Question for a knowledgeable evolutionist

[Valjean]

Whence this idea that evolution can have only one mechanism?

There are several known mechanisms by which organisms change over time, and in different situations change can occur at very different rates.

 

[zabugle]

This is hilarious

Go Zabugle, I'm rooting for you.

Glad to provide amusement. I'm actually beginning to wonder if this might be a hazing ritual.

 

[zabugle]

Whence this idea that evolution can have only one mechanism?

From a very poor understanding of evolutionary theory

There are several known mechanisms by which organisms change over time, and in different situations change can occur at very different rates.

Absolutely

 

[Tawn]

Mutation is the only way to get new genes into a life form (excluding bacteria's ability to swap genes). The overwhelming majority of mutations, over 90%, are bad for a particular species. Science says that this 1 favorable mutation out of 10 is responsible for evolution of all species over time.

But what does the first Homo-sapien mate with? There has to be two around at the same time and not just two but at least a male and a female of breeding age.

There is a scientific concept called Punctuated Equilibrium. It seems that certain species slowly evolve to a point and then there is a sudden evolution of the whole. The entire species evolves in the exact same manner in one quick swoop.

When I said that there may be a guiding hand of God involved, I meant that it's in our DNA to become human and evolve in a certain direction. I don't think natural selection really has a choice which way it goes for us.

I think your understanding of evolution is somewhat skewed. As someone said, the majority of mutations are neutral. Yes, only a small number of mutations actually result in the evolution of the species - but I would urge you to stop thinking of mutations in terms of 'good' and 'bad' mutations.. that kindof thinking will lead you into a false understanding of evolution.

What really confirms a bad understanding of evolution is the idea that there was a 'first' homo-sapien. Remember always that our categorisation of species is an ARBITRARY CONCEPT. In evolution one species slowly becomes another through a series of small changes.. now these changes can come quickly, or slowly (or sometimes not at all).

As for pre-determined evolution... no. Species evolve according to context. What works wins. I understand your need to connect evolution with God, but honestly if you believe in the two - why cannot you believe that God intended evolution to work the way it does.. it is such a beautiful thing.. to say there is direct influence rather spoils it. If God is truly real and is the infinite.. he could have forseen how evolution would shape life.. creating the earth/universe may very well have been his influence.. from there the concept of natural selection takes life to where it is now...
all carfully controlled from the BEGINNING, not crudely manipulated AD HOC. To me it seems awfully un-godlike to do things ad hoc.

 

[Super Universe]

Sigh... Scientists ganging up on me. But then scientists chase after a train because they hear it when it is only the sound of a train.

I guess my word favorable should be replaced with advantageous. And genes are neither bad nor good, unless you happen to be born with Tay Sachs.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the proof that evolution is not pre-determined? I did say this was my opinion. And you certainly have a right to yours.

I have no need to connect evolution to God. I think logically it fits more than chance, upon chance, upon extreme chance. I believe natural selection is the main process regarding evolution over time. I believe physics controls matter and energy. God did not create the universe to fail.

What is the earth without sentient beings? Do you think it is simply another Mars that by chance happens to have an atmosphere, temperate climate, millions of species of life, and human beings?

Do you think it just coincidence that a beautiful earth swings about amid so many desolate, barren, lifeless, and boiling planetary bodies?

It is a beautiful thing but even moreso than you are now willing to accept. How does natural selection explain how we achieved self realization?

Direct influence? Not from God. I think the angels try their hand at things from time to time but over the course of history humans have given credit to God and the angels for some preposterous things (the flood, Soddom and Gomorrah, plagues...). As if God would create us, give us free will, then kill us for using it?

We were intended. We were planned. Not to be exactly as we are now (we have too many genetic diseases, our selfish nature is extreme...) but to be sentient humanoids populating the earth.

 

[Tawn]

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain the proof that evolution is not pre-determined? I did say this was my opinion. And you certainly have a right to yours.

Because we then wouldnt be talking about evolution. Pre-determined genetic changes over time is another form of creationism (but a more valid one I might add).
You have heard of a fellow called Charles Darwin - right? Well he was responsible for formalising the theory.. he was convinced that animals adapted to their surroundings and he called this evolution.
Call your viewpoint what you like, but evolution isnt pre-determined by the definition of the term.

I have no need to connect evolution to God. I think logically it fits more than chance, upon chance, upon extreme chance. I believe natural selection is the main process regarding evolution over time. I believe physics controls matter and energy. God did not create the universe to fail.

Im not following you.. your sentences seem to contradict one another... you dont connect evolution with god, but you believe in natural selection being the main process of evolution.. what?? If you believe evolution exists, it must connect with God, no?

What is the earth without sentient beings? Do you think it is simply another Mars that by chance happens to have an atmosphere, temperate climate, millions of species of life, and human beings?

Yes. Because there are Billions of Stars in who-knows how may galaxies.. and each might have a handful of planets orbiting it. We may be a statistical oddity. But in a universe this large a statistical oddity is not odd at all.

Do you think it just coincidence that a beautiful earth swings about amid so many desolate, barren, lifeless, and boiling planetary bodies?

Yes and the more barren lifeless planets there are around us, the more likely is our situation.

It is a beautiful thing but even moreso than you are now willing to accept.

Oh no, you have it very very wrong here. It is indeed a beautiful thing. However you see it as intentionally created, artificial if you will - where as I see it as a wonderous happenstance. I cannot begin to explain to you - but the world would not be even half and wonderful if I thought it was intentional.

How does natural selection explain how we achieved self realization?

Good question. I recommend you start a new thread with this!!

We were intended. We were planned. Not to be exactly as we are now (we have too many genetic diseases, our selfish nature is extreme...) but to be sentient humanoids populating the earth.

Possibly.. a Theistic-Evolutionist would think along the same lines...

 

[Valjean]

Scientists approach evolution as an exploration of mechanism.
Theologians approach evolution as a statement of agency.

Are we trying to compare apples and carburettors here?
One group is asserting that God designed it. Another is exploring the mechanisms by which the designn -- by whatever agent -- unfolds.

A description of automotive design and mechanics is a wholly different thing than a statement: "Ford made it!"

 

[Super Universe]

When you look at the universe do you see chaos or organization?

Planetary bodies fly about and crash into each other while others follow orbits that are stable for billions of years.

The universe is both. How does a universe create itself then organize itself amid such chaos?

It's all creationism either by direct intent or indirect intent. God created the materials within set guidelines to control them so the universe would continue without end.

He did not physically assemble the atoms like a person bakes a cake. He set the parameters that we call the laws of physics and natural selection.

Billions of stars? There are many, many more than that. You choose to side with a theory of a coincidence built on a million coincidences.

Atoms form themselves and propagate? Space creates itself, expands, and creates time as well? Now what would a mechanical universe of matter and energy need time for? Life evolves from chemicals and becomes sentient on it's own? This is what you choose to see.


You give great credit to Darwin for figuring out a tiny slice of how the universe works but what did Darwin create? Darwin did not create natural selection, it was already there.

Darwin simply performed all the logical steps to achieve the realization that natural selection is a process at work. But there is so much more. We are not done yet. We have only scratched the surface on how chaotic and organized the universe really is.

Unbelievers think that if God did create the universe then it is a failure because they see the bad things, they see chaos.

What they choose to ignore is that amid the chaos there are sentient beings who create art, music, and stress upon their children to be good. What use does natural selection have for a good child?

 

[mr.guy]

Unbelievers think that if God did create the universe then it is a failure because they see the bad things, they see chaos.

It's high time we start giving out awards for such mindless ramblings.

 

[nutshell]

It's high time we start giving out awards for such mindless ramblings.
[/size]

I'd support that because the RF award system is both good and evil, order and chaos. To have only one gift is to have no more that not many and to start mindles rambling awards would increase these gifts, bring order to chaos, chaos to order - evil to good and good to evil. All praise the gifts of the RF!

 

[Quiddity]

There are several known mechanisms by which organisms change over time, and in different situations change can occur at very different rates.

And in these different situations lie different things that cause it to go this way or that way. Such various possibilites is exactly what theist get bombarded for all the time. Sounds rather convenient. BUT, if that's what it is, then I have no problem embracing it. The possibilites are only bound to how creative the scientist can get in regards to what can or cannot affect it.

 

[JillianMarie77]

Just one point if I may. I'm certainly not an evolutionary expert.

The ONE thing that I see people most often lose sight of in a creationism vs. evolution debate is this:

Evolution does NOT address the origin of life. Evolution ONLY addresses how life ...well...evolves since being in existence.

Evolution and creation don't necessarily cancel each other out even if so far we're only able to scientifically verify one of them (evolution).

:curtsy:<------------ See? I'm a goody goody school girl

 

[ladylazarus]

I'm an evolutionist. Out of the many unfortunate holes in the theory, there is one that stands out prominently to me:

The development of wings. What benefits can a primitive wing provide before it evolved enough to actually allow the organism to hover, glide, or fly?

Does this answer your question?

If not, go here and scroll down to "Regarding the evolution of wings."

 

[finalfrogo]

Please don't dig up old threads. Especially :shudder: not this one.

 

[finalfrogo]

Additionally, my original statement was:

The development of wings. What benefits can a primitive wing provide before it evolved enough to actually allow the organism to hover, glide, or fly?

So I would ask you (if this wasn't an old thread), what good would those "half-wings" (I don't know what people call those...) on that creature be in it's primitive form--the form that existed before it's currently developed form? The form that wasn't developed enough to allow it to glide?

 

[DeepShadow]

Additionally, my original statement was:

The development of wings. What benefits can a primitive wing provide before it evolved enough to actually allow the organism to hover, glide, or fly?

So I would ask you (if this wasn't an old thread), what good would those "half-wings" (I don't know what people call those...) on that creature be in it's primitive form--the form that existed before it's currently developed form? The form that wasn't developed enough to allow it to glide?

Excellent point: What would be the benefits of a pre-gliding form?

The best candidate that I can think of is temperature control. This was actually addressed on page one and then promptly buried under everyone else's overenthusiasm, so please allow me to explain a little further:

Temperature control in animals, like so many other basic aspects of science, is governed by the ratio of surface area to volume. Scaling law dictates that a change in overall size will change volume faster than surface area, thus requiring compensating effects to increase surface area to avoid overheating. This is why elephants have such large, flappy ears: they aren't wings, but they make great air conditioning!

The commonly accepted position is that birds evolved from reptiles, or that both birds and reptiles evolved from a common ancestor. This is especially problematic for the temperature question, because reptiles--being ectotherms or cold-blooded*--stay close to the ground to conserve heat, while any ancestor of birds would have to adopt their upright stance very early in order to free up the forelimbs to become wings.

Even so, one has to ask, why give up use of the forelimbs just to regulate heat? First, remember that evolution works with what it has; while many animals use outer ear size and shape to regulate heat, that won't work for creatures like reptiles and birds, who don't have outer ears. Second, assigning heat regulation to limbs gives the animal an unprecedented degree of control, which then allows it to explore a wider range of climates and biomes much more quickly using those brisk hind legs!

Finally, we aren't certain that proto-birds gave up as much of their forelimbs as might be expected. After all, heat regulation would simply require large flaps that they could stretch or pull close as needed, but the digits may not have been committed to the project until much later. Until then, those flappy forelimbs could assist the animal in hunting with its head until the beak and neck developed to take over that job.

Does that answer your question any better?

* at some point, birds became endothermic (warm-blooded) but we're not really sure when that happened. For the sake of argument, I'm assuming this developed later, but it really doesn't matter; endotherms need to regulate their temperature like everyone else.

 

[painted wolf]

well let me repeat my answer from the first page of this discussion:

who's wings are we talking about?
One flaw in the what good are wings without flight is that wings arn't just for flying. Winged animals use wings for lots of helpful things.

in birds wings seem to have origionally been used for display, temperature control for not only the adult but also vulnerable eggs and young, manuvering while jumping/running/falling from heights. All things that wings are still used for.

In insects the wings are also used for temperature control, signaling, mating and so on.

Bats also use wings for temperature control as well as flight. Helps to keep them cool on those hot days.

so in short the wing is a very useful thing to have, eaven if it can't get you off the ground at first. Flight seems to have been a secondary development in terms of wing evolution.

and now to add some new stuff.

ps. deep shadow, the commonly accepted position is that birds evolved from dinosaurs, who are not "reptiles" in the classic definition of the term. Birds were likely warm blooded from the begining, however thier immediate dinosaur ancestors may or may not have been fully 'endothermic'. (much like the early mammals and the living tenrec who arn't very good at being 'endothermic' thier body temperature varies from 86-95*f according to the enviroment.)

my best guess as to why wings devoloped... reproduction. Showing off to mates, protecting young from the elements and predators and so on. Those flappy forlimbs were better suited for tree climbing than catching things. (apparently not enough forward mobility of the wrist, sholders and elbow. At least according to the last theory I read.)

wa:do

 

[Sapiens]

None of my above claims come from the Urantia Book. They come from trying to remember what I was taught in my college classes fifteen years ago.

Mutation IS the only way to get NEW genes into a life form.

Punctuated Equilibrium is a scientific concept. It's not from the Urantia Book. Anne's description of it sounds more correct than mine.

Finally, no one can prove or disprove that our evolution is guided so I suppose it's just another one of those faith things...

Also don't take everything in the Urantia Book at face value. The Urantia Book even says that certain scientific information given in the book is not precise.

It is not supposed to be so easily given, we have to earn it and in so doing improve our connection to God.

Did you think Einstein was so smart to figure out that space was time on his own?

Actually, time as a fourth dimension was first suggested by H. G. Wells, so Einstein pinning it down doesn't surprise me in the least ... he was a smart guy.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm an evolutionist. Out of the many unfortunate holes in the theory, there is one that stands out prominently to me:

The development of wings. What benefits can a primitive wing provide before it evolved enough to actually allow the organism to hover, glide, or fly?

Good question. Until fairly recently it was widely believed that birds morphed from dinosaurs, but this is another proposed 'transition' that is looking increasingly shaky, the more evidence that is gathered.

flight requires a lot of specialized engineering, a bird only needs a slight injury or clipping of the wing to render them useless- at which point they are a cumbersome disadvantage.

As with any aircraft, the more specialized the design, the more sensitive to alteration / damage of any kind. And so the more improbable it is, that a random mutation would ever significantly improve on that design, rather than significantly damage it.

 

[sayak83]

I'm an evolutionist. Out of the many unfortunate holes in the theory, there is one that stands out prominently to me:

The development of wings. What benefits can a primitive wing provide before it evolved enough to actually allow the organism to hover, glide, or fly?

A significanY fraction of Cretaceous era predatory dinosaurs ( tyrannosaurus and velociraptor family) have been discovered with feathered body and winged forelimbs that ended in sharp hooked claws ( search winged dinosaur fossils). Feathers, first having evolved in Jurassic to insulate dinosaurs were later further specialized in late Jurassic and Cretaceous for mating display and hunting. Predatory dinosaurs are bipedal and ran fast and jumped over prey while hunting. It's extremely difficult to maintain speed, maneuverability and accuracy on two legs at high speeds ( this should be obvious from your own experience) . Winged forelimbs provide critical aerodynamic support to achieve this and hence most small to midsized predatory dinosaurs sported winged forelimbs by early Cretaceous.