“Common sense” question for an evolutionist

[Polymath257]

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



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

Have you ever heard of genetic programming? It is essentially using mutation and selection to produce computer programs. And yes, new and important software can, and has been produced this way.

 

[Jumi]

Common sense told creationists that the universe began in a creation event, not static/eternal as atheist academics preferred

Seems like you aren't educated in the differences between Big Bang theory and Evolution theory.

credit where it's due!

Common sense mandates oversimplification over thinking I guess.

 

[Jumi]

yes, with lots of artistic impressions..

Did those distract you so much that you didn't study about the topic then?

And if you think having artistic impressions disproves things, looks like everything taught in school is false to you. Bible classes had lots of artistic impressions... I mean how else could we imagine Jonah's tale? Common sense I guess.

 

[Valjean]

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

Superior designs arrive like any other change: by baby steps.
A light sensitive cell becomes a light sensitive depression, becomes a cup, becomes a covered cup, becomes a lensed cup.
A long feathered arm becomes a balancing aid, becomes a gliding aid, becomes a flying aid.
Each tiny change improves adaptation, is selected for, is retained, and proliferates through the genome. Accumulate enough changes and you eventually wind up with a significantly different organism.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Like Angels?

That's an awesome picture!
I only wish it didn't come from a *spirit 'guide'* source.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Remember, evolution alters existing structures. Features like wings don't arise de novo. They are modifications of something already existing. Humans, like birds, pterosaurs, bats, &c, have nothing to convert into wings except front limbs.

But evolution did originate all appendages de novo.

"Nothing to convert" has no bearing on mutations, apparently.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

all right,,,,

so now you are saying that massive Dinosaurs can shrink & grow wings ? - you just disagreed with this a couple of posts ago...

Hey! Isn't there a phrase, "With Evolution, all things are possible"? Oh wait....no, that's the Bible. Different word. Never mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But evolution did originate all appendages de novo.

"Nothing to convert" has no bearing on mutations, apparently.

Actually it didn't, at least not in the same sense. limbs evolved from fins. We know the predecessors of limbs. What would be the predecessors of an angel's wings?

 

[Sapiens]

A person being static is not a good idea. Building upon a static foundation is though. If you can acknowledge the difference.

A machine or vehicle is a good analogy for what you propose. I'll give you props for that. There is not much else I can really say about the idea though. I just advise caution is all. It could work out great, or it could end terribly. But that is the risk we take with everything so, it is what it is.

Building on a static foundation that can not be changed when it is discovered that is is wrong is patently foolish. Building on a flexible foundation that is designed to accept change and even to work with it is much more sensible. Just ask any architect who designs for earthquake country.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey! Isn't there a phrase, "With Evolution, all things are possible"? Oh wait....no, that's the Bible. Different word. Never mind.

Yes, in fiction all things are possible.

 

[Sapiens]

Actually it didn't, at least not in the same sense. limbs evolved from fins. We know the predecessors of limbs. What would be the predecessors of an angel's wings?

Fertile imagination, of course.

 

[Valjean]

But evolution did originate all appendages de novo.

"Nothing to convert" has no bearing on mutations, apparently.

You're just taking the argument back a step. Same principles apply.

 

[sayak83]

But evolution did originate all appendages de novo.

"Nothing to convert" has no bearing on mutations, apparently.

No appendages evolved from gill slots.

 

[Enoch07]

Building on a static foundation that can not be changed when it is discovered that is is wrong is patently foolish.

I do not have this worry. So it's of no consequence to me.

Building on a flexible foundation that is designed to accept change and even to work with it is much more sensible.

Of course the most sensible thing is to not build on a dynamic foundation to begin with, especially if you have the option to avoid it, like we have here. Even flexible foundations have a threshold, that experiences wear, and when it's limits are met the building will collapse regardless. And it will experience wear over the years with much scrutiny and criticism, not to mention the inevitability of zealotry present in all ideologies.

Are you familiar with Horseshoe theory - Wikipedia? Typically it is used for politics, but it can be applied to any ideology. Let's use Christianity it for example. You have the extreme right the fundamentalist, the center which is where I am, and the far left which are identified as "Liberal Christians". The far left and far right share many of the same traits, just on opposite ends of the spectrum. What worries me is Sayak's idea might have adverse effects when horseshoe theory is applied to it. If reason and logic are defined as the only way to obtain truth what would be the 2 extremes of that? I am not saying for sure this would happen, I am just concerned this could happen, some would wager it has already happened.

 

[Sapiens]

I do not have this worry. So it's of no consequence to me.



Of course the most sensible thing is to not build on a dynamic foundation to begin with, especially if you have the option to avoid it, like we have here. Even flexible foundations have a threshold, that experiences wear, and when it's limits are met the building will collapse regardless. And it will experience wear over the years with much scrutiny and criticism, not to mention the inevitability of zealotry present in all ideologies.

Are you familiar with Horseshoe theory - Wikipedia? Typically it is used for politics, but it can be applied to any ideology. Let's use Christianity it for example. You have the extreme right the fundamentalist, the center which is where I am, and the far left which are identified as "Liberal Christians". The far left and far right share many of the same traits, just on opposite ends of the spectrum. What worries me is Sayak's idea might have adverse effects when horseshoe theory is applied to it. If reason and logic are defined as the only way to obtain truth what would be the 2 extremes of that? I am not saying for sure this would happen, I am just concerned this could happen, some would wager it has already happened.

It fails because it assumes that there are just two poles on a straight continuum, forgetting that there are all sorts of other views. This horseshoe hypothesis (it is hardly a theory to a scientist) fails on the horns of the logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy. You see ... I see all Christians, for that matter all religionists, as nuts. Sure maybe fundamentalists and liberation Catholics are more nuts than middle of the roaders, but it is just a matter of perspective from where we atheists sit.

 

[Enoch07]

It fails because it assumes that there are just two poles on a straight continuum, forgetting that there are all sorts of other views. This horseshoe hypothesis (it is hardly a theory to a scientist) fails on the horns of the logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy.

That's rather presumptuous. I think you are underestimating the one uncontrollable, unaccountable, ever changing variable. The people involved, they will surprise you.

You see ... I see all Christians, for that matter all religionists, as nuts. Sure maybe fundamentalists and liberation Catholics are more nuts that middle of the roaders, but it is just a matter of perspective from where we atheists sit.

Well fortunatly I know you don't speak for all athiest, or else I might be offended.

Prejudice has a nasty way of showing itself like this, and it is this mentality which would get any ideology based on it in trouble. Definitely buyer beware!

 

[Enoch07]

Sorry I just realized @Sapiens quoted me from another thread. Which is why the conversation changed. I am sure this was an unintended error on his behalf. If a moderator would like to delete our past few correspondences I am ok with that as it is completely off topic of the thread.


Thanks

 

[Polymath257]

But evolution did originate all appendages de novo.

"Nothing to convert" has no bearing on mutations, apparently.

Actually, no it didn't. Vertebrate limbs ultimately came from fins.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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?

Unlikely, but not impossible.

 

[gnostic]

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?

You are asking questions of what is “possible” or “impossible”.

In the world of philosophies, religions, in human’s wild imaginations (eg dreams, or sci-fi stories for books, tv or films), human developing wings, then it would fall under the category of “possibility”.

In various myths, we have evidences of people’s imagination have sometimes depicted their gods or angels that have human form as well as some might have wings too. Therefore, they believe these winged gods or angels could fly.

Therefore, some people believe that impossible can be possible. But what people believe is possible, through these dreams or wild imagination, it doesn’t mean, they are probable.

In the bible, like that of Ezekiel’s vision in Ezekiel 1, Ezekiel supposedly “witnessed” 4 angel in human form, plus some extra features:

4 As I looked, a stormy wind came out of the north: a great cloud with brightness around it and fire flashing forth continually, and in the middle of the fire, something like gleaming amber. 5 In the middle of it was something like four living creatures. This was their appearance: they were of human form. 6 Each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. 7 Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf’s foot; and they sparkled like burnished bronze. 8 Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: 9 their wings touched one another; each of them moved straight ahead, without turning as they moved. 10 As for the appearance of their faces: the four had the face of a human being, the face of a lion on the right side, the face of an ox on the left side, and the face of an eagle; 11 such were their faces. Their wings were spread out above; each creature had two wings, each of which touched the wing of another, while two covered their bodies.

Here, this prophet saw not only each angel having “human form” and “four wings”, but also “four faces” and under each wing, “four hands” (so a total of 16 hands for each angel).

Here we see, people who believe in religion and believe in their religious books (hence, in this case, the scriptures they called the Bible), they can believe in the impossible.

But in science, scientists don’t work with “possibility”, but do work with probability. They relied on past observable evidences to predict what is or isn’t statistically probable, hence what is “likely” to happen or what is “unlikely” to happen.

So if you have lot of evidences that back up the prediction and explanation, then that would mean it is probable or likely to be true.

But if you have more evidences against the explanation and prediction or there are no evidences whatsoever, then it either less probable or improbable, hence either not likely or very unlikely.

Natural Selection is about having change in environmental circumstances that will push some species to change genetically and morphologically.

Although it might not be impossible, the probability that environment change will cause humans to grow wings and fly, that probability would fall under the category of “extremely unlikely”.

And that’s Natural Selection only.

What of chances that happening (eg growing wings) through happening through other means by evolutionary mechanisms.

I don’t really understand Genetic Hitchhiking, so I cannot really comment on the probability of growing wings being probable or not. But I am assuming it isn’t probable.

Genetic Flow is where evolution could occur not be environmental changes, but by new population (eg people with wing-like genes, population A) migrating to location with population (B) of humans with no wing-like genes, interbreed with other, to produce new species, where the new generation (population C) have more wing-like development than that of population A.

So far, the studies have shown that there are no humans with genes to grow wings. So with the mechanism of Gene Flow, the probability of man developing wings is improbable or highly unlikely.

Genetic Drift: there are have been no evidences that genetic variance of any human having physical limbs that are wing-like. So again, humans being able to fly would be highly unlikely.

Mutation: so far, looking at the remains and fossils of other hominid, there have been no mutations where they have developed wings, so the probability of occurring some times in the future would seem so remote, scientists would again say that it is highly improbable.

In the supernatural world, like that in the belief in religion, the “impossible” becomes “possible” But in the real world, science don't deal with the impossible, but with the observable “probability”, and so, humans growing wings would fall under the “improbable” category.