“Common sense” question for an evolutionist

[sealchan]

Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“Human beings have the capability to someday fly."

What would you say... is this statement worthy of any consideration? Is the human species capable of giving rise to a flying descendant, or is this idea outright impossible?

Very unlikely since our technological prowess would protect us from any evolutionary pressures that might conceivably require us to fly. It is more likely we would engineer ourselves into flying creatures than a natural process would.

 

[sealchan]

No, only that life can evolve quite a bit, over the course of 50 million years or so.

Ever seen anything about the midget sorts of creatures that evolved on small islands, without the space or resources of the mainland? It's interesting. And didn't require anything like 50 million years.
Tom

Yes the island effect I think some evolutionists call it. Overall body size is something that can quickly change over a few generations for plants and animals.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, survival of the fittest goes entirely without saying, arrival of the fittest is a much trickier question- which is why it is invariably glossed over to skip to the easy part

The chances of aquiring a new significantly advantageous design by sheer fluke mutation... not good

But evolution doesn't work by sheer fluke mutation. It works by selective breeding -- the same method that gave us our modern, 'unnatural' crops and livestock.

How many times do we have to explain this? It's not random chance.
And you wonder why we become exasperated and keep accusing you of not understanding what you criticize.

 

[sealchan]

Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“Human beings have the capability to someday fly."

What would you say... is this statement worthy of any consideration? Is the human species capable of giving rise to a flying descendant, or is this idea outright impossible?

To your original question...this statement is illogical as it evidences an ignorance of how evolution is understood. It is not anything inherent in the human being as to whether it could fly or not. But if we allow for a loose sort of language then certainly, given enough time and enough of the right sort of environmental factors this could occur. It has occurred multiple times in the course of the evolution of life on this planet.

Can we imagine a likely source of the evolution of the environment such that this would take place? On that I don't know.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Dinosaurs massive? Not all mammals are whales, elephants or hippos. Not all dinosaurs were Brontosaurs or Tyrannosaurs. The dinosaurs, like the mammals, started small, and one of these small families of feathered dinos developed flight.

True, but the ones that 'evolved' into birds were, according to this study,

WASHINGTON – Scientists have mapped how a group of fearsome, massive dinosaurs evolved and shrank to the likes of robins and hummingbirds.

The first theropods were large, weighing around 600 pounds. They roamed about 220 million to 230 million years ago. Then about 200 million years ago, when some of the creatures weighed about 360 pounds, the shrinking became faster and more prolonged, the study said. In just 25 million years, the beasts were slimmed down to barely 100 pounds. By 167 million years ago, 6-pound paravians, more direct ancestor of birds, were around.

 

[Polymath257]

True, but the ones that 'evolved' into birds were, according to this study,

WASHINGTON – Scientists have mapped how a group of fearsome, massive dinosaurs evolved and shrank to the likes of robins and hummingbirds.

The first theropods were large, weighing around 600 pounds. They roamed about 220 million to 230 million years ago. Then about 200 million years ago, when some of the creatures weighed about 360 pounds, the shrinking became faster and more prolonged, the study said. In just 25 million years, the beasts were slimmed down to barely 100 pounds. By 167 million years ago, 6-pound paravians, more direct ancestor of birds, were around.

OK, I was wrong. Cool.

Notice that it took how long? 50 million years total?

Now, for humans to evolve flight, we would need to decrease in size, which would lead to a decrease in brain size (maladaptive at this point for our species) and be in an environment where flight is advantageous.

Possible, but not likely.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But evolution doesn't work by sheer fluke mutation. It works by selective breeding -- the same method that gave us our modern, 'unnatural' crops and livestock.

How many times do we have to explain this? It's not random chance.
And you wonder why we become exasperated and keep accusing you of not understanding what you criticize.

selective breeding of what? random mutation is the primary source of variation from which select from, everything has to start with a lucky fluke according to the theory, no way around that.

Adaptation can select a woollier sheep, a higher producing dairy cow, it can't put wings on them, or produce an eye

adaptation acts like a design feature, not a design method, I have explained that many times, and am more than happy to do so again


Ecclesiastes 7:9
Be not quick in your spirit to become angry, for anger lodges in the bosom of fools.

 

[Darkstorn]

True, but the ones that 'evolved' into birds were, according to this study,

WASHINGTON – Scientists have mapped how a group of fearsome, massive dinosaurs evolved and shrank to the likes of robins and hummingbirds.

The first theropods were large, weighing around 600 pounds. They roamed about 220 million to 230 million years ago. Then about 200 million years ago, when some of the creatures weighed about 360 pounds, the shrinking became faster and more prolonged, the study said. In just 25 million years, the beasts were slimmed down to barely 100 pounds. By 167 million years ago, 6-pound paravians, more direct ancestor of birds, were around.

You say "according to this study" but you don't give a link. Why is it that you keep quoting articles and studies but fail to give us a link?

Hell, the text you quoted is talking about a study... It's obviously not quoted from a study but a news article.

I find this weird. Perhaps you are so used to quote mining that you keep "forgetting" sources even when they might support you.

everything has to start with a lucky fluke according to the theory

You repeating this claim every single time you talk about this subject still doesn't make it valid. Especially since you've been explained many times that it's not about lucky flukes at all, with proper supportive arguments. How do you respond to those? By abandoning the line of discussion, only to continue it in another thread. I've seen you do this very same thing for years regarding this one particular sentence here.

I feel you use misinformation, avoidance and deflection as primary methods in your argumentation.

 

[Polymath257]

selective breeding of what? random mutation is the primary source of variation from which select from, everything has to start with a lucky fluke according to the theory, no way around that.

Adaptation can select a woollier sheep, a higher producing dairy cow, it can't put wings on them, or produce an eye

adaptation acts like a design feature, not a design method, I have explained that many times, and am more than happy to do so again


Ecclesiastes 7:9
Be not quick in your spirit to become angry, for anger lodges in the bosom of fools.

Yes, you get woollier sheep. Or higher dairy production in cows. Or you get longer legs, or more skin between the fingers, etc.

That genetic adaptation *is* the first step in evolution.

But yes, it is why we do not see vertebrates with six legs. Or with three eyes. That isn't how evolution happens. It takes the variation that is there (due to mutations) and shifts the average in the population from one generation to the next. Cumulatively, over many generations, this adds up to major changes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

OK, I was wrong. Cool.

Notice that it took how long? 50 million years total?

Now, for humans to evolve flight, we would need to decrease in size, which would lead to a decrease in brain size (maladaptive at this point for our species) and be in an environment where flight is advantageous.

Possible, but not likely.

You mean there are intermediate stages to be crossed, that would be disadvantageous, there is no viable smooth incremental path - you are arguing against the ability of Darwinian evolution to adapt a human for flight?

How about for a massive beast with a tiny vestigial arms, cool blood?


I'm going to lose track of which side we are on here!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

OK, I was wrong. Cool.

That has happened to me a lot!

 

[dfnj]

Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“Human beings have the capability to someday fly."

What would you say... is this statement worthy of any consideration? Is the human species capable of giving rise to a flying descendant, or is this idea outright impossible?

Once we discover the secret of anti-gravity devices it may be possible to program people's DNA to grow an anti-gravity device inside their own body. Many plants are genetically engineered to produce their on insecticides.

I think anything is possible with unlocking our limitations with nature.

 

[Valjean]

selective breeding of what? random mutation is the primary source of variation from which select from, everything has to start with a lucky fluke according to the theory, no way around that.

Well, yes. In both human and natural selection random genetic variation provides the material, but after that it's all non-random selection.

Adaptation can select a woollier sheep, a higher producing dairy cow, it can't put wings on them, or produce an eye

adaptation acts like a design feature, not a design method, I have explained that many times, and am more than happy to do so again

Why can't it produce wings or eyes? Repeated small changes add up to big changes. What would stop this process?

 

[Polymath257]

You mean there are intermediate stages to be crossed, that would be disadvantageous, there is no viable smooth incremental path - you are arguing against the ability of Darwinian evolution to adapt a human for flight?

How about for a massive beast with a tiny vestigial arms, cool blood?


I'm going to lose track of which side we are on here!

Well, I am curious about what the selection pressure was for the decrease in size of the theropods.

 

[Valjean]

Well, I am curious about what the selection pressure was for the decrease in size of the theropods.

Size is nothing. Nature increases or decreases size all the time, and often quickly. Easy-peasy.

 

[Polymath257]

Size is nothing. Nature increases or decreases size all the time, and often quickly. Easy-peasy.

I agree, but it still requires some sort of selection pressure. And, from what I have seen, it is more common to have size increases, although that might have been specifically in mammalian lines.

 

[columbus]

Well, I am curious about what the selection pressure was for the decrease in size of the theropods.

I doubt that all the big guys went away so much as smaller ones evolved to exploit some different niches. It's also possible that something else evolved to compete with the big guys and they started dying out leaving smaller and smaller ones.
It's not like large size is inherently more advantageous.
Tom

 

[Polymath257]

I doubt that all the big guys went away so much as smaller ones evolved to exploit some different niches. It's also possible that something else evolved to compete with the big guys and they started dying out leaving smaller and smaller ones.
It's not like large size is inherently more advantageous.
Tom

That's probably right. Theropods were an incredibly diverse group. We know some went to become very large (Tyrannosaurus, for example). So it was probably just a case of adaptive radiation with some lines getting smaller.

 

[Valjean]

Reduced food supply, isolation, reduced predation, opening of a niche best exploited by a smaller species -- lots of conditions will select for reduced size.

Insular dwarfism - Wikipedia

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, yes. In both human and natural selection random genetic variation provides the material, but after that it's all non-random selection.

Of course. selection is not random. People didn't randomly select Ford Mustangs to outlive Ford Pintos, the superior design will tend to win out- that's an absolute given. Nobody is debating this. So the question is; how the superior design first arrives in order to then be selected. We know this process works, if we allow creative intelligence to offer up the options. But we can't observe, test or even simulate the same happening by complete fluke- it's extremely problematic mathematically

Why can't it produce wings or eyes? Repeated small changes add up to big changes. What would stop this process?

This software is adaptable, we can alter, even randomly alter the parameters for text size and color, just as control genes can alter size and color of animals- with a good chance of producing favorable outcomes to be naturally selected, right? Because the extent of adaptation is strictly limited to at least potentially functional options. So random mutation and natural selection works great within this supported capacity- which is also what we see in life, all we have ever seen

If you understand why altering the adaptable text settings, can never create a new software application, not in a trillion years of mutation and selection, far less author the very software that supports that very capacity for adaptation... then you understand the problem of extrapolating adaptation to macro evolution. Tempting as may be- it's not just a stretch of the system, it's an insurmountable paradox.

In short: adaptation is a design function, an almost indispensable one for any reasonably sophisticated design. Not a comprehensive design mechanism