Could the theory of evolution be better understood by considering time lines of technological development?

Question

For instance, take the example of aircraft.

The Wright Flier suddenly appeared out of thin air, probably from an errant asteroid but some say it’s real mother was a submarine that had the wrong sort of propeller fitted. Anyway, the Wright Flier gave birth to a Fokker E1 which in turn mothered the Fokker D7. Because of the law of 'survival of the fittest' the superiority of the D7 in combat over the Western Front allowed it to continue breeding to eventually give birth to the Ford Tri-Motor which in turn fathered the Junkers 52 which craftily procreated with an early species of Heinkel HE 111 to spawn the Messerschmitt BF109. Due to cataclysmic changes in the Earth’s climate brought about by Social Darwinism at that time, the BF109 begat the ME 262 which 'naturally selected' for itself a jet engine and swept wings that led directly to the birth of its varied progeny, sons and daughters - most notably the F86 Sabre and then several decades later, hey presto, the family of Stealth aircraft left the maternity ward. Simple isn’t it? Now everybody understands evolution.

Answer 1

Surely you mean the Wright Flyer appeared *in* thin air?

And the answer is no, as planes are designed for a specific purpose, and parts can be replaced by something utterly different, as with the piston-engined 109 being replaced by the jet-engined 262 in your analogy. In evolution, the 'part' must change via tiny modifications of what came before, all the time working well enough to be selected all the way through, and is directionless - selection acts on the individual, at the time - there's no design element whereby evolution can select for conditions in the future, that would be a stupid idea

Answer 2

haHA! Straw man!



No, this is not an accurate analogy for evolution. You might be on to something with the transition of one model to another, if you take into account the large number of prototypes between each model, and the fact that the engineers tried a lot of stuff - keeping the features that worked, and discarding the ones that didn't. Still, it's not a good example. Plus, there's the bit about Social Darwinism... Hitler's actions were all about hatred and using fear to manipulate his country. His version of Darwinism was a twisted one - more of a justification than a reason.



But anyways. A better analogy would be one of a million monkeys at a million typewriters. The old saying goes that, given enough time, they'd eventually produce Shakespeare. Of course, to be an analogy for evolution, it's lacking half of the equation. It has randomness, but it also needs selection - by sheer chance, they'd never actually produce Shakespeare. So, we need to modify the situation a little.



Let's say we have a million monkeys at a million typewriters, but amongst the aisles (with masks and feces-resistant overalls) there are also a few hundred editors. They wander up and down the aisles, and whenever they see a monkey type a word (a monkey accidentally getting a word right is much more plausible than an entire sonnet), they swoop in, take the paper, cut out the word, and paste it up on a giant board. When a monkey accidentally types a word that's correct, it gets kept and incorporated into the greater work.



It's driven by random chance and shaped by non-random selection. It's not a perfect analogy, but then again, analogies rarely are. It covers the basic points, though.

Answer 3

"The Wright Flier suddenly appeared out of thin air"

the wright brother's flier did not appear out of thin air... nor did life... they were both the result of a rather long developmental process



except that all these planes are unrelated... an ME 262 was not some prototypical F86 sabre... it's an entirely different machine



comparing life to machines has failed for years and will continue to do so under the premise that machines DON'T replicate with inheritance...

Answer 4

No. Your example is a very poor way to understand evolution. Technological development is very specifically directed development. Evolution is not that way. Evolution involves random influences and random genetic variation. If you are interested in learning about evolution, study it.



Not that it matters for your question but the first the Wright flyer did not suddenly appear out of thin air. Do some research on the work that had come before in Europe and in the US.

Answer 5

Simple but generally a poor analogy.

The wright flyer did have antecedents.

And this whole time line is far too fast.

And there was intellegent design in each step, which is not what you need.

So, no, just no.

Answer 6

hey nice try but how about, the cannon, appeared in the dark ages, which begot the blunderbus which begot the musket...........





evolution deals with LIVING things influenced by outside forces like nature. Man could not influence things earlier in time on any large scale. today is a different story, we can wipe out whole ecosystems in a single (oil well ooops) activity

sorry BP(big plume)

Answer 7

You asked this question the other day - it was a silly analogy then, it's still silly now. Planes still don't reproduce, so still aren't subject to evolution.

Answer 8

yes, it looks pertinent and sounds like a good evolution...