The Problems with Evolution 1

[Knight-errant]

I've been taking Biology for the past semester and, of course, it got me thinking about evolution. Evolution's basic premise isn't that hard to understand: random mutation => mutation is beneficial => organism reproduces => new organisms more fit than before

But when I stopped to really think about the mechanics of evolution, things started to not make sense. I'm not going to list all of them, rather, I'll just pick one to make this topic simpler (and if it is interesting maybe I'll make more topics on the other things). So here it goes.

The First Problem with Evolution: Instincts.

Animals are born with innate abilities/tendencies known as "instincts." (For example, birds build nests. If you want to read more check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct)

But instincts produce a really big problem for evolution: pretend an animal evolves some really beneficial trait. How is it going to know how to use that trait? The only way I can think of is that the animal also evolves the instinct for that trait. Now, the odds are already against "beneficial" mutations (my biology professor who's in love with evolution said that almost all mutations end up being neutral or harmful), but the odds for an organism to evolve a beneficial trait AND the instinct of how to use it are simply astronomical. Besides the fact that I'm not even sure instincts can be evolved (although I don't see why the wouldn't be able to).

This came up in my Biology class when we were talking about the Archaeopteryx (I'm sure you know what that is, if you don't it's the most primitive bird. For more info type it into google). The question was raised: "Archaeopteryx may have had wings, but how did it have the instinct to fly?"

My Professor answered this by saying 1. That he didn't know and that it's still being researched, and that 2. The feathers may not have necessarily been for flight. They could've been for insulation (which wouldn't require instinct).

To conclude, no matter how beneficial a trait an animal evolves, that trait is useless unless the animal knows how to use it (i.e. has the instinct for it). Note that this excludes any traits that don't require instinct (such as warmer fur).

I'd be interested to hear what the arguments are.

 

[AltF4]

Well, I'm going to preface this by saying that I'm not as well versed in all of this as others on the SWF, such as GoldShadow for sure. But I can look at this from the perspective of cognitive science. I've had a good deal of experience with the study of cognition and intelligence. (In general, not in human intelligence)

There are two kinds of information an animal can have: Instinct and Learned knowledge. I think the distinction is clear by the names. Learned knowledge can become instinct however.

Take my dog, for example. He's a border collie. This dog has never seen a sheep in his life, and yet he has the instinct to try and herd animals. Whenever he sees cows or any other kind of animal in a herd, he jumps around and tries to corral them. It's adorable.

But this behavior was not naturally selected. Border Collie's were taught this behavior by humans. It was at one point only learned knowledge and later became instinct knowledge.

So an animal doesn't necessarily need to be randomly mutated into the proper instinct to use a beneficial trait. It can learn it by experience. And this is much more likely to happen.

 

[snex]

animals with new physical adaptations probably don't know how to use them at first. for example, archaeopteryx probably just jumped after food the way its ancestors did, and those that made better use of their wings were better able to catch food, thus putting selection pressure on evolving flight instincts.

 

[Surri-Sama]

animals with new physical adaptations probably don't know how to use them at first. for example, archaeopteryx probably just jumped after food the way its ancestors did, and those that made better use of their wings were better able to catch food, thus putting selection pressure on evolving flight instincts.

exactly Darwyns (wrong spelling yes but you get it) theorys about natural selection would quickly push the animals with abnormalities, into using them...

ex, A bird has wings but does'nt know how to use them, it gets hunted, killed and eatin, depending on the rate of this happening, the birds of this group, flock, (what ever you want to call them) will learn to use your wings to your advantage, or die

 

[ComradeSAL]

I'm an atrocious biologist and thus can't contribute directly, but after a bit of googling I found this wiki article, which is interesting and seems relevant to the conversation.

 

[Knight-errant]

Well, I'm going to preface this by saying that I'm not as well versed in all of this as others on the SWF, such as GoldShadow for sure. But I can look at this from the perspective of cognitive science. I've had a good deal of experience with the study of cognition and intelligence. (In general, not in human intelligence)

There are two kinds of information an animal can have: Instinct and Learned knowledge. I think the distinction is clear by the names. Learned knowledge can become instinct however.

Take my dog, for example. He's a border collie. This dog has never seen a sheep in his life, and yet he has the instinct to try and herd animals. Whenever he sees cows or any other kind of animal in a herd, he jumps around and tries to corral them. It's adorable.

But this behavior was not naturally selected. Border Collie's were taught this behavior by humans. It was at one point only learned knowledge and later became instinct knowledge.

So an animal doesn't necessarily need to be randomly mutated into the proper instinct to use a beneficial trait. It can learn it by experience. And this is much more likely to happen.

I'm interested in what causes the behavior of border collies. Because you're absolutely right: they have the instinct to herd things. The thing is...it can't be that "learned knowledge" became instinct, because evolution simply doesn't work like that.

There was this guy named Jean Baptiste Lamarck who made a theory of "acquired characteristics." This theory stated that traits parents acquire in life are passed on to their children (example: someone who works out and gets big muscles will have children with big muscles.) This theory was proved wrong when scientists cut off the tails of mice for many many generations (I can't remember the number, but something in me thinks it 40). Even though the scientists cut off the tails for 40 generations of mice, the children mice never were born without tails, and never were born with shorter tails either.

So that's why I have a problem with an acquired (or "learned") characteristic suddenly becoming something genetic.

Oh, check it out. I just found something on the border collie thing that makes sense:

What exactly is "herding instinct"?
The herding instinct in Border Collies is a behavioral trait that has been bred "into them" over the past two hundred years or so. What many people fail to realize, even long-standing Border Collie owners, is that the herding instinct is simply a modified version of the killing instinct of wolves. The instinct has been toned down somewhat through selective breeding. In fact, the instinct has not been bred "into them" but rather, "out of them". Border Collies retain the circling and gathering instinct so vital in hunting wolf packs but refrain from actually going in and making the final "kill".

They had more info basically saying that there are sometimes problems with "rogue dogs" that follow through and actually kill the livestock. So basically the conclusion is: "herding" is not a learned characteristic, it's simply a modified killing instinct behavior (which is in the genes, and therefore can be evolved, etc).

ex, A bird has wings but does'nt know how to use them, it gets hunted, killed and eatin, depending on the rate of this happening, the birds of this group, flock, (what ever you want to call them) will learn to use your wings to your advantage, or die

That's another thing I trying to figure out about evolution: everything takes too darn long. If it takes millions of years to evolve things, then all the animals don't have enough time: they're all going to die out before they can evolve. Especially since evolution makes small changes and not big ones. Let's say you're a prey and you need to evolve something to help you escape from predators. If you need two or three (or probably more) evolutionary building blocks to make a beneficial trait (say flight for example) then that's not just one million years, but two, three or more millions of years that you as a prey evolving a trait, all the while predators are whittling down your populations' numbers.. All the prey would die out before they had time to evolve the trait(s) to survive against the predators.

 

[ComradeSAL]

OK, I lied. I'll dip my toe in this conversation, but I might need some real biologists to bail me out eventually.

All the prey would die out before they had time to evolve the trait(s) to survive against the predators.

The key assumption that you are making here is that the predators have already evolved. However, this is not the case. Assumably, everyone starts as primordial ooze. Moreover, would-be predators have to be faster than their prey, so it actually takes more work to evolve to be a predator than to just eat grass. Instead of considering evolution as a ticking clock before you go extinct, you should think of it as an arms race where the predators always have a disadvantage.

But yes, if a pre-evolved predator is introduced into an ecosystem with a bunch of unadapted herbivores, the herbivores will rapidly go extinct. This is a well-documented phenomenon.

 

[snex]

That's another thing I trying to figure out about evolution: everything takes too darn long. If it takes millions of years to evolve things, then all the animals don't have enough time: they're all going to die out before they can evolve. Especially since evolution makes small changes and not big ones. Let's say you're a prey and you need to evolve something to help you escape from predators. If you need two or three (or probably more) evolutionary building blocks to make a beneficial trait (say flight for example) then that's not just one million years, but two, three or more millions of years that you as a prey evolving a trait, all the while predators are whittling down your populations' numbers.. All the prey would die out before they had time to evolve the trait(s) to survive against the predators.

its interesting to note that prey animals almost always have extremely fast breeding habits, or live in large herds; while predator animals have slow breeding habits and often live solitary lives. why is that? exactly because of what you mentioned.

as the saying goes, the fox runs for his dinner, but the rabbit runs for his life.

 

[Taymond]

Yeah, snex just made an amazing point. Prey animals breed faster so that beneficial traits can be reproduced quickly, and so that lost population can be regained quickly enough maintain a population balance between predator and prey.

They problem you're having in understanding this, Knight-errant, is that you want to think that evolution happens within generations, not over them, but there's simply no way for that to happen. Prey do not gain beneficial survival skills. Genetic mutations create them by chance, and those that have them survive to pass them on. Species don't "learn" how to evolve correctly or beneficially, they just work with traits that they already possess, via genetic mutations. Those that happen to be better suited to survive do.

That's why it's "Survival of the fittest" and not "Survival of those capable of adapting faster than others." If a particular prey creature is not born with appropriate survival skills, it dies young, and its lack of survival skills is not passed on to the next generation.

The border collie herding instinct was indeed bred out selectively, not bred in. The reason it exists in the first place, however, is because early on in the evolutionary chain, wolves (or predecessors) who were organized and able and willing to work in a pack atmosphere survived, and those that didn't died. The pack hunting trait was passed on because early creatures who hunted in packs survived, and their brethren who didn't died.

Already existing positive traits are passed on, they're not created based on the needs of the situation.

 

[behemoth]

I'm absolutely not trying to hijack this thread, but the turn this has taken is pulling me in so that I can inject another idea: Morphogenetic fields.

I'm sure everyone here has heard the following story, but I will relate it quickly then ask the permission of OP to follow this stream or avoid the semi-subject change.

Researchers in America were conducting a study concerning whether or not learning was inherited. They created an extremely difficult maze, and sent a group of mice (rats?) through it multiple times, until the average completion rate was markedly lower. They then sent their children through the same maze. The first time the children went through, their time nearly matched the fastest times of the earlier generation. The researchers thought that their study pointed to the direct filial inheritence of knowledge.

However, at the same time the second generation of subjects were being put through the study, a similar study was started in England. The first generation of subjects in the second study had an average completion time on-par with the second generation of the American study.


Okay, that having been said, I believe this topic (Morphic fields) lends itself to the turn this thread has taken in that it deals with species-wide adaptation.

However, most Morphic Field findings (especially those of Rupert Sheldrake) are met with skepticism.

So, I leave it up to the OP as to whether I should continue in this vein.

 

[snex]

behemoth, the experiments you describe simply never happened.

 

[behemoth]

...wha?

Well if they haven't, then I've been grossly mislead, and there is completely fictitious information in an ostensibly scientific book I read on the subject.

Good thing I didn't really go into it, then.

I'm not quite sure that they are absolutely untrue, but without further looking in to it, I won't put my reputation at stake by claiming them to be true.

Sorry for the mini hijack, and I will report back if I get relevant results.

....how embarassing.

 

[snex]

there is a similar effect to what you described, called the baldwin effect. after several generations of mice, the new mice will learn to run the maze faster than their ancestors did, but whats happening is not inheritance of the learning, its the *capacity* to learn how to run mazes. what you actually have made are just smarter mice who are able to learn to run mazes faster, rather than mice with innate knowledge of the maze their ancestors learned.

 

[Knight-errant]

Yeah, snex just made an amazing point. Prey animals breed faster so that beneficial traits can be reproduced quickly, and so that lost population can be regained quickly enough maintain a population balance between predator and prey.

They problem you're having in understanding this, Knight-errant, is that you want to think that evolution happens within generations, not over them, but there's simply no way for that to happen. Prey do not gain beneficial survival skills. Genetic mutations create them by chance, and those that have them survive to pass them on. Species don't "learn" how to evolve correctly or beneficially, they just work with traits that they already possess, via genetic mutations. Those that happen to be better suited to survive do.

That's why it's "Survival of the fittest" and not "Survival of those capable of adapting faster than others." If a particular prey creature is not born with appropriate survival skills, it dies young, and its lack of survival skills is not passed on to the next generation.

The border collie herding instinct was indeed bred out selectively, not bred in. The reason it exists in the first place, however, is because early on in the evolutionary chain, wolves (or predecessors) who were organized and able and willing to work in a pack atmosphere survived, and those that didn't died. The pack hunting trait was passed on because early creatures who hunted in packs survived, and their brethren who didn't died.

Already existing positive traits are passed on, they're not created based on the needs of the situation.

Sorry, let me try to rephrase my puzzlement.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that as soon as some species, whether it be predator or prey, develops an edge because of mutations, they're going to take over. Here's what I mean: By chance (because mutations are random) a prey develops mutations faster so that it eventually can evade predators with ease. The predators, who have been evolving slower, can't keep up and die out. The millions of years it takes for the predators to develop is just too long and they become extinct.

Now just apply this on a grand scale. It seems like a few races should have taken over, or that one type of animal (whether it be predator/prey, or fish/bird, or strong/smart) would be more prevalent, or etc

It just seems like everything works together much too well. For all of this random chance etc there seems to be a whole lot of order.

 

[AltF4]

Knight Errant: (about the border collie thing)

Well, that's really interesting. But aren't we still left with a similar problem? I don't see why it's impossible to breed an instinct into an animal but not out of one. I mean: what is special about unlearning rather than learning that allows it to be passed to successive generations.

You're still taking short term memory and over time turning it into instinct.


(PS: I'm confident that you know more than me about this subject. So feel free to inform me of anything I'm glaringly getting wrong. )

 

[snex]

Now just apply this on a grand scale. It seems like a few races should have taken over, or that one type of animal (whether it be predator/prey, or fish/bird, or strong/smart) would be more prevalent, or etc

the amount of species that once lived but are now extinct is well over 99%.

and your ignorance is not an argument for magic.

 

[Knight-errant]

the amount of species that once lived but are now extinct is well over 99%.

and your ignorance is not an argument for magic.

First of all: you're right, I forgot about that.

Second of all: Don't be dumb. I haven't said anything about magic in this thread (and if you're referring to God, I haven't said anything about Him either).

 

[adumbrodeus]

the amount of species that once lived but are now extinct is well over 99%.

and your ignorance is not an argument for magic.

He means there should be a much smaller number of species.

Not that a lot of species should've gone extinct.



I disagree completely with his conclusions, but misrepresenting his argument doesn't help.

 

[snex]

He means there should be a much smaller number of species.

Not that a lot of species should've gone extinct.

im sure hes done all the relevant math and can post it below...

 

[Knight-errant]

No, I wasn't really making a serious hypothesis, but kind of just throwing out a wild conjecture. I was hoping someone would either prove it or shoot it down so I'd know what to think about it.

Don't worry, if I want to make a point, I won't just state something random, I'll give some support to it.

But anyways, I've got a *new* thing to talk about. (sorry, I know this is changing the subject a bit, but I didn't want to make an entire new thread).

Let's go into how natural selection works. In fact, we'll use the classic moth example. The white moths verses the brown moths. During the industrial revolution when things get brown and dirty, the brown moths live by natural selection. You all know what I'm talking about. It's cool and it makes sense.

Now let's get into how Natural Selection plays it's part in Evolution. An organism develops a good trait, that organism survives better because of that trait, thus through Natural Selection its genes live on.

The problem: traits have to be very beneficial to be naturally selected. For example, if I'm building a wagon, it might be no good with only one wheel. So you come over as the NS Inspector and say, "Son, that's useless, we're getting rid of it." And I say, "Just give me more time! Once I add the wheels it'll be perfect!" But nope, the NS Inspector gets rid of it. Because that's how natural selection works. Not only does a trait have to be useful in it's fully developed form, but it also must be useful every single step of the way or else it will not be naturally selected.

Now let's apply this to a real example. I don't know if you guys have ever heard of the whole "flagellum" thing. But here it goes if you haven't:

The flagellum is surprisingly complex. It has several different parts that all work together to provide locomotion. It's like a miniature motorboat motor. However, evolution could have never evolved it. Why? Because each of the parts would have had to evolved seperately, however, the parts are useless unless they work together. Therefore, natural selection would have never allowed all the parts to evolve to work together, just like the inspector wouldn't let me finish the wheels on the wagon.

Does this make sense? If it's confusing just let me know and I'll re-explain it. Let me know what you think. Hey, I'm open-minded, so if you are totally against me you don't have to insult me or anything (please? )

 

[blazedaces]

No, I wasn't really making a serious hypothesis, but kind of just throwing out a wild conjecture. I was hoping someone would either prove it or shoot it down so I'd know what to think about it.

Don't worry, if I want to make a point, I won't just state something random, I'll give some support to it.

But anyways, I've got a *new* thing to talk about. (sorry, I know this is changing the subject a bit, but I didn't want to make an entire new thread).

Let's go into how natural selection works. In fact, we'll use the classic moth example. The white moths verses the brown moths. During the industrial revolution when things get brown and dirty, the brown moths live by natural selection. You all know what I'm talking about. It's cool and it makes sense.

Now let's get into how Natural Selection plays it's part in Evolution. An organism develops a good trait, that organism survives better because of that trait, thus through Natural Selection its genes live on.

The problem: traits have to be very beneficial to be naturally selected. For example, if I'm building a wagon, it might be no good with only one wheel. So you come over as the NS Inspector and say, "Son, that's useless, we're getting rid of it." And I say, "Just give me more time! Once I add the wheels it'll be perfect!" But nope, the NS Inspector gets rid of it. Because that's how natural selection works. Not only does a trait have to be useful in it's fully developed form, but it also must be useful every single step of the way or else it will not be naturally selected.

Now let's apply this to a real example. I don't know if you guys have ever heard of the whole "flagellum" thing. But here it goes if you haven't:

The flagellum is surprisingly complex. It has several different parts that all work together to provide locomotion. It's like a miniature motorboat motor. However, evolution could have never evolved it. Why? Because each of the parts would have had to evolved seperately, however, the parts are useless unless they work together. Therefore, natural selection would have never allowed all the parts to evolve to work together, just like the inspector wouldn't let me finish the wheels on the wagon.

Does this make sense? If it's confusing just let me know and I'll re-explain it. Let me know what you think. Hey, I'm open-minded, so if you are totally against me you don't have to insult me or anything (please? )

I'm by no means an expert in biology, but this video seems to answer your exact question and explains itself fairly well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

The video explains most of what I was going to talk about in this post, but I think it might be unnecessary at this time.

Now, I'm going to try and work with your wagon example a little bit. Now, your wagon has to be evolving from something (since evolution doesn't go from wood to wagon) so let's just start with a horse and I'll create a small line from there:

horse->man rides on horse->man rides on horse with saddle->man rides on horse with reigns and saddle->man adds plow and lets horse carry him and plow with a bit of help->an added wheel and a slightly modified plow becomes a simple buggy-like device to carry a heavy object->another wheel makes it a buggy-> two buggies together (note that someone might need to ride the horse or something like that to keep it stabilized, that's ok)->put a roof over them both (you're basically at a wagon here, but if not you can see how it gets there soon...)

Both systems seem complex, but both can be explained. You must try to open your mind to more possibilities.

I would also add one thing here. If you really are interested in evolution and biology in general I advise you to do some research of your own. There's a heck of a lot of reading material out there just waiting for anyone interested. I know that you might have to start from a base that isn't as interesting to you, but if you really want to understand it then this might be a necessary step.

-blazed

 

[snex]

however, the parts are useless unless they work together.

can you stop repeating lies? REAL scientists have knocked out pretty much every part and the stuff that remains still performs a useful function.

next time you read this garbage on some fundamentalist website, go ask a REAL biologist if its correct before repeating it here. do some freaking research already and stop relying on us.

 

[adumbrodeus]

im sure hes done all the relevant math and can post it below...

I'd be interested in the math as well. I'm not agreeing with him, I'm merely insisting you do not misrepresent his argument.

The problem: traits have to be very beneficial to be naturally selected. For example, if I'm building a wagon, it might be no good with only one wheel. So you come over as the NS Inspector and say, "Son, that's useless, we're getting rid of it." And I say, "Just give me more time! Once I add the wheels it'll be perfect!" But nope, the NS Inspector gets rid of it. Because that's how natural selection works. Not only does a trait have to be useful in it's fully developed form, but it also must be useful every single step of the way or else it will not be naturally selected.

Now let's apply this to a real example. I don't know if you guys have ever heard of the whole "flagellum" thing. But here it goes if you haven't:

The flagellum is surprisingly complex. It has several different parts that all work together to provide locomotion. It's like a miniature motorboat motor. However, evolution could have never evolved it. Why? Because each of the parts would have had to evolved seperately, however, the parts are useless unless they work together. Therefore, natural selection would have never allowed all the parts to evolve to work together, just like the inspector wouldn't let me finish the wheels on the wagon.

No a trait doesn't have to be extremely beneficial to be naturally selected for. A tiny bit of extra utility will cause it to be selected for in the gene pool, therefore it will be more prevalent. How useful it is will decide on how quickly those who have the trait will replace those who do not, or even if there is a total replacement.

Furthermore, you are forgetting a very fundamental part of natural selection, only bad traits are selected against. Furthermore, how long it takes a bad trait to be removed depends on the trait and how poor it is.

For instance, being lame in a cat is a massive disadvantage and will be immediately be removed. However, genetic lameness is can be compensated for by human technology and is only a relatively minor hinderance, therefore will not necessarily be selected against.

So useless or even poor traits often survive for long long periods of time because there's no or only a tiny (respectively) advantage in removing them so individuals without the trait are about as likely to breed or slightly less. Eventually another trait develops which is also neutral, and that is present in a large percentage of the population. This goes on for a while, with additional neutral or slightly poor traits being added on.

Then, something happens. A trait that builds upon all those previous traits that doesn't work without them develops. Now, a massive advantage is in place for that individual, so it breeds successfully and suddenly the entire population has the trait.

And that's how you get complex traits to develop. It's called "punctuated equilibrium"

 

[CKaiser]

Adumbrodeus explained it way better than what I could have done, but just to emphasize I think that you're overestimating the degree to which mutations affect survival rates, it's not that pronounced of an effect. Just because of a single mutation, a whole species is not going to die out and for every member of the species with that trait there are going to be members without it for quite a while which predators can prey on before they adapt to the new trait.

 

[Shiny Noctowl]

A problem with the Archaeopteryx example is that evolution claims that the wings would form in small, repeated mutations. However, partially-evolved wings are worthless, so the wings must have evolved all at once, which is such an incredibly small chance that an intelligent agent (God) has to have done it.

 

[Shiny Noctowl]

the amount of species that once lived but are now extinct is well over 99%.

and your ignorance is not an argument for magic.

We aren't arguing for magic.

 

[blazedaces]

A problem with the Archaeopteryx example is that evolution claims that the wings would form in small, repeated mutations. However, partially-evolved wings are worthless, so the wings must have evolved all at once, which is such an incredibly small chance that an intelligent agent (God) has to have done it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds :

Archaeopteryx was the first and for a long time the only known feathered animal (or dinosaur, if one accepts the majority view that birds are modified dinosaurs). As a result discussion of the evolution of birds and of bird flight centered on Archaeopteryx at least until the mid-1990s.

There has been debate about whether Archaeopteryx could really fly. It appears that Archaeopteryx had the brain structures and inner-ear balance sensors that birds use to control their flight.[95] Archaeopteryx also had a wing feather arrangement like that of modern birds and similarly asymmetrical flight feathers on its wings and tail. But Archaeopteryx lacked the shoulder mechanism by which modern birds' wings produce swift, powerful upstrokes (see diagram above of supracoracoideus pulley); this may mean that it and other early birds were incapable of flapping flight and could only glide.[93]

But the discovery since the early 1990s of many feathered dinosaurs means that Archaeopteryx is no longer the key figure in the evolution of bird flight. Other small, feathered coelurosaurs show features that may be pre-cursors of avian flight, for example: Rahonavis, a ground-runner which had a Velociraptor-like raised sickle claw on the second toe and which some paleontologists think was better adapted for flight than Archaeopteryx;[96] Epidendrosaurus, an arboreal dinosaur that may provide some support for the "from the trees down" theory;[97] Microraptor, an arboreal dinosaur that may have been capable of powered flight but, if so, more like a biplane as it had well-developed feathers on its legs.[98]

It's actually sort of funny (in an ironic sort of way). If you did any research whatsoever you would have discovered that the Archaeopteryx actually has partial wings (most probably incapable of full flight, more made for gliding purposes).

Still, you didn't ask a real biologist nor did you take the time to read up on any serious information on the subject.

next time you read this garbage on some fundamentalist website, go ask a REAL biologist if its correct before repeating it here. do some freaking research already and stop relying on us.

And by the way, again, as he said above, throwing your hands up in confusion is not an excuse for magic or god.

-blazed

 

[snex]

We aren't arguing for magic.

you just did: "which is such an incredibly small chance that an intelligent agent (God) has to have done it. "

 

[adumbrodeus]

A problem with the Archaeopteryx example is that evolution claims that the wings would form in small, repeated mutations. However, partially-evolved wings are worthless, so the wings must have evolved all at once, which is such an incredibly small chance that an intelligent agent (God) has to have done it.

*Bolding added


I dealt with this before....

I'll consolidate however, because that post was rather large.



2 problems with what you are saying.

1. How do you know that partially formed wings were useless? I can think of quite a few things that partially evolved wings could assist with depending on what portions evolved first. For example, gliding, jumping assistance, running assistance, climbing. At each step there could easily be a definite advantage to the change. Heck, in drastically different conditions, things that we would think of an advantage (ex. being flightless for the dodo bird) would be an advantage at the time it developed, which would allow for attributes to develop that utilize the old attributes.

2. Just because it's useless doesn't mean it will be selected against. It just means that it will not be selected for. If it's a detriment, an attribute will be selected against, but the degree depends entirely on how detrimental it is to breeding chances. For this reason, slightly detrimental attributes can last for generations, and even very detrimental attributes can last for long enough that a complimentary attribute develops that turns it into an advantage.



So there you have it, there's no reason for wings to have not developed bit by bit.

 

[Shiny Noctowl]

You're still ignoring the fact that bacteria propel themselves using an incredibly complex system that resembles mechanical gears, and each of those parts is useless on its own, so they can't have evolved by chance.

 

[adumbrodeus]

You're still ignoring the fact that bacteria propel themselves using an incredibly complex system that resembles mechanical gears, and each of those parts is useless on its own, so they can't have evolved by chance.

No I'm not, I dealt with it quite cleanly.

Attributes don't have to be useful to survive in the gene pool for extended periods of time. They only have to not be detrimental enough for elimination.

Furthermore, you can't prove that the steps that led up to that complex system of gears weren't useful.


Both of those things both destroy your argument and can be applied to every single solitary example you have given up to this point and almost definately any example you come up with in the future.

 

[The Executive]

Just throwing this out there...the human appendix looked useless and was regarded as unnecessary for a long time, but recently it was discovered to have an immunological role in the lymphatic system. Point being, just because something looks like it was useless doesn't mean it was.

 

[blazedaces]

You're still ignoring the fact that bacteria propel themselves using an incredibly complex system that resembles mechanical gears, and each of those parts is useless on its own, so they can't have evolved by chance.

This specific piece of nonsense was answered earlier in the thread (on page 2 no less... a few posts before yours!).

Learn to read! This is getting ridiculous.

It's not even about reading a link that was kindly provided to you with lots of information you can take in. It's now about reading earlier on in the same page!

-blazed

 

[snex]

You're still ignoring the fact that bacteria propel themselves using an incredibly complex system that resembles mechanical gears, and each of those parts is useless on its own, so they can't have evolved by chance.

care to show us the gears? http://www.talkreason.org/img/Bessett/fig4.jpg

 

[Shiny Noctowl]

care to show us the gears? http://www.talkreason.org/img/Bessett/fig4.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Flagellum_base_diagram.svg

I said that, in their complexity, they resemble a mechanical device.

 

[blazedaces]

care to show us the gears? http://www.talkreason.org/img/Bessett/fig4.jpg

OMG Snex! Forget the gears. Did you notice the arrow-like objects?! Woah...

-blazed (bad joke, don't hate me ok)

 

[snex]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Flagellum_base_diagram.svg

I said that, in their complexity, they resemble a mechanical device.

which isnt an argument for anything. the "face on mars" resembles a face.

 

[Kur]

In response to the original poster.

The problem you are having is that you are thinking about evolution as a series of steps. You are thinking "Ok birds evolved wings, so how do they know how to use them?"

The thing is that as the wings were evolving, so where the instinct to use them properly. Evolution happens everywhere at once. It does not happen in steps. As the eye was developing from simple photo receptor cells, the brain was also evolving the nerves and areas to be able to process the images. The eye could NOT have evolved unless the animal was able to use it during the process. And even then the eye and the ability to process the images never would have evolved unless the animal had the instincts to react to the images it was seeing.

This is how evolution works. The odds aren't as bad as you think they are because if a mutation is beneficial, it can only be so if the animal can use it. So a beneficial mutation that the animal never uses gives it no advantage.


It is also worth noting that while this is an interesting subject to think about, it could in no way disprove evolution simply because evolution has been observed, there is literally mountains of physical evidence, and enormous genetic evidence. All of this would have to be shown false as well.


And somebody said something to the effect "just because something looks useless doesn't mean that it is" concerning the human appendix. While the appendix does have a function, that function is ever so slight and not important at all. The function of the appendix is continually becoming weaker and weaker and in some people does nothing at all.

Other examples though of vestigial organs/body parts are dew claws on dogs. My own dog had dew claws on its hind legs that were completely useless. One even fell off while it was running in tall grass. The dog didn't notice a thing. Whales have hind leg bones that do absolutely nothing. They just float there under their skin attached to almost nothing. Some snakes have the same thing. The human ear has vestigial muscles that serve no purpose. In other primates the muscles fold and direct the ears, in humans they sit there never flexing at all. The structure of the ear is supported by cartilage. The muscles are completely vestigial.




You're still ignoring the fact that bacteria propel themselves using an incredibly complex system that resembles mechanical gears, and each of those parts is useless on its own, so they can't have evolved by chance. - Shiny Noctowl

Ah yes. the bacterial flagellum. It doesn't resemble gears at all, but a tiny electric motor. It has something like 43 individual parts that make it spin at insane RPMs, stop or even reverse on a dime, and has almost no friction whatsoever. Take any one part out of the flagellum and it does not work anymore. So how did it evolve?

simple. It evolved by changing its function. The original function was a simple pore, that allowed the movement of proteins into the periplasm... Well actually, it is better explained in the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

There are other videos too showing the evolution of the eye, the bombardier beetle, and all of the other creationists go-to 'irreducible complexity' arguments.

I hope this was informative.

 

[mzink*]

=But this behavior was not naturally selected. Border Collie's were taught this behavior by humans. It was at one point only learned knowledge and later became instinct knowledge.

So an animal doesn't necessarily need to be randomly mutated into the proper instinct to use a beneficial trait. It can learn it by experience. And this is much more likely to happen.

The behavior of a border collie is simply the predator vs. prey instinct watered down. Border collies have wolf instincts in them which cause them to act that way, humans simply channeled that instinct and turned it into what they wanted so they could use it. They stalk as if they are hunting. This IS instinct, not taught, only altered by humans.

Edit: Apologies, I didn't see that you were already corrected until after I posted

 

[manhunter098]

Well I dont think I see any problem in the situation you had in your classroom debate. Wings likely evolved from an organism that could glide, which probably came from an ability to jump relatively well initially, they could cross gaps so that predators could not catch them. So the wing evolution essentially slowly allowed them to reach longer and longer distances (by slowing their falling speed), and as they evolved muscular control over those wings they could then flap them to glide longer distances. Eventually they could outright fly entirely.


Just my take on your classroom debate. I might not be right, but its a logical explanation that fits with the theory of evolution.


You can never start with the simple instant instinct. Idea. All instincts evolve from similar instincts, just like all physical traits evolve from some minor change to an existing physical trait.