stop... that doesn't mean it has to lead to organisms that are more complex! My question is "why did organisms get more complex? Tardigrades and radiation-resistant bacteria are basically indestructible". Evolution could still exist if we only evolved into specialized bacteria. Tardigrades and extremophilic microbes are more suited to life than we are (look at the environment they can survive in).

'Huh? Who told you that? Multicellular organisms generally live longer than unicellular ones, adapt faster, and can reproduce just as well."

Umm... I don't know about you... but very few organisms can survive in nuclear waste and without water for decades and by a thermal vent... bacteria has us beat there (survival ability). Also, in terms of "reproduc(ing) just as well", I don't know if multicellular organisms can match this:

"Bacteria usually reproduce by simply dividing in two. Each new bacterium is a clone of the original—they each contain a copy of the same DNA. This is called binary fission (bye-nair-ee fish-un). If conditions are just right, one bacterium could become a BILLION (1,000,000,000) bacteria in just 10 hours through binary fission!"

http://www.microbeworld.org/interesting-facts/microbial-reproduction

The only thing multicellular organisms have on bacteria is our lifespans. That's it in terms of evolutionary advantage.

So my question still stands, why did we evolve past these bacteria? Your response that "evolution never stops" is understood, but still doesn't mean an organism needs to become more complex. Organisms could just gain HIGHER levels or survival ability and procreational ability... while still being bacteria.

Travis Hedglin's picture
"But does it?"

"But does it?"

Nope. It is an unthinking process in which results often vary drastically.

"Evolution itself doesn't have an explicit goal, but descriptions of how it operates sure do (survival OF THE FITTEST and natural SELECTION)."

That isn't a description of evolution, which is a change of allele frequencies over successive generations, but rather one cause of it. Natural selection, which IS survival of the fittest in some cases, sexual selection in others, and even artificial selection in some cases. You are taking a single mechanism of evolution, extrapolating to an absolute, and proposing that evolution now has intent and purpose, which is false.

"I'm not talking 100% about evolution, but about these other two descriptions that evolutionists use as well."

"Also, you have to admit, many atheistic apologists (Dawkins, etc) sure talk about evolution as if it has a goal (I can give quotes if you'd like)."

I can quote mine too:

"Even though what's being taught is just as much faith and, you know, just as much pulled out of the air as, say, any religion..."
Rep. Rick Brattin

"I get what you are saying, but evolutionists often talk as if evolution has a goal, so I hope you can forgive me if I do as well."

Some people talk about a flat tire as if it MEANT to inconvenience them is some fashion, that does not make it an entity with intention and will. So if you truly believed that a flat tire is a conscious entity capable of intentionally inconveniencing you, you would be wrong, and probably under some very erroneous ideas.

"I definitely understand :) However, just because evolution doesn't stop... that doesn't mean it has to lead to organisms that are more complex!"

It doesn't always, sometimes the results are more complex, and sometimes they are not.

"My question is "why did organisms get more complex?"

Some did, others didn't.

"Tardigrades and radiation-resistant bacteria are basically indestructible".

No, they are resistant to some things we are not like radiation, temperature, and vacuum. While this would give them a marked advantage in some environments, it confers few in our current environment, making them unnecessary for survival in this one.

"Evolution could still exist if we only evolved into specialized bacteria. Tardigrades and extremophilic microbes are more suited to life than we are (look at the environment they can survive in)."

That does not make them more suited to the environment we live in, it just makes them capable of surviving in it, specialization is different.

"Umm... I don't know about you... but very few organisms can survive in nuclear waste and without water for decades and by a thermal vent... bacteria has us beat there (survival ability)."

If we lived in an environment that required any of those things, then you would have a point, but we don't.

"Also, in terms of "reproduc(ing) just as well", I don't know if multicellular organisms can match this:

"Bacteria usually reproduce by simply dividing in two. Each new bacterium is a clone of the original—they each contain a copy of the same DNA. This is called binary fission (bye-nair-ee fish-un). If conditions are just right, one bacterium could become a BILLION (1,000,000,000) bacteria in just 10 hours through binary fission!"

http://www.microbeworld.org/interesting-facts/microbial-reproduction"

"Each new bacterium is a clone of the original"

Clone = Not good for evolution

""The only thing multicellular organisms have on bacteria is our lifespans. That's it in terms of evolutionary advantage."

We are also capable of modifying our environment to suit our need and traversing greater distances, not to mention the senses, conferring an advantage when dealing with competition.

"So my question still stands, why did we evolve past these bacteria? Your response that "evolution never stops" is understood, but still doesn't mean an organism needs to become more complex. Organisms could just gain HIGHER levels or survival ability and procreational ability... while still being bacteria."

Because evolution doesn't stop, there never could have been only a single kingdom or phyla after the first few divisions, live adapts in different directions unintentionally. Evolutions never would have stopped and thought "hey, we should kill off those virii and paramecium, bacteria is better!". Things evolved differently to adapt different environments, they continue to diversify even when it reaches homeostasis, and wouldn't even stop if the perfect organism evolved.

Ilovequestions's picture
"My question is "why did

"My question is "why did organisms get more complex?"

Some did, others didn't.

That's still not answering the question! That's like asking why a survivor being asked why he survived a plane crash. He answers, "Well, I survived because if I didn't I wouldn't be here talking to you!" Very true (just like your answer above)... but that still doesn't answer how!

Your other answer "because evolution doesn't stop" still doesn't answer why we became multi celled and extremely complex.

However, pragmatic answered my question so I'll stop responding :) It's been wonderful talking, Travis! I feel we'll be into many more conversations :) Peace

Ilovequestions's picture
I guess you sorta answered my

I guess you sorta answered my question beforehand... but the thing I had trouble with was why we continued developing after we had reached homeostasis (like the bacteria by the thermal vents). The answer is that in environments where there is lots of competition (not places like nuclear waste deposits and really dry areas), adaptation to survive would necessarily lead to complexity. Haha, so thanks!

CyberLN's picture
Ilovequestions, perhaps your

Ilovequestions, perhaps your consideration that a creature 'moved past' its parent is where your confusion lies. That implies one is better or greater than another.
All evolution is, is decent with modification. Just because a creature fits well into a particular niche does not mean that modification will never happen again. It does all the time. That modification may lead to a group of defendants that fit well into a different niche. It may also be a modification that is an utter failure. But the originals, because they are the fittest for their environment continue to thrive.
Evolution is not linear. It is not a march from one place to another. It does not describe any 'moving past' from one thing to another. It describes change. That's all.

Ilovequestions's picture
Thanks for the response :)

Thanks for the response :) But why did organisms become more complex? There's no evolutionary (survival, procreational) need, seeing as how bacteria can live anywhere and procreate like bacterial rabbits.

Yes, evolution details gradual modifications... but that still doesn't answer why we became complex.

CyberLN's picture
Why did organisms become more

Why did organisms become more complex? Because they did. There is, as you've said no need. There doesn't have to be. You are trying to find reasons why and there aren't any. As someone far wiser than I said, shit happens. Sometimes that shit is pretty fabulous.

mysticrose's picture
We still have a lot of

We still have a lot of discoveries to make in order to answer the present questions. Human beings should be open minded in order to allow more revolutionary changes to take place

Ilovequestions's picture
Makes sense :)

Makes sense :)

ThePragmatic's picture
As already stated, great

As already stated, great question.

Just as Travis says, the variations are continuous and does not stop. The more perfectly a life form is adapted for it's environment, these variations will give less and less advantages. Therefore a successfully adapted species can remain virtually unchanged over very long periods of time.

But as the environment in different areas are different and reproducing life forms spread to new areas, some variations may still provide advantages to surviving or reproducing. Temperature, pressure, food sources and so on, varies in different areas. The extremophiles have little competition in extreme environments, but outside of that environment they can still be a food source for other organisms and they would have to compete more for resources.
If (or rather, when) the environment changes over time, even the most successfully adapted life forms (in a certain area during a certain time period) can become less successfully adapted, or even extinct.

There is also predatory competition and adaptation to that competition. If life form A has changed so it can now eat life form B, life form B will start to gain from variations that can help it to avoid getting consumed. If and when that happens, life form A will start to gain from variations that makes it a more efficient hunter to get around the defences of life form B.

I have also heard it mentioned that there are neutral variations, that poses neither a positive or negative effect, but as they are still copied through reproduction can become wide spread. Such variations can also be a contributor to complexity.

Simply put, as the environment is different in different areas and changes throughout time, continuous variations can result in positive or negative changes depending on that environment and life changes and adapts as the environment does.

Ilovequestions's picture
Thanks, pragmatic! That

Thanks, pragmatic! That definitely answers my question. So basically, in the fight to survive, it's like an arms race. Different species adapt so that they can survive against each other, and this adaption naturally leads to complexity as time goes on.

Very good answer :)

One of the things I hope y'all see is that I'm not here to troll (as I see some people are). I'm after productive conversations and questions that make me think :) I appreciate the feedback you all have!

Nyarlathotep's picture
There is also the drunkards

There is also the drunkards walk: Consider a drunk staggering randomly down a sidewalk. Each step is random, either straight forward, forward and to the right, or forward and to the left. On the extreme right edge of the sidewalk is a tall wall, and on the extreme left edge is a gutter. If he tries to step into the wall he just bounces off it and continues as normal (missing 1 step). If he tries to step into the gutter, he falls in and gets stuck. Now when you release the drunk and let him stagger on his own, you will be more and more likely to find him in the gutter as time passes. This is despite the fact that every step he takes is in a random direction. The barrier of the wall creates a bias, even with random motion!

How does this apply to evolution you ask? If we assume there is a form of life that is as simple as possible (and still be alive), none of its living descendants can be any simpler. Meaning if they undergo random alterations, they can only remain as simple, or get more complicated...

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.