Thursday, September 10, 2009
Further thoughts about evolution
I was talking to a friend the other day and he brought up an interesting point on which I will expand.
If people lived in trees and there were no way of getting down except flying. Would people develop through evolutionary processes wings to fly down?...in other words accidental unguided information forming to produce wings?
Apparently it is claimed that dinosaurs turned into birds...I wonder why and how?
I just don't have the faith to believe that sought of thing.
Yes, I am sure there is evidence for evolution. There is evidence for ufo's...it does not mean that they are real.
Similarities of fossils does not mean they are derived from each other. It could mean they have a similar designer.
:)
I have a Nissan car and it is made by Nissan. There are many different varieties and ages of my car and I could show you a tree of the developments of there design. Did they accidentally evolve...or were they made?
Do you see the evolutionary assumption or fallacy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If evolutionists were honest, they would have to say that yes, it is a possiblity that the humans 'could' develope wings.
ReplyDeleteOr they could develope a system where they might adapt to the trees and never have a need to come down....we could have fun coming up with ideas of what the humans could develope to make their stay in the trees more comfortable!
Da Bomb,
ReplyDelete”If people lived in trees and there were no way of getting down except flying. Would people develop through evolutionary processes wings to fly down?...in other words accidental unguided information forming to produce wings?”.
I can’t imagine humans ever having to live in trees and certainly can’t imagine us not being able to construct a way of getting down if we have to. You need the right body type first.
I think I mentioned squirrels before; they spend a lot of time in trees and can leap from branch to branch. Do you think it’s ridiculous that a certain group might ‘micro-evolve’ the ability to glide because there are a lot of predators on the ground and so they need to stay in the trees or they won’t reproduce? From there, is it so ridiculous that another group might ‘micro-evolve’ a better form of sustained gliding…and then a better one…a better one and so on…until they have powered flight? They’d probably look something like a giant bat, right? Can you honestly say that this is beyond the realm of possibility?
With humans it’s different. You might as well say ‘what if elephants lived in the trees?’ Our body type (size, proportion, bone-density, etc,) does not appear to be compatible with the ability to fly, does it?
”Apparently it is claimed that dinosaurs turned into birds...I wonder why and how?”.
Some dinosaurs became birds. Specifically the theropod suborder. Look at the skeleton of a Compsognathus and tell me it doesn’t look like a bird. The answer to your 'how' question is in the squirrel example. As to why. Because it gave them an advantage over other competitors for the same food sources. [please don’t mistake this for a conscious choice on their part, it’s down to non-random selective pressures]
”I just don't have the faith to believe that sought of thing”.
The faith required to accept that ‘sought[sic] of thing’ is minimal if you familiarize yourself with the evidence.
”Yes, I am sure there is evidence for evolution. There is evidence for ufo's...it does not mean that they are real”.
There’s evidence for UFOs? Do tell!
It’s not just that there’s evidence for evolution, it’s that multiple lines of evidence from very different fields of science that all reinforce the theory of evolution as the best explanation for what we see in the natural world.
”Similarities of fossils does not mean they are derived from each other. It could mean they have a similar designer”.
It could, but there’s no good reason why they should, is there? Besides, you appear to be under the impression that fossils are our best evidence for evolution…they’re not.
Cont...
”I have a Nissan car and it is made by Nissan. There are many different varieties and ages of my car and I could show you a tree of the developments of there design. Did they accidentally evolve...or were they made?
ReplyDeleteDo you see the evolutionary assumption or fallacy?”.
Yes, I can see your fallacy. You think that comparing inanimate man-made objects to living, reproducing organisms is a valid analogy. It’s not. However, let’s look closer at your analogy and make it work a bit better;
Let’s take the Ford Model T as our common ancestor. This is analogous to the Kingdom – Animalia. Ok?
We have our variables:
The invention of new car technologies – analogous to random mutation in the genome
Customer preference (based on cost, design, etc) – analogous to natural selection.
So, After the Ford Model T fills all available niches in the environment, new technologies emerge and the gene pool of cars starts to diversify. The new cars that emerge from this process then have to fight in the market place to either find a new niche (affordability) or displace the old Model T.
Eventually you have multiple car companies (analogous to the various families in taxonomy) that all derive from that original Model T design but have enough differences that they can’t be made in each other’s factories (no inter-breeding). Each of these families (car companies) produces multiple models (species) who may have similar parts or designs but are distinctly individual designs.
All from that original Model T.
Does that help, or confuse?
Regards,
Have you ever seen a Nissan that can reproduce on its own, or with another Nissan very similar to it, that produces offspring that a very similar but slightly different than itself?
ReplyDeleteHow do you know a Nissan is designed? What do you compare it too to tell the difference?
As for the thought experiment, they are fun. If it was beneficial and would grant a reproductive benefit in the animal, then it is possible. Remember that evolution works with what is there, which doubling what is already there is working with what is there. The wings would have to be adapted from the arms of the "humans", much like a bat. Also, most mutations are neutral, this brings up genetic drift.
Show me evidence for UFOs. If you mean the actual meaning of unidentified flying objects, then yes there are often objects people can't identify. If you mean, aliens are visiting our planet, etc, then no there is no real evidence for this.
Daniel, have you ever visited http://www.talkorigins.org/ ? They answer all your questions.
Just to point out something about your similar fossils does not mean derived, tiktaalik rosea. It was a fossil discovered recently (a few years ago now) that showed there is causation to the correlation of nested hierarchies.
It is best to go the website on it, but I can give you a quick run down. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/
According to the Theory of Evolution, there should be a transitional fossil from primitive bony fish to tetrapods. It also predicted that this fossil should be found around the Devonian period. So a team of paleontologists from the University of Chicago went looking for this fossil. They first found a large geological column of Devonian rock formed from a shallow inland sea. Then they started digging. After some time they discovered tiktaalik rosea. It has features of primitive bony fish and that of tetrapods. This was a prediction made by the Theory of Evolution that was confirmed. This type of confirmation happens all the time.
Wayne,
There are several primates that we share a common arboreal ancestor with that did just that. In fact one of the great apes is still arboreal, the orangutan.
This is Why Every Scientist Accepts Evolution
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY
DonExodus2 is not an atheist.
Doubting atheists... :)
ReplyDeleteOf course there is evidence for ufos...
First hit on yahoo search:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/viewpage/topphotos/45.htm
I said: "Similarities of fossils does not mean they are derived from each other. It could mean they have a similar designer”.
EPM replied "It could, but there’s no good reason why they should, is there? Besides, you appear to be under the impression that fossils are our best evidence for evolution…they’re not."
There is no good reason for me to conclude that everything accidently developed itself...unless I had a motive for pushing the existence of God out of the equation.
Just because there is evidence that something can change is not evidence that everything has a common ancestor.
The fossil record should confirm or not whether it did happen.
Your Ford model T idea was cool! LOL, well thought out.
But it does not affect what I was putting across.
Beams,
Thanks for those links...I may check them out when I have more time.
Hey BathTub,
Howz it going down in the capital?
I am not against the idea of macro evolution of animals in of itself...biblically. Micro evolution is obvious.
It currently does not make sense to me. I still remain a skeptic of macro evolution.
cheers,
Dan
Overcast.
ReplyDeleteYour original post kind of amounts to 'ask a silly question, get a silly answer'
A simple question, did you know many Dinosaurs were feathered?
You know the Velociraptors from Jurassic Park?....
Yeah well newer fossil finds appear to show they were feathered. There are something like 20 odd known species of feathered dinosaur NOT birds, this is not including things like Archaeopteryx.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
Heh just looking at that list 2 more have been added since I last took a look.
Seriously look through DonExodus2 collection of videos. In the one I linked he shows plenty of 'transitional' fossils just showing the divergent development of the mammalian and reptilian ear. I guarantee you will be surprised at how well known and detailed some known histories are. The detail just isn't general knowledge.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDelete"There is no good reason for me to conclude that everything accidentally developed itself...unless I had a motive for pushing the existence of God out of the equation".
You're just being willfully dishonest now. 'Accidentally developed itself' is your dismissive code phrase for evolution occurring....but you've already said that you don't have a problem with micro-evolution and that is the exact same process! It's populations changing over time due to random mutations in the genome being acted on by natural selection. That is what you have agreed happens...and that is what you deny here.
The second part of this quote ("pushing the existence of God out of the equation") is also dishonest because you know, for a fact, that there are many believers who do accept that evolution happens and that the theory of evolution explains how (and to what extent).
So you know that evolution happens and you know that some theists accept it....yet you're happy to say that there's no good reason to accept it and that it pushes God out of the equation. Remarkable!
"Just because there is evidence that something can change is not evidence that everything has a common ancestor".
Evidence of change is not our evidence for common ancestry. As I said, if you actually read-up on evolution, you wouldn't have to make these erroneous conclusions based on a lack of information.
"The fossil record should confirm or not whether it did happen".
And it does. The best evidence we have for common ancestry is genetics. Fossil evidence provides confirmation of common ancestry because we keep finding species that we expect to find in places we expect to find them (see Tiktaalik)
"Your Ford model T idea was cool! LOL, well thought out.
But it does not affect what I was putting across".
And why not? I actually put quite a lot of time into constructing that analogy so that you could understand what I was trying to explain; your 10 word dismissal of it is quite insulting and disrespectful, in my opinion.
It would be nice, for once, if you actually explained why it doesn't affect what you were trying to get across.
From what I can see, the point you were trying to get across is that cars don't have common ancestors. This is true, if you're talking biology, because cars don't reproduce. But if you look at cars on their own terms, you can definitely chart the emergence of new car types from common 'ancestors'. So this definitely should change what you were trying to get across, and I'd like to know why it doesn't.
Regards,
Oh, and as for your UFO 'evidence', if you think that those pictures are equivalent - in any way - to the evidence for evolution then you are sorely mis-informed.
ReplyDeleteNo, not mis-informed - bald-faced lying, I think is the phrase that we need to use here.
Unless you take the existence of clouds that kind-of look like bears as 'evidence' that the Care Bears live in the sky and watch over us, in which case you're just unbelievably credulous.
Please correct me and let me know that you don't think UFOs and evolution have similar amounts and types of 'evidence' in favour of them. Please.
Regards,
EPM,
ReplyDeleteSometimes it is hard typing comments. Someone can grab a statement and run with it.
I said: "There is no good reason for me to conclude that everything accidentally developed itself...unless I had a motive for pushing the existence of God out of the equation".
You're just being willfully dishonest now. 'Accidentally developed itself' is your dismissive code phrase for evolution occurring....but you've already said that you don't have a problem with micro-evolution and that is the exact same process! It's populations changing over time due to random mutations in the genome being acted on by natural selection. That is what you have agreed happens...and that is what you deny here.
I am not being willfully dis honest...I am being honest. You are right, I don't have a problem with micro evolution. Having different varieties of whales does not mean they use to have legs.
So you know that evolution happens and you know that some theists accept it....yet you're happy to say that there's no good reason to accept it and that it pushes God out of the equation. Remarkable!
I find it remarkable that people accept it so readily. It makes me wonder why it caught on so fast in the world wide community even 100 years ago. I know that some theists accept it and I don't have a problem with them accepting it. But for everyone to be accepting it? makes me wonder whether it is an excuse to push away God. E.G. If there were no theory of evolution...would you believe in God?
Tiktaalik? Both you and Beams give this animal, and I think have heard it thrown around before...why is there only one generally used to show evolution? It makes me wonder if there really many others. Though I should look into it more.
"And why not? I actually put quite a lot of time into constructing that analogy so that you could understand what I was trying to explain; your 10 word dismissal of it is quite insulting and disrespectful, in my opinion."
Sorry if I insulted you. My point of the post is making out simply that similarities in animals are not necessarily strong evidence for evolution, just as cars have designers and makers:
The invention of new car technologies – analogous to random mutation in the genome
See, what you said here is not entirely a true analogy. "invention" of new car technologies is not "random", it is design.
Similar varieties can mean design, not evolution. That is my point. It is a fallacy to say that because something looks like something else it probably must have been one creature at one stage in the past and then divided.
No, not mis-informed - bald-faced lying, I think is the phrase that we need to use here.
Very strong Matt, not the normal you.
I am pointing out that people can run with what they think is evidence when it is not necessarily good evidence.
Thankyou for your time,
Dan
Whales still have legs you understand that right?
ReplyDeleteJust like Chickens still have teeth.
And we have a full body coat of fur.
And occasionally, in all 3 examples they are born with them.
And Tiktaalik is so often referenced because it's the perfect example of the scientific process at work.
Watch the video! It covers that.
And he dedicated 'transitional' fossil videos, which he also mentions in the video.
Also you could look into the clergy letters project.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm
12,000 Christian Church leaders
500 Rabbis
In support of Science & God.
"I am pointing out that people can run with what they think is evidence when it is not necessarily good evidence."
ReplyDeleteAnd I guarantee that you have no idea what the actual evidence even is.
Ok, maybe that was a bit strong!
ReplyDelete"Having different varieties of whales does not mean they use to have legs".
No, the fact that some of them still have legs is evidence that they used to have legs! The fact that they develop legs as embryos which are then re-absorbed, is evidence that they used to have legs. The genetic evidence that they are most closely related to land-mammals with legs (rather than to fish without) is evidence that they used to have legs. The sequence of whale transitional fossils showing both the shortening/modification of the legs and the migration of the nostrils to the back of the head...is evidence that they use to have legs.
So you see, evolutionary biologists don't just look at different species of whale and go; 'hey! They must have had legs!' It's a little bit more scientific than that.
You said that there was no good reason for you to accept evolution unless you had a motive to push God out of the equation.
The majority of religious people accept evolution and the majority of people who accept evolution believe in a god.
I pointed this discrepancy out (as it has been pointed out a million times before to you) and you respond with;
"But for everyone to be accepting it? makes me wonder whether it is an excuse to push away God. E.G. If there were no theory of evolution...would you believe in God?".
So you're making that false dichotomy again. No, I wouldn't believe in God if there was no theory of evolution. I just wouldn't know how living things got to be the way they are.
"why is there only one generally used to show evolution? It makes me wonder if there really many others. Though I should look into it more".
You probably should look into it more. The reason Tiktaalik is referenced so often is because it is such a good example of evolutionary transition. It is exactly what creationists had been demanding for decades and yet they still reject it. And yes, there are many, many others.
"See, what you said here is not entirely a true analogy. "invention" of new car technologies is not "random", it is design".
[Do you think there is such a thing as a 'true analogy'? Wouldn't that just be a description of whatever you're talking about?]
The point here is that there are many more design concepts that are proposed on the drawing board than actually make it to full assembly, aren't there? Lots of little gadgets and parts that might have made it, but didn't.
Random mutation is like this because there are lots (around 150 per generation in humans) of mutations, but not all of them are picked up and used, some are kept in storage and others are just scrapped because they don't work at all.
The fact that they are designed is inherent to the fact that we're talking about cars!.
"It is a fallacy to say that because something looks like something else it probably must have been one creature at one stage in the past and then divided".
And, as I've already said; The best evidence we have for common ancestry is genetics. At no point did I say that because things look similar it 'must' mean they had a common ancestor.
"Very strong Matt, not the normal you". I am pointing out that people can run with what they think is evidence when it is not necessarily good evidence..
Try reading the whole of my comment, Dan. This is exactly the point I was making. People can run with dubious evidence, thinking it's good evidence (like UFO believers), but if you think that is even remotely possible, given the strength and depth of the evidence for evolution then you are either not aware of the evidence, you're being an idiot or you're lying.
I prefer to think you're just not aware of the evidence (which is why I keep suggesting that you learn about it).
Regards,
Bath Tub,
ReplyDeleteAlso you could look into the clergy letters project.
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm
12,000 Christian Church leaders
500 Rabbis
In support of Science & God.
I had a quick look at this site and I thought it was interesting. I disagreed with some of their stuff that they portrayed but you are right, it is an interesting read. I disagree with one guy's stance on Genesis being poetic and not scientific.
And this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs.
Hmmm interesting. So do dinosaurs with feathers mean they evolved into birds?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY
So you were saying this guy was not an atheist? So what is he? He seemed to do everything but advocate God.
As for the video. Yes it is thought provoking. Even though they can make trees of relations between animals, I find it incomprehensible that it should happen by accident or without guidance. Such as Tiktaalik (if I remember correctly) and its bones that they think developed into finger joints. Why would they develop so nicely and orderly into finger joints to achieve a better purpose for them? It would seem like they are guided at least.
Hope you see my point? (thanks for the video and links)
cheers,
Dan
The simple point of the clergy letters project was that the God OR Science divide is a false one.
ReplyDeleteRemember the feathered dinosaur link was in response to your query. Feathers are just one of the lines of evidence on the matter.
Remember the whole point of that video was all the independent lines of evidence that confirm each other.
So the link of feathers is just one of the lines of evidence for that relationship.
One new line of evidence is the partial genetics done on the T-Rex fossil by Dr Mary Schwietzer.
And I am afraid I step back from my comment about DonExodus, I watched an interview with over the weekend on BlogTV and he said he is now an Agnostic. I'm sorry that was my misinformation there but it does sound like a recent change.
Not a single person ever has said "accident or without guidance", why do you say that?
Darwin didn't invent Evolution! Evolution, as a concept, has been around for thousands of years, literally. Darwin introduced natural selection as the guide for Evolution. That was his dramatic idea.
Mutations are random.
Evolution is not.
As for the video. Yes it is thought provoking. Even though they can make trees of relations between animals, I find it incomprehensible that it should happen by accident or without guidance. Such as Tiktaalik (if I remember correctly) and its bones that they think developed into finger joints. Why would they develop so nicely and orderly into finger joints to achieve a better purpose for them? It would seem like they are guided at least.
ReplyDeleteSaying evolution is unguided is a straw man. Evolution is guided by natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. That is what is guiding evolution.
Just got directed to this fantastic site.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dinosaur-world.com/feathered_dinosaurs/therizinosauroidea.htm
Apparently that is considered the strangest dinosaur ever by the author of the site. I can see why!
But take a look through from some really interesting drawings of the various known feathered dinos.
Thanks BathTub for the correction on that guy being agnostic.
ReplyDeleteNot a single person ever has said "accident or without guidance", why do you say that?
Darwin didn't invent Evolution! Evolution, as a concept, has been around for thousands of years, literally. Darwin introduced natural selection as the guide for Evolution. That was his dramatic idea.
Mutations are random.
Evolution is not.
I know evolution has been around for ages...even the Greeks thought of it.
Beams and BT,
Saying evolution is unguided is a straw man. Evolution is guided by natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. That is what is guiding evolution.
When I say guided I mean with a pre-thought out plan in mind...design not fluke.
Take Tiktaalik for example. The video showed that it had small usless fingers at one stage...but then it is claimed they developed to be longer ones.
So did natural selection pick out all the ones with short fingers because they were not as useful or/and was there a series of random (accidental) mutations that caused them to develop longer and longer and function as proper fingers evetually. It seems to me that the only possible answer if it evolved, like you say, is that it was guided or planned.
Mutations = directionless-randomness
Natural selection= will-less guidence.
can you guys see my point?
Dan
So if you believe there was guidance from some all-powerful will, why all the dead ends? Why all the negative mutations? The answer can't be sin. You are suggesting that evolution is guided by intelligence then you have to explain all the unintelligent choices, if you invoke sin then you are saying sin is more powerful than your intelligence that is guiding it. You can't have it both ways.
ReplyDeleteDa Bomb,
ReplyDelete"So did natural selection pick out all the ones with short fingers because they were not as useful or/and was there a series of random (accidental) mutations that caused them to develop longer and longer and function as proper fingers evetually. It seems to me that the only possible answer if it evolved, like you say, is that it was guided or planned"
Longer fingers provided the organism with a survival advantage that short-fingered members of the same species didn't have. Over time, long fingers dominate the population. It's as simple as that really (except, obviously, it's not!)
Cheers,
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteYou might want to take a peek at this video, which covers some common misconceptions about what the Theory of Evolution says, and what it does not say. It's ten minutes well spent.
cheers from overcast Vienna, zilch
Thanks for the video.
ReplyDeleteMany of the atheists on this blog have explained evolution a number of times but that video is probably one of the best for actually describing evolutionary beliefs clearly.
Did you see the latest new "Transitional" Dinosaur species announced? It's a mini-tyrannosaur. Raptorex!
ReplyDeletehttp://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/09/raptorex_tiny_king_of_thieves_shows_how_tyrannosaurus_body_p.php
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteDo you have the exact same finger length as everybody else you know? have you compared your hands to those of other people? Give it a try, you will be surprised at the variability.
Done? Well, those are random variations within our human population due to mutations, as any other variable feature of us. If longer fingers were advantageous many of us would not survive, but there would be survivors. Or, if there was an environment where longer fingers were advantageous those with longer fingers might be more successful within such an environment. Once there is a selected population with some difference in allele frequencies (those versions of genes giving them longer fingers), the members of such population would breed among their "peers" (in the sense of finger length). Well, that would mix several different genes that give you long fingers giving further possibilities for even longer fingers. The whole distribution of finger lengths moves.
I hope that is clear.
As of that question about humans evolving flight. Evolution works on what it has. Many organisms go extinct rather than evolve because the potential is not there for conquering some environments. Extinction is quite frequent Da Bomb. Evolution is not magic. If there is a way for evolving given the environment and the genetic background, it will happen. if not, so sorry, you are extinct.
G.E.
So Wayne,
ReplyDeleteIf evolutionists were honest, they would have to say that yes, it is a possiblity that the humans 'could' develope wings.
Hum, no. You obviously have no idea about evolution. As I said, it is not magic. This kind of "example" is called a straw man because it sounds ridiculous, tries to convey the meaning that this is what evolution is about, when it is not, and so on and so forth ...
G.E., people have shown the trait of webbed fingers and toes. I don't see too much of stretch, under the right conditions for man to start gaining some sort of gliding ability, like squirrels and certain Lemurs (primate, as you know). Which over time could develop into flight like a bat.
ReplyDeleteAfter saying that, I don't see it happening to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, because our intelligence would allow us to invent something to do the job before Evolution and Natural Selection had the chance too. But the hypothetical was, could it have been possible for man to develop wings under the right conditions.
ReplyDeleteBeam,
ReplyDeletehave seen this time and again. the creationists come with some weird scenario and ask if then would something get this or that as if it were pure magic, which is not.
I agree with you that had primates had the lifestyle and circumstances for flight to develop then maybe some primate would fly. But humans developing wings if they were committed to trees? Well, the honest answer is: Who knows? Maybe there are many other solutions to life at the tops that do not require flight, or maybe there is no genetic potential in humans for that, or maybe there is, but other competing animals would get rid of humans before humans had any chance to evolve. I rather explain that this is not magic than say yes for every hypothetical when I can surely explain it is not magic and get rid of one straw man right away (the straw man that "according to evolution we could develop anything under some circumstance").
As an example, many creationists would think that, according to evolution, I myself would develop wings in that situation if evolution were true. So, I rather use the opportunity for proper explanation and say, well, I would die, I have no potential for even gliding. But if some people can at least give huge jumps, those might start a new evolutionary trend.
See what I am trying to do? I know not all creationists are the same, but I have seen so many myths about what evolution predicts and permits than even people who kinda understand it, miss it when asked the wrong way.
G.E.
G.E.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that had primates had the lifestyle and circumstances for flight to develop then maybe some primate would fly. But humans developing wings if they were committed to trees? Well, the honest answer is: Who knows?
Exactly "who knows?". But what is most likely?
I just find it hard to believe that non flying animals can maybe through random mutations and unguided guidance through natural selection form into light feathered birds who rules the skies.
(I know BT gave some interesting links about dinosaurs and birds)
But if there is no pre-thought out plan for a dinosaur to become a bird, how on earth (literally) did it mutate (randomly) so well? Its mutations would have developed towards wings and feathers and weight reduction and keen eyes etc etc...without a plan?
I understand GE, I was just being pedantic. :) Of course there would be no way to call whatever that animal was a human.
ReplyDeleteDa Bomb,
You are looking at things wrong. You are looking for a top down explanation, with the idea that what we have now was the desired outcome. This just isn't true. Evolution by means of Natural Selection is a bottom up process. The theropods that have bird descendants were not trying to become a bird. The survivors were just better suited for the changes in environment. Which there was a major event, look up the K-T Boundary.
"I just find it hard to believe that non flying animals can maybe through random mutations and unguided guidance through natural selection form into light feathered birds who rules the skies".
ReplyDeleteDidn't we already talk about flying squirrels?
As Beams said, your mistake is in thinking that species are 'planning ahead' to reach a desired goal.
Can you not see that for a small, light, quick-moving animal (like a theropod) any adaptation that makes it lighter or faster, or enables it to leap/glide from tree to tree is going to be advantageous and thus distributed by inheritance throughout the population?
The fact remains that birds exist today, yet there was a period in the earth's history before which there were no birds, but there were bird-like theropod dinosaurs with feathers....piece the puzzle together...
Because this thread is still going.
ReplyDeleteDa Bomb, another feathered dino for you. The 'latest and greatest' , multiple specimens of Anchiornis huxleyi are now doing the news rounds.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8273938.stm
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteYou misunderstood me.
Exactly "who knows?". But what is most likely?
What I mean is truly I do not know what is more likely. My personal feeling is we cannot bet that a particular species population will have the potential to evolve in a single way to solve a problem (in your example that human populations specifically, would have the potential for evolving into flying primates). The evolution of flight is historical, we can follow the line to the past into those who had the potential, yet that does not mean that each and every species had it. It means some of which had it, evolved it. That does not mean the potential is not there for other species, it means we cannot know which species could evolve flight and which could not, or which would require going through other adaptations, maybe even seemingly unrelated, that would position them into the possibility to evolve flight.
I just find it hard to believe that non flying animals can maybe through random mutations and unguided guidance through natural selection form into light feathered birds who rules the skies.
While I have no problem with this at all.
(I know BT gave some interesting links about dinosaurs and birds)
But if there is no pre-thought out plan for a dinosaur to become a bird, how on earth (literally) did it mutate (randomly) so well? Its mutations would have developed towards wings and feathers and weight reduction and keen eyes etc etc...without a plan?
Yeah, without a plan. All is whatever happened in the history of the species. Maybe your problem is that you do not see the sequence, but Beam gave you a pretty one about squirrels. You would have to admit that from jumping to semi-gliding to gliding to flying it starts to make more sense than from walking directly to flying. Right?
G.E.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteSorry, it was ExPattMan who gave you the squirrel example.
Please read more carefully. We say a lot, and it seems like you miss the whole point in exchange for finding those sentences that you can use to properly ... misunderstand ... the point.
G.E.