gnostic
The Lost One
Or the person could be high, on an acid trip.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
“Common sense” question for an evolutionist
- Thread starter Crossboard
- Start date
Crossboard
Member
Thanks for the nice write up, Gnostic.
I was not at all keying in on the word “impossible.” I could have ended my initial posting with the phrase “highly improbable” to make the same thought/question.
But yes, the idea of probable vs. improbable is certainly revelant. To follow up, and to focus on the idea of improbability, could we turn attention to a non-flying animal?
Evolution contends that at X point in time a non-flying animal existed. For a vast number of generations it was reproducing after its kind - - it was reproducing a non-flying animal (such as what we would expect).
Then, fast-forward through lots of required time and X number of generations, and evolution tells us that the ability to leave the ground and take flight ultimately came from one representative of this non-flying animal.
(By the way, it makes no difference to me which flying animal is evaluated - - you can talk about a bat coming from some other non-flying mammal; or a feathered bird coming from an animal which had no ability to produce a feather; or the tiniest of flying gnats, which evolution says came from some other insect whose original mode of getting around was crawling).
My point: Logic tells me that it’s “highly improbable” that any one of these non-flying animals has within its ability to give rise to flight. Yes, we both agree that humans producing flying beings is “improbable,” to say the least. I trust that we both appeal to logic as we hold to this statement.
I contend that this is the same logic that ought to be applied to the idea of any other non-flying animal ultimately producing flight.
When all we have to start with is an animal which has nothing at all to do with flight, how does “improbability” transition itself into the “probable?”
Eager to hear a thought..
I was not at all keying in on the word “impossible.” I could have ended my initial posting with the phrase “highly improbable” to make the same thought/question.
But yes, the idea of probable vs. improbable is certainly revelant. To follow up, and to focus on the idea of improbability, could we turn attention to a non-flying animal?
Evolution contends that at X point in time a non-flying animal existed. For a vast number of generations it was reproducing after its kind - - it was reproducing a non-flying animal (such as what we would expect).
Then, fast-forward through lots of required time and X number of generations, and evolution tells us that the ability to leave the ground and take flight ultimately came from one representative of this non-flying animal.
(By the way, it makes no difference to me which flying animal is evaluated - - you can talk about a bat coming from some other non-flying mammal; or a feathered bird coming from an animal which had no ability to produce a feather; or the tiniest of flying gnats, which evolution says came from some other insect whose original mode of getting around was crawling).
My point: Logic tells me that it’s “highly improbable” that any one of these non-flying animals has within its ability to give rise to flight. Yes, we both agree that humans producing flying beings is “improbable,” to say the least. I trust that we both appeal to logic as we hold to this statement.
I contend that this is the same logic that ought to be applied to the idea of any other non-flying animal ultimately producing flight.
When all we have to start with is an animal which has nothing at all to do with flight, how does “improbability” transition itself into the “probable?”
Eager to hear a thought..
Here's the problem I think you're having. You are drawing a clear distinction between non-flying and flying animals. That's not how it works. There are big grey areas. Species can become increasingly able manipulate the air, by fluttering or gliding or something. If tiny improvements to the ability give an advantage, those improvements will tend to be reproduced in the overall gene pool. Repeat several billion times and you've got sophisticated flight capabilities.
Tom
Think of a modern squirrel. They jump from tree to tree, and often will jump out of a tree to avoid a dog or person at the base of the tree.
Would not those squirrels with a bit more skin between their side legs that can help them glide be of value for them? Remember, they are already small animals. They are already jumping between branches of trees. I don't think it unreasonable that small changes (more skin, maybe a longer front leg to hold the skin, etc) can give a survival advantage in such a situation.
Furthermore, once we have longer distance gliding, adding flapping movement isn't even a genetic thing, it's a behavioral thing. So we can lengthen the glide distance considerably now by doing some basic behavioral changes on top of simple genetic changes.
And, finally, I don't see there being a huge issue going from longer distance gliding (flying squirrels) to actual flight, which the production of an animal like a bat.
The difference with humans is that we are *large* animals. the size of wings needed to produce any significant lift is a matter of physics. A little bit of extra skin would NOT be useful for humans when it comes to gliding.
Crossboard
Member
Hi Columbus (Tom),
Fluttering what exactly? Or... gliding with what exactly? Before any bodily change occurred in the non-flying ancestor, didn’t it have nothing at all to flutter or to glide with?
You seem to be jumping ahead too far in the evolutionary sequence. I’m just stating what had to take place at the very beginning of the evolutionary process.
What exactly was that first offspring born with which gave him the *notion* to try to flutter it?
I’m only desiring to contemplate the start of the process and see if it’s logical. Isn’t this one part of the “big gray areas” you mentioned? Believe me, I’m not lacking an acknowledgement of those gray areas - - I’m trying to visualize them and make sense of them.
You mention “tiny improvements giving an advantage.” I suppose you’re speaking about this animal changing in order to survive, correct? And you’re saying that these “tiny improvements” collectively built up over billions of generations?
Just trying to fit these puzzle pieces together, but it’s not jiving. If “sophisticated flight” was necessary for survival, how did these billion generations of slowly-modifying animals survive in the meantime??
Hi!
Front limbs, apparently.
Google "flying fish" for an example of a creature that evolved straight from water to air. They don't fly like a bird, but well enough to escape predators in the water.
Or "flying squirrel" for an example of a mammal that can manipulate the air, to an advantage.
The dinosaurs that evolved into modern birds are pretty well documented, check that out.
So the answer to your question is "No. The creatures that evolved into flying animals didn't have the ability to fly. But their progeny that survived often did have increasing ability that way.
Tom
Not really.
More like this, the ones with the advantage survived and reproduced more regularly than the ones that didn't. That doesn't mean that the original ones died out, necessarily.
The process wasn't directed, so the outcomes are extremely varied.
Tom
Sophisticated flight wasn't necessary for survival. But slightly more sophisticated abilities in that regard conferred enough advantage to spread in the population, as opposed to the creatures that didn't have the advantage.
Penguins, for example, lost the ability to fly because swimming held advantages in their environment. That doesn't mean that all flying birds died out. Only that the better swimmers survived and had babies and eventually their progeny didn't fly at all.
Tom
Crossboard
Member
Yes, I just caught a YouTube video of “flying fish.” The world is full of amazing creatures!
You mentioned this fish as “evolving straight from water to air.” How did you mean exactly? Did you use the “flying fish” example because you reckon it to be a fish which is eventually on its way to full flight?
Will some of these flying fish eventually do some more “flapping” in hopes of remaining in the air longer? Stands to reason, since its predators are in the water.
Anyhow, yes you’re right - - they certainly don’t fly like a bird! We agree on that. But I sure can’t agree with you on your following point, because they definitely DO NOT fly well enough to escape predators in the water. In that video, I saw a fish that breaks the water for a moment, then it’s glide runs out and it returns to the water, where it is eaten by predators.
Now, maybe this is just me, but I’m wondering...
If it really does become better and better at escaping its predators by taking to the air, how are it’s gills going to manage?
By the way... that one video I watched has some pretty cools birds waiting for those “flying fish” to “glide” a little too high. Wow, those little guys have predators coming at them from high and low!
Love your feedback. Happy evening
But that's exactly what drives natural selection. Not every flying fish escapes the predators. But the ones that are even slightly better are the ones that tend to reproduce. Ever so slightly longer fins, lighter bones, quicker reflexes, stronger hearts, sharper eyes, ...
It isn't just any one thing. It's the whole package, over and over and over, billions of times per second for billions of years.
I think that a typical flying fish spawns about 10,000 eggs. In a stable population, that means that 9,998 (on average) won't survive to reproduce. Only 2. The tiniest changes that have the tiniest advantage will tend to spread in the population.
Tom
Crossboard
Member
Hi again Tom,
Yes indeed, I totally agree that species have the ability to adapt. I think of a polar bear, which is a good example of one sampling of the overall bear family; it has adapted and thrived in cold regions. Again, animals are amazing.
But one kind (species, if you must) of animal having the ability to make the VERY significant transformation into another kind of animal? This is the stuff of imagination. It denies logic to assert that intricate feathers naturally come about simply because the non-flying animal is attempting to flutter.
I asked again, pointedly this time:
- Is the flying fish an example of an animal which will someday leave the water?
- Could you please logically describe to me how it’s gills will slowly change into lungs, and still remain useful to this animal, either in the water or out of the water?
I’m trying to picture it occurring, but cannot reasonably visualize it. Surely these questions are acceptable, on topic, and reasonable?
(Possibly later I’ll comment on other parts of your latest, but wanted to focus on these particulars for right now..)
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
There are some clear problems with your post. You are not defining "kind" and there is no "significant transformation into another kind of animal". I like to point out that in evolution there is no "change of kind". All of your offspring will always be human beings, no matter how much they evolve. But let's work backwards. You share a common ancestor with other apes It was an ape. You still are an ape. No "change of kind". You share a common ancestor with lemurs, monkeys, and lesser apes. That ancestor was a primate.. You still are a primate. No change of kind. You share a common ancestor with cows, dogs, and cats. That species was a mammal. You share a common ancestor with lizards, snakes, and even fish. That ancestor was a vertebrate, you are still a vertebrate. No change of kind.
The claim of "a completely different kind" of animal is a bogus one. If we go back far enough we are all the same kind. But once a split is made there is no going back. Your offspring will not be plants of any sort. Or dogs of any sort. Or birds of any sort. Working backwards we only see a slow change where one parent is always the same "kind" as the offspring.
Evolution cannot be refuted by creationists if they debate honestly. That is why they are forced to use bogus arguments like you did. You still lose, but you can at least fool yourself for a little while.
Crossboard
Member
Hi again Tom,
Your follow up was thorough and appreciated. But I gotta note 2 things:
- It sounds like you’re leaning towards wrapping up the nice conversation? Are you?
- You brought up flying fish, and I have now asked you twice some simple questions. Yet you’re dodging. So, last time if I may: Is the flying fish an example of an animal which will someday live out of the water? How will it’s gills change into lungs and still be useful to this animal, whether in or out of the water?
...One other associated comment, based on something in your last comments:
You say that all of our offspring will always be humans - - there’s no going back. Yes, absolutely, total agreement here! So we must conclude that in the distant future, we (humans) will be observing firsthand the way those flying fish gills are successfully changing into lungs. Would you concur?
Your follow up was thorough and appreciated. But I gotta note 2 things:
- It sounds like you’re leaning towards wrapping up the nice conversation? Are you?
- You brought up flying fish, and I have now asked you twice some simple questions. Yet you’re dodging. So, last time if I may: Is the flying fish an example of an animal which will someday live out of the water? How will it’s gills change into lungs and still be useful to this animal, whether in or out of the water?
...One other associated comment, based on something in your last comments:
You say that all of our offspring will always be humans - - there’s no going back. Yes, absolutely, total agreement here! So we must conclude that in the distant future, we (humans) will be observing firsthand the way those flying fish gills are successfully changing into lungs. Would you concur?
Are you confusing me with someone else?
I only posted to you late last evening.
I wasn't wrapping up anything. I just hadn't replied back to you in about 12 hours. Nor am I dodging anything.
If you want me to spend more of my time educating you in basic science let me know. It's not my strong suit, but you seemed reasonable.
Up until this last post.
Now you sound like just another Creationist. I don't need more of that in my life. You people have caused me enough trouble as it is.
Tom
Crossboard
Member
Great to hear that you’re ok with continuing, because I certainly am! I do appreciate the info you’re passingly along. My apologies for leaving you with the notion that this is becoming contentious in any way.
I’m really very eager to pursue this with simple straightforward questions, so if you can follow up with your thoughts on my to “flying fish” questions, that would be good.
Waiting your comments!
Crossboard
Member
Tom, (update for you)
I did indeed confuse you with someone else (Subduction Zone jumped in and I did not realize it was not you).
So, if you can scratch that portion of my comment, and get back to my inquiry about the “flying fish” questions, that would be super.
(Sub. Zone.. i’m certainly not leaving you out, but just want to follow the trail with Tom for a bit. Thanks!)
We have no way of telling what will happen with flying fish. It depends on the environment and what mutations can/will produce.. But lungs did NOT arise out of gills, but instead out of swim bladders. So the question is what exists that might deveop into an alternative breathing system. I don't know enough about flying fish anatomy to say.
And the 'humans' of the future look at all like us. Just like we don't look much like primitive primates.
Crossboard
Member
Hi Polymath,
Tom said that flying fish are an example of a creature that evolved straight from water to air. You say there’s no way to know. I guess I’d tend to concur with you.
Thanks for the note about swim bladders evolving into lungs. I just quickly did a search and found this about swim bladders:
“The swim bladder is evolutionarily homologousto the lungs. Charles Darwin remarked upon this in On the Origin of Species.[3] Darwin reasoned that the lung in air-breathing vertebrates had derived from a more primitive swim bladder, but scientists now believe that the swim bladder derived from a more primitive lung.” (Wikipedia)
There seems to be a lack of consensus. Is this Wiki info accurate? Is your comment possibly outdated?
Regardless.. back to my point, which is focused on your comment about an “alternative breathing system.” (and thanks for your wording of that phrase - - it’s a help to me.)
You speak of “something that existed that might develop into an alternative breathing system.”
So I have no other choice but to conclude that you’re talking about an evolving animal that, for billions of generations, used two breathing systems simultaneously (extracting oxygen from both water and air).
That would be an incredible mechanism, and one that would surely require perfection in order to operate! Tell me more about how that second (the alternate) breathing system is operational while it is undergoing slow development over those many generations of offspring.
Regarding the state of “humans of the future”: My only comment was that human beings (whatever they look like) will be around in the distant future to observe firsthand any creatures which is “developing the alternative breathing system.”
So my question would be: Should the right circumstances allow for the flying fish to transition into an air-breathing creature, would humans be there to see it occurring?
Thoughts appreciated!
No, that isn't what I said. I said it is impossible to know how they will evolve in the future. Flying fish clearly did NOT have a land stage, so achieved the 'flight' they have from the water.
Thisis more a matter of classification than anything else. Lungs and swim bladders developed out of out-croppings in the throat/esophagus.
Most likely. Such have happened many times.
It only has to produce enough oxygen transfer to keep up with the activities and environment of the organism. Many fish, for example, 'gulp' air when water has little oxygen in addition to using gills when in water that is oxygenated enough. The two systems work side by side. The 'gulp' works in cases where the gills don't function as well.
Not clear. We may kill ourselves off.
Depends on whether we kill ourselves off, huh?