evolution, why not more variation?

[Desert Snake]

So, anyways, with evolution, we supposedly have very 'fast' changes relatively speaking, in basic appearance, (think human variation) anyways, why not more variation? This question occurred to me a while back, and it isn't totally answered imo, there really doesn't seem to be a reason' for the limitations we observe in general.

 

[psychoslice]

Evolution is what it is, it doesn't need you or me to tell what it should or shouldn't do, it simple does what it does, and in a very good way.

 

[Desert Snake]

Evolution is what it is, it doesn't need you or me to tell what it should or shouldn't do, it simple does what it does, and in a very good way.

This is basically meaningless as to my question. That's also not a scientific answer at all.
I generally think the duck billed platypus, said to be a fine example of evolution, was actually created by demons after the fall of man, Those nephilim were really creating wild things.
Anyways I think you're correct, we can eventually evolve wings as well, we don't need to be telling evolution what it is.

 

[Sapiens]

This is basically meaningless as to my question. That's also not a scientific answer at all.
I generally think the duck billed platypus, said to be a fine example of evolution, was actually created by demons after the fall of man, Those nephilim were really creating wild things.
Anyways I think you're correct, we can eventually evolve wings as well, we don't need to be telling evolution what it is.

Then put it this way, the gene pool changes only when a new genotype results in a new phenotype that is more fit than the previous one. Ornithorhynchus anatinus is, indeed, a fine example of evolution, no demons required. We will not evolve wings in the foreseeable future, we are far too heavy.

 

[Estro Felino]

well....there are too many gays on this planet...which can be the result of genetic mutations.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

So, anyways, with evolution, we supposedly have very 'fast' changes relatively speaking, in basic appearance, (think human variation) anyways, why not more variation? This question occurred to me a while back, and it isn't totally answered imo, there really doesn't seem to be a reason' for the limitations we observe in general.

Hem, more variation? So there are bacteria, humans, fungi, diatoms, monocots, monerans, gymnosperms...

Given all the life forms that still survive, and realizing that 99% of all life forms have already gone extinct, I'm not sure you have really examined the situation.

The whole point of evolution, the theory of evolution, is the response to the question "How did all the diversity we observe get here?"

Your question seems to say, ok evolution answers the question we've asked regarding what we observe in nature, now why don't we observe something in nature other than what we do? Well, the answer to that is nothing more than than sit back and wait another 10 million years and you'll see a lot more.

 

[Valjean]

So, anyways, with evolution, we supposedly have very 'fast' changes relatively speaking, in basic appearance, (think human variation) anyways, why not more variation? This question occurred to me a while back, and it isn't totally answered imo, there really doesn't seem to be a reason' for the limitations we observe in general.

I'm not sure I'm following, Disciple. "...we supposedly have very 'fast' changes relatively speaking, in basic appearance..."
Who's supposing this, and what is meant by fast? Speed of evolution varies, and there are a lot of factors influencing this. You've read Gould...

Variants ramify into new niches and compete. Some niches will support many exploiters, in others a single species may become dominant.

Can you clarity what you mean by " the limitations we observe in general?"

 

[Sunstone]

So, anyways, with evolution, we supposedly have very 'fast' changes relatively speaking, in basic appearance, (think human variation) anyways, why not more variation? This question occurred to me a while back, and it isn't totally answered imo, there really doesn't seem to be a reason' for the limitations we observe in general.

As you know, the fundamental question that evolution tries to answer is not how did life originate, but rather, why is live so diverse? And both the biological record and currently existing species show that life is remarkably diverse. So perhaps you could please elaborate at what you're getting at?

 

[Tiapan]

Humans are possibly the worst example to use, as variance is extremely slow these days. For a new trait to predominate the breeding pool needs to be depleted of the inferior trait other wise it is diluted back to the general pool. We as humans are very adept at surviving and breeding well past our "use by date" with medicine and science. However one recent example exists, I call it the "irony of Hitlers final solution".

From a purely Darwinian perspective Hitler attempted to wipe out the Jews in WW2. In fact he killed the weak sheepish compliant ones but let the smart, rich and sneaky ones get away. These then became the breeding pool for the current Israel. This resulted in a kick-*** super smart generation of Jews who have made remarkable scientific discoveries, won many Nobel prizes, fantastic composers and musicians and a military prowess that is superior to any of their neighbors by a mile.

Hitler would turn in his grave at the irony of the result of his racist ideas.

Cheers

 

[RichardParker]

So, anyways, with evolution, we supposedly have very 'fast' changes relatively speaking, in basic appearance, (think human variation) anyways, why not more variation? This question occurred to me a while back, and it isn't totally answered imo, there really doesn't seem to be a reason' for the limitations we observe in general.

Why not MORE variation?
...
I have to say, I don't know exactly how much experience you have in the area of biodiversity, but given what I know about biodiversity... well, it's HUGE!
We have an enormous diversity of life on this planet! If you include all the extinct species, I'm not sure I can agree with your assesment that we should have "more".

Or do you mean diversity within a species?
Well, there I personally (simply going by intuition here) wouldn't expect huge diversity, given that natural selection is a thing... One would expect to have very little diversity.
Of course, I'm aware that there are benefits for a high diversity inside a species, and there are models to explain a stable rate of diversity in a species...
And we actually DO have a fairly big diversity in most species! Heck, just take humans:
Look at how different we all are! It's extraordinary! And yet, we belong to a species that is actually geneticly speaking not that diverse!

So, I really don't know what you mean when you ask for MORE diversity. I'm sometimes baffled, by how much there actually is out there, and you say that there had to be MORE?

 

[Father Heathen]

well....there are too many gays on this planet...which can be the result of genetic mutations.

Too many? Given that homosexuals don't typically breed, "too many" would actually be a good thing for a planet facing overpopulation.

 

[Valjean]

If you're talking Hominins in particular, it's true. We've been reduced to a single species, and none of the previous species was particularly successful. The whole tribe was obviously a bad design from the get-go.

 

[Estro Felino]

Too many? Given that homosexuals don't typically breed, "too many" would actually be a good thing for a planet facing overpopulation.

well...precisely. most of them are married bisexuals with kids.

 

[Desert Snake]

If you're talking Hominins in particular, it's true. We've been reduced to a single species, and none of the previous species was particularly successful. The whole tribe was obviously a bad design from the get-go.

Sure that's what occurred to me at first, "variations in a theme" we could put it. I don't know about bad design, however the question still looms imo.

 

[Desert Snake]

As you know, the fundamental question that evolution tries to answer is not how did life originate, but rather, why is live so diverse? And both the biological record and currently existing species show that life is remarkably diverse. So perhaps you could please elaborate at what you're getting at?

Small variations, for instance it may 'seem' silly to imagine green hair or more eye colours however given the quickness we are told these current variances became relatively common, why aren't there more.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So, anyways, with evolution, we supposedly have very 'fast' changes relatively speaking, in basic appearance, (think human variation) anyways, why not more variation? This question occurred to me a while back, and it isn't totally answered imo, there really doesn't seem to be a reason' for the limitations we observe in general.

The massive differences and diversity of even individual groups is pretty impressive. But the basic idea as to why there isn't more variation is the survival of the fittest. There are finite amounts of resources and only the ones that are the most effective at this live and reproduce.

The overwhelming vast majority of life on this planet is extinct. We are the tiniest sliver of life that has poked its head through the blades of natural selection.

 

[LuisDantas]

So, anyways, with evolution, we supposedly have very 'fast' changes relatively speaking, in basic appearance, (think human variation) anyways, why not more variation? This question occurred to me a while back, and it isn't totally answered imo, there really doesn't seem to be a reason' for the limitations we observe in general.

Most of natural selection acts over what is in fact very gradual changes, things such as favoring taller or faster individuals over several generations.

Maybe you are thinking about drammatic mutations? Most of those are not viable or advantageous.

 

[RichardParker]

Small variations, for instance it may 'seem' silly to imagine green hair or more eye colours however given the quickness we are told these current variances became relatively common, why aren't there more.

As I've asked before, how much more do you think there should be?
We already have huge variation, between species and withing species.
Can you maybe quantify why you think there should be "more" and how much "more" there should be?

 

[Ouroboros]

So, anyways, with evolution, we supposedly have very 'fast' changes relatively speaking, in basic appearance, (think human variation) anyways, why not more variation? This question occurred to me a while back, and it isn't totally answered imo, there really doesn't seem to be a reason' for the limitations we observe in general.

Huh?

There's huge variation. I'm not sure what you're talking about. There are 950,000 variations (species) of insects alone. There are 10,000 new species discovered each year.

Everyone one of us here on this forum has unique DNA. It's to 99.999999% identical, but first of all, we all have a unique recombination of two gene sources (your parents), and also, you most likely have 1-20 unique mutations (mostly analogous codons, which doesn't change the resulting peptide in the transcript). Essentially, you have 6 billion variations of humans. Everyone of us is a unique variation of human species. Human is not an exact "code" in your DNA, but has to do with a general compatibility and similarity of common features.

So I'm not sure where this "no variation" thought comes from.

 

[Ouroboros]

This is basically meaningless as to my question. That's also not a scientific answer at all.
I generally think the duck billed platypus, said to be a fine example of evolution, was actually created by demons after the fall of man, Those nephilim were really creating wild things.
Anyways I think you're correct, we can eventually evolve wings as well, we don't need to be telling evolution what it is.

We could, but it takes a long time. It takes about 150-200 million years. That's what it took for birds.