I'm an atheist who believes in evolution from the overwhelming

There is no "purpose" to evolution. It is just the path of least resistance.

Animal A has a mutation that allows it to see better at sunset

Animal B is the same species as Animal A but it does not have that mutation.

In a hypothetical environment where there just happen to be more predators at sunset which animal do you think is going to have a better chance to pass on its genes/survive.

Read this, it'll refine your thinking on the subject a lot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution

>>7672086
>The purpose of evolution is that a living organism adapts to its environment

>living organism adapts to its environment

>living organism adapts

>living organism

>living

This is where you are confuzzeled

Living things don’t actively adapt to their environment, it’s the minor genetic differences within the species which allows them to have an advantage if the environment changes.

The more advantages that you have the better chance you will breed and pass your advantaged genes to the next generation

>>7672086
>I'm an atheist

reported

>>7672503
WWWEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!! That's largely true, but not entirely.

This is where the mess really begins. The extent of epigenetic adaptation is still poorly understood. It isn't even well known what logic or feedback loops spur addition or removal of methyl groups. Then you get all that shit with is epigenetic changes can be passed to germline cells, and if so when and by what means. Etc.

For the most part, what you already said says it all. But it does seem that an organism's capacity for change relative to environmental factors has a bit more going on. The total spectrum is wider than it seems, and not a fixed constant.

>>7672086
>The purpose of evolution
Very no.

>organism adapts to its environment to survive which takes millions of years to accomplish.
Somewhat no.

>how did it survive in an environment it wasn't adapted to in the first place
See above.

Most of the environment IS the living things that occupy it.
Evolutionary change occurs generation by generation.
The "starting" point is that some things live in an environment.
As the environment changes, SOME of the organisms survive, some don't.
This is the main driving force behind evolution.
Sometimes the species changes because only the most suited survive.
Other times the entire species fails.
No real mystery.

>>7672513
Go home Lamark, yer drunk.

Seriously though, since epigenetic adaptability is a good survival trait, that adaptability is just another survival trait coded into our genes.
Species with a high degree of epigenetic adaptability should outperform species with a low degree of epigenetic adaptability.

>>7672086
So simple it was just a bunch of organic molecules bouncing around, forming chains. This is until eventually one of those chains had the tendency to make more copies of itself. So at that point you see the bar for survival was much lower.

File: stop.jpg (9KB, 284x284px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 284x284px

>>7672086
>The purpose of evolution

> purpose of evolution
No.
> a living organism adapts to its environment
Sure, but that has nothing to do with evolution.
> which takes millions of years to accomplish
No.

Here is all that happens. You have some organisms in an environment. The ones that are good at reproducing in that environment will reproduce a lot. The ones that are not as good will not. If the resources in that environment are limited, then eventually the organisms that are better at reproducing will displace the ones that are not as good. This leads to rapid changes if the environment changes.

From generation to generation within a species, the rates at which genes are expressed change slightly, and also there is a bit of mutation. So not every organism within a species is the same, and the above statements apply within species as well as between species. This leads to gradual changes if the environment is static.

>>7672086
>I'm an atheist
>believes in evolution
kill yourself

>>7672086
>My question is how did it survive in an environment it wasn't adapted to in the first place for so long in order to reach that point of harmony with its surroundings?
Basically, because it had to survive or it would have died. It's a type of selection bias. You don't immediately think about the species that went extinct, even though that's almost all of them. Also, it's important to keep in mind that "harmony with surroundings" isn't an exact, directed goal. A lot of times it's about becoming ever so slightly less unviable (example: regions with high malaria incidence rates select for higher incidence of sickle-cell disease in humans as a defensive adaptation. This produces a population more able to survive, but to most ways of thinking kinda fucked.)

>Is it because the initial organism was so simple that it couldn't have been effected enough / at all by the environment until it became more complex / advanced?
Definitely not. Response to environment is a basic quality we require to define something as alive. Remember also that brine and honey are antiseptic (by dehydrating bacteria) and that antibiotic resistance is a common example of evolution of very simple organisms. Consider also that complexity for its own sake is inefficient and disadvantageous. All increase in complexity requires some energy expenditure and must be justified by some advantage increasing survivability (in the environment.) The endosymbiotic theory of eukaryotic cells is a good example of this.

>I'm an atheist who believes in evolution from the overwhelming evidence
The first thing about being a skeptic or just understanding epistemology of science is realizing that evidence isn't really separable from understanding in any meaningful sense. Your asking these questions tells me that you don't really understand evolution well enough to "believe" in it for the right reasons. What you think is less important than why you do.

>>7672594
This you fucking fedora nerd loser lmao. Evolution doesn't exist it's only a theory.

>>7672922
You misunderstand you dumb piece of shit.
One doesn't "believe" in Evolution.
Either you accept it or you live in delusion.

And a theory is pretty much the highest scientifically acceptable general principle you can have. Stop implying it's just a guess. Evolution is a fact.

>>7672086
>My question is how did it survive in an environment it wasn't adapted to in the first place for so long in order to reach that point of harmony with its surroundings?

Organisms are never in the point of harmony with their surroundings, evolution is a happening all the time.
One of the factors is just competition. Let's say at the beginning you have 2 species living in the same area. As one of them evolves and uses resources better, it's harder for another specie to survive, so it either evolves or goes extinct.


If organisms are totally not adapted to the environment, they go extinct. But usually changes in environment aren't very sudden unless some meteor comes to say hello or stuff like that.