Ask me anything about the science of Evolution :)

[shmogie]

I suggest that you beware of the word "purpose". Evolution has no purpose: changes happen (mutations), some persist, some don't. If a configuration can reproduce, it may persist, or maybe not if it is unlucky. History is full of contingency.

So then, asking why regarding a particular result, like features that obviously exist for the survival of the species, is an inappropriate question ? The result is just accidental, and there is no why to it ?

 

[shmogie]

I suggest that you beware of the word "purpose". Evolution has no purpose: changes happen (mutations), some persist, some don't. If a configuration can reproduce, it may persist, or maybe not if it is unlucky. History is full of contingency.

So then, asking why regarding a particular result, like features that obviously exist for the survival of the species, is an inappropriate question ? The result is just accidental, and there is no why to it ?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why can't several partial skeletons of the same species be used to construct the complete skeleton. In all science as in detective work, multiple independent strands of data are compiled together to jointly gain a more complete picture. Is this science special somehow?

No, however, we have the issue as to how we know parts of X and Y are the same species.

 

[Audie]

No, however, we have the issue as to how we know parts of X and Y are the same species.

You think that is an "issue"? Like, these bone guys just kinda guess?
They dont really know what they are doing?
How do you know it is an "issue"? You said is is Did you base that on knowledge or did you just think that up?

 

[sayak83]

No, however, we have the issue as to how we know parts of X and Y are the same species.

Just as we know bones of two human skeletons are both human. There will be multiple bones in common as well. For mammals, teeth is very characteristic for each species, they act as kind of species fingerprints... and as teeth are very hard, they preserve well and hence any fossil can be tagged it's species group based on teeth analysis.
Mammal Teeth

 

[Shaul]

Evolutionary theory claims that only the fittest species survive. If questioned how the “fittest” species are known the given reply is that those are the ones that survived. That is “reproductive success”. But that is sophistry. Since the set of extant species only includes those that have been “reproductive successes”, this tantamount to saying all extant species are fit by definition whether they are actual fittest or not. (A clear circumlocution) In other words, a definition of fittest not based on survival is needed. So here is my question: If a species survived that was not the fittest, would that be evidence evolution was erroneous?

 

[sayak83]

Evolutionary theory claims that only the fittest species survive. If questioned how the “fittest” species are known the given reply is that those are the ones that survived. That is “reproductive success”. But that is sophistry. Since the set of extant species only includes those that have been “reproductive successes”, this tantamount to saying all extant species are fit by definition whether they are actual fittest or not. (A clear circumlocution) In other words, a definition of fittest not based on survival is needed. So here is my question: If a species survived that was not the fittest, would that be evidence evolution was erroneous?

I think you don't have a good idea about what evolution which and hence you think it's circular. Please read below this brief synopsis and see if it makes more sense and allay your doubts.

Basic features of the theory of evolution:-
a) Evolution is the change between generations within a population lineage defined by ancestor-descendant relationships. A population is defined by a group of living organisms that inter-breed (or exchange genetic material) often enough over the generations to be considered to have a common pool of genes between them.

b) Genes are specific segments of DNA that determines what proteins get built, how much and when. Proteins build all physical features of the body and controls and constitutes all processes occurring within the organism that determines how it lives and how it behaves.

c) Change within a population of interbreeding individuals is seen when genes are modified or the relative frequencies of various genes are altered.

d) The engine for such change are the countless ways strands of the DNA can undergo mutation during the replication process. Typical human mutation rate is 100/generation.

e)The mutations cause changes in the genes that in turn cause (in some instances) changes in what proteins are being formed, when and where.

f)This in turn modifies the structure and behavior of the individuals from one generation to the next and act as a source of variation of characteristics between members of the population and over time.

g) Variation of characters impact (positively or negatively) the ability of the organism to survive and reproduce with others of its population. The organisms that gain an advantage in survival and reproduction leave behind more offsprings that have its genes in the population. Thus genes that improve the survival and reproductive "fitness" of the individual becomes more widespread and eventually dominate over others...until a newer and more "fit" type of gene emerge to outcompete it in turn.

h) This process of enhancement of traits and associated genes that make the organisms better able to thrive in the environment it is in is called natural selection. This is how mutations that confer a survival and reproductive benefit in the organism becomes widespread in the population over time.

i)Over time, a population may change in physical features and behavior so much that it can no longer be called the same species as the earlier ancestral population.

j) If a population gets isolated into two or more groups due to new geographic barriers, the process of mutation and the enhancement of beneficial mutations through natural selection operates independently in both subgroups, making them slowly distinct from each other. Over time, the two populations become so different that they no longer look or behave the same and do not interbreed in the wild. Thus one species splits into two. This process is called speciation and results in the branching tree of life and the present diversity from past forms.

 

[shmogie]

Pretty simple. Imagine you wish to build a submarine, with the typical characteristics of a modern navy craft. But it also needs to be able to
climb out of the water, and travel on the highway.

Do you suppose the "climb out of water" design features would compromise
its efficiency at sea?

Would it be fully competitive with subs dedicated entirely to work on the high seas?

Does a whale or sub actually need to climb the beach?

If it did would that place some sort of size limitations on the sub or whale?

Your metaphor, though interesting doesn't fit this creature. Unless you believe as I do, "design" isn't applicable.

What is applicable is why random processes occurred in an adapted creature to cause it to radically change the environment in which it functioned ?

 

[sayak83]

Your metaphor, though interesting doesn't fit this creature. Unless you believe as I do, "design" isn't applicable.

What is applicable is why random processes occurred in an adapted creature to cause it to radically change the environment in which it functioned ?

Because a new ecological niche opened up. At that time Indian subcontinent was floating steadily towards the Asian plate, closing the Tethys Sea and raising the Himalayas. The rising mountains began to radically change the climate in the shores of the Tethys sea. Also, as Tethys Sea closed, large shallow marshlands opened up that were ripe for the semi-aquatic species to exploit them. This is the environmental driver for the natural selection towards aquatic adaptation of the whale lineage. See details on the earlier papers I linked.

 

[Audie]

Your metaphor, though interesting doesn't fit this creature. Unless you believe as I do, "design" isn't applicable.

What is applicable is why random processes occurred in an adapted creature to cause it to radically change the environment in which it functioned ?

No analogy is going to be perfect, that is a given.
You might though, look at where ti does fit and make sense, rather than dismissing it entirely.

"Design" implies a designer of course, I dont tend to use the word.

Now, I see you use the word "adapted" and, "radically".

"Adapted"-of course any living thing is adapted to some
extent to its environment. "Perfectly", no. You will never get perfect, or optimum.

"Functioned", of "Functional" sure.
Perfectly? Never. I

"Radically"? The long term result of many small changes may be quite radical,
No radical "jumps" as per ye common creationist idea.

"Random processes". Everything that happens on earth has elements of "random" involved.
Mutations are random, selection for favourable ones is not.

Then too, there is gene expression. We read that the chicken has genes for teeth.
They are not expressed.

Dolphins sometimes have four flippers, two corresponding to hind legs.
I dont know specifically, but it looks like a gene expression thing rather than
a random mutation that causes two complete flippers to, ah, suddenly appear.

Lets try this.

"Why would a creature that is less than optimally
adapted to its environment change in ways thar
make it more successful?"

To which I might say, why indeed.

 

[Nigel Hoath]

Evolutionary theory claims that only the fittest species survive.

Sometimes the survivors are niche grabbers. Other times lucky. Sometimes the most adaptive. So not sure I like the word “fittest”.

Even the word “successful” needs care. It seems sometimes associated with population growth. Maybe it should be associated with happiness and fulfilment.

Just a thought while enjoying the thread

 

[Audie]

Sometimes the survivors are niche grabbers. Other times lucky. Sometimes the most adaptive. So not sure I like the word “fittest”.

Even the word “successful” needs care. It seems sometimes associated with population growth. Maybe it should be associated with happiness and fulfilment.

Just a thought while enjoying the thread

Maybe it is the "most fittest inest"

Look at this (enlarged) photo of a blind cave salamander.

https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/tx-blind-salamander-picture-1.jpg?w=519&h=272

Hardly a big quick robust "fit" sort of creature!

Of course, a big robust one would not survive in the cave.

The spindly little blind salamander is successful in there.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I am going to have to actually see an example and I would have to see their map so to speak on molecules to man theory.

I'm just curious what you currently accept the origin of life to be? If you've got one better than evolution, I'm all ears. Evolution answers questions creationism can't answer. Like why vestigiality exists within species. Vestigiality would seem to refute an omni-attributes creator.

I'm not meaning to imply you're a creationist by the way- that's why I asked you. I'm giving an example of evolution's clear superiority over other known attempts at an explanation.

 

[Looncall]

So then, asking why regarding a particular result, like features that obviously exist for the survival of the species, is an inappropriate question ? The result is just accidental, and there is no why to it ?

Well done!

Just think of the misfortunes that might have befallen any one of your ancestors and prevented you from happening.

Every organism is a fluke. That is something worth pondering.

There is no why, but there is a marvellous abundance of how.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You think that is an "issue"? Like, these bone guys just kinda guess?
They dont really know what they are doing?
How do you know it is an "issue"? You said is is Did you base that on knowledge or did you just think that up?

A part of paleontology is making assumptions about missing bones. You seem a little young, but perhaps you can research the scandal that broke years ago at NY's Museum of Natural History when it was revealed how most of the species on display were mostly presumptive models.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Just as we know bones of two human skeletons are both human. There will be multiple bones in common as well. For mammals, teeth is very characteristic for each species, they act as kind of species fingerprints... and as teeth are very hard, they preserve well and hence any fossil can be tagged it's species group based on teeth analysis.
Mammal Teeth

Ambulocetus teeth were found in immediate proximity to ambulocetus bones?

 

[sayak83]

Ambulocetus teeth were found in immediate proximity to ambulocetus bones?

Yes. In situ, as they say.

 

[sayak83]

Ambulocetus teeth were found in immediate proximity to ambulocetus bones?

The primary fossil itself is 80% complete. So in this fossil, matching was particularly easy. See below.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ans_an_Eocene_Cetacean_Mammalia_from_Pakistan

Additional Holotype Remains of Ambulocetus natans (Cetacea, Ambulocetidae), and Their Implications for Locomotion in Early Whales on JSTOR

 

[Audie]

A part of paleontology is making assumptions about missing bones. You seem a little young, but perhaps you can research the scandal that broke years ago at NY's Museum of Natural History when it was revealed how most of the species on display were mostly presumptive models.

I'm 33, for whatever difference that makes.

I can tell you one thing for absolutely certain, that I know a great deal more about geology / paleontology, and evolution in general than you dol

I can also tell you there was no "scandal" and your use of the words "assumptions" and "presumptive" imply vastly more than they deliver.

I am quite aware of the creationist belief that trotting out the word "assumption" constitutes some sort of silver bullet that slays science as they need. It does not.

As noted above, "assumption" and "presumptive"
sound-to you-as if they mean something but unless you can demonstrate they have meat-which you cannot-
it is just empty shallow talk.

Finally, even if a skeleton contains some models of bones rather than actually dug from the ground-what
possible difference does that make, really? ToE will
be falsified because one Triceratops horn is plaster, and some of the ribs are not dug from the ground?

A creo-idea about what is "wrong" with the science they dimly comprehend-based entirely on attitude and ignorance- is that is is conducted by shady
agenda driven characters for who "due diligence" or
"integrity" is a joke. Your "scandal", "assumption", "presumption" are fine examples of this.

Or no-not entirely. There is a major component of what is called "psychological projection". Intellectual honesty on the part of creationism is simply impossible. I certainly can offer lo and many an example to illustrate.

And I dont need to go back thro' the dusty archives
to do it. (see how the creationiosts endlessly trot out and misrepresent "Piltdown".)

Here is the joke: not one person, no "creation scientist", no actual scientist of any sort from chemistry to geology, physics, biology, nobody anywhere has ever
come up with anything that would disprove ToE.

Does it not occur to you that if it were "wrong" that it
would be massively wrong, and that the disproof would be everywhere, not supported in full by all the relevant hard sciences?

Even for one minute contemplate what significance that might have? Thirty seconds?

 

[Nigel Hoath]

A part of paleontology is making assumptions about missing bones. You seem a little young, but perhaps you can research the scandal that broke years ago at NY's Museum of Natural History when it was revealed how most of the species on display were mostly presumptive models.

I have tried to find the scandal but have found nothing. Can you give some links that I can follow up? Be much appreciated.