[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Settings Mobile Home
/sci/ - Science & Math

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

[Advertise on 4chan]

File: IMG_0326.jpg (309 KB, 828x845)
309 KB
309 KB JPG
Alright science bros mimicry in evolutionary biology has got me stuck in awe.

A species will mimic the biological characteristics of another species characteristics, like colors, sounds etc this cause species to improve or create new characteristics by an adversarial relationship.

In other words nature is competing with itself to get better at avoiding predators. This is odd and very interesting for a very reason. It seems like nature is aware of itself or something is watching outside the species. It literally changes the DNA and genetics of the species but how? The species cannot change its genetics.

I observe this phenomenon in biology at repetition. With different natural selection influences

Another interesting thing I observe is humans have very specific characteristics. That have intentional purpose like I’m happy angry sad exited inspired angry. And all emotions for a very specific reason. Like if humans didn’t love each other in romantic relationships what motivation would they have to stick together? If you didn’t have anger what defense mechanism would you have about being treated unfairly or attacking you? This seems very specific to a context and circumstance. How does nature come up with these concepts? How is nature aware of circumstances?How can it can create an emotion or characteristic outside the species itself?
I'd suggest you read some intro evolution/ecology textbook, such as Krebs.

Nature isn't some omniscient force. There are only organisms that interact with each other and their physical and chemical environment.
I am reading textbook literature. Duh. Yes obviously they interact with their environment. Duh no one is questioning that.

Midwhit detected

I’m speaking rhetorically to understand or challenge my own interpretations I have inferred from this knowledge.

Nature is clearly intentional.

For example the process of photosynthesis in plants and plankton in the ocean. These characteristics are clearly intentional providing oxygen to animals and fish.

How does nature know the sun is making a chemical reaction to create its own chemical reaction to create 02

This seems like a pretty high level of sophistication for a plant to figure out randomly
>This seems like a pretty high level of sophistication for a plant to figure out randomly
Incredulity is not an argument.
Nature doesn't know shit and has no brain, and that despite what humans may think it's not a problem since solving computable problems requires you 3 things:

1) A way to generate solutions (mutations)
>A piece of paper to write said solutions (DNA)
2) Testing out solutions to filter bad ones (natural selection)

It's basic trial and error on a massive scale, you just need a lot of time and diversification, nature relies heavily on parallelization to speed things up.
So we will still use photosynthesis as point of reference. The sun produces electromagnetic waves and radioactivity and interacts with the atmospheric layers and the magnetic field.

First how would nature understand these phenomena exist? It would have to detect such things exist. A plant has no eyes ears or sensors to observe the sun nor its heat light energy or waves.

So randomly it just knows the sun exists and it randomly creates oxygen? By synthesizing?

Why oxygen? And somehow oxygen is randomly just figured out by all the species on land and in the water that they need to use oxgen. Why did plankton figure out it needed to produce oxygen randomly.

This is too much randomizations when I can see clear correlations. The random mutations argument doesn’t make sense.
Plus there no proof that it’s random. Random is a chaotic structure. There’s no order or structure in chaos.

There are symmetry’s in nature like two arm and legs the same length. Your telling me that an arm 6 inches off won’t appear in your randomness??? Then what difference would that really make for survival??

Earths 12 clock cycles is symmetrical. Each half of earth gets 12 hours of sun.

Does the earth just randomly fix itself in place to create symmetry? This logic just isn’t valid
You seem to have a mindset that everything in nature is perfect and irreducibly complex by default.

Plants didn't exist for 3.5 billion years. The Earth had no oxygen in its atmosphere for billions of years. Oxygen concentration gradually increased over billions of years when bacteria used metal oxide compounds as a source of energy and dumped the oxygen out as a side product.

Organisms adapted to the extremely slowly rising oxygen concentration. Oxidation reactions give out way more heat and energy, so the micro-organisms that could get even a small fraction of that extra energy can procreate more and faster.

It doesn't need sentience or perfectness. Even a small alteration that makes an individual grow slightly faster and create even 1 more offspring in its lifetime makes a big difference over the timespan of millions of years.
What can be done to avoid such harmful parasites?
>There are symmetry’s in nature like two arm and legs the same length. Your telling me that an arm 6 inches off won’t appear in your randomness??? Then what difference would that really make for survival??
These mutations and developmental errors happen all the time, but in nature they are pruned out quickly because they usually become prey or they cannot capture prey.

>Earths 12 clock cycles is symmetrical. Each half of earth gets 12 hours of sun.
How does that relate to anything? Any object that rotates around a light source and along its own axis gets with stable angular velocity gets equal amount of light and darkness on its surface. It might as well be 6 hours or 2 seconds. There is nothing magical about 12:12 hour cycle.
File: oak joke.jpg (74 KB, 720x711)
74 KB
>First how would nature understand these phenomena exist?
Understanding is not a necessity, we are talking about solving problem and not classify and understanding phenomena, you don't need to understand heat to avoid getting damage from it, and for sure plants don't need to understand light if they produced chemicals reacting to sunlight, because said phenomena has real effects on materials.
>So randomly it just knows the sun exists and it randomly creates oxygen?
No, they randomly generated a system that can extract energy from sunlight, it sounds absurd but it seems to be the strongest theory out there and with some degree of reproducibility even if limited:
It seems that self-replicating systems can exploit mutations to solve problems for the sake of their species.

>Why oxygen?
Apparently it's a byproduct of said chemical reaction expelled by the plants, if i remember correctly there's a theory claiming oxygen producing organisms caused a mass extinction on planet earth when photosynthesis came to be, until some other organism found a way to exploit oxygen for chemical reactions.
>This is too much randomizations when I can see clear correlations
The only thing i see is emerging purposeful behavior created by evolutionary pressure.
>Plus there no proof that it’s random
You must factor natural selection with it, otherwise it wouldn't be darwinian evolution.
>Your telling me that an arm 6 inches off won’t appear in your randomness??
Some mutations are dangerous and kills the offspring at birth, also from what i know organisms can regulate how much mutations they get and what stuff to mutate, the most important parts in DNA are more protected than others.
>Earths 12 clock cycles is symmetrical.
Except it's not true at all.


No one is answering my legitimate questions bHahahahahaha.

I’m wrong is not a valid argument it’s just semantics

Symmetry occurring in two places both arms and legs suggest correlation not randomness. Also this doesn’t matter when there is variation in height symmetry exists always. And across multiple species this symmetry just randomly aligns in all these species together?

Logical fallacy

Also there is no proof earth is 4.5 billion years old. There’s no way to prove that. It’s just a guess or theory with no way to prove.

Plus random mutations happening millions of years ago cannot also be proven.

Humans can’t even make the most basic cell in a lab. Not even an insect. But can tell me what happened 4.5 billion years ago with no proof is laughable and intellectually dishonest
File: 1693277714943193.gif (716 KB, 250x207)
716 KB
716 KB GIF

my dear


a giant


go suck

some more




Very sexo
File: IMG_0334.jpg (266 KB, 828x849)
266 KB
266 KB JPG
Shouting insults will not make the cope any better

Log off and perform breathing exercises

[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.