Denial of evolution III

[matthew809]

Change the environment and you change the 'quality' of the DNA and the 'quality' of the animal that will survive.

Yes I understand that's natural selection. You and I both agree that natural selection is a very real process. We can also agree that genetic variations happen all the time. This process is observable and understood. Where we disagree is to the extent of change that any genetic code can undergo simply from natural selection and natural processes.

For example, lets say that birds evolved from lizards (which I believe is the common belief among evolutionists...?). According to evolution, the wings must have formed gradually over time through a series of mutations, and these mutations must have all been functional and advantageous(not to mention symmetrical) in order to carry on. Since the fossil record is so rudely absent... what do you imagine each mutation might have consisted of? Please give a step-by-step description of the possible evolution of a bird's wings(from a lizard).

 

[Billy T]

... But I mind open and look and learn.
I am interested in the conclusions of specialists in any field.

Great. I certainly did not want to discourage that.

... The quote I used I found here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics
To convince me that you are right and not the quote which I've used you have to give a link.

I will not search for a link, (they are not alaways correct) but explain why

"It is possible, however, to augment quantum mechanics with non-local hidden variables to achieve a deterministic theory that is in agreement with experiment. An example is the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics. ...''

while true can not be extended as you did to the Schrödinger equation. I.e. the Schrödinger equation has only local variables.

For a decade or more, Bell's inequality has been tested and it and these experiments have ruled out the possibility of local variables (If you want to keep causality, as I remember, and all who believe in determinism do.)

I was once very enthused with Bohm's version of QM but nowthink it must violate fact that all electrons are identical. I can't go in great detail but he has electrons as classical particles (go thru only one slit, etc) and adds the concept of an unobservable "guiding wave" which goes thru both slits and determines where they hit the phosphors of a screen to make an interference pattern, etc.

My problem with this concept is that each electron has it own guiding wave and is guided only by it, yet is possible to have two (or more) guiding waves overlap. Thus each wave must recognize "its electron" but all electrons are identical, so we now believe.

...And also I found this:
"This is referred to as the problem of future contingents.[1] Often synonymous with Logical Determinism are the ideas behind Spatio-temporal Determinism or Eternalism: the view of special relativity. J. J. C. Smart, a proponent of this view, uses the term "tenselessness" to describe the simultaneous existence of past, present, and future. In physics, the "block universe" of Hermann Minkowski and Albert Einstein assumes that time is simply a fourth dimension that already exists (like the three spatial dimensions). In other words, all the other parts of time are real, just like the city blocks up and down one's street, although we only ever perceive one part of time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Varieties_of_determinism

That seems quite like Bohm's QM POV. I am quite opposed philosophically to the idea that we see / experience only the current (to us) frame of a movie of the history (and future) of the universe. That all, past and future is determined and just experienced frame by frame for us.

I skipped your last link (limits of time and most anything can be found here at Sciforums.)

 

[Emil]

Great. I certainly did not to discourage that.
I will not search for a link, (they are not alaways correct) but explain why

"It is possible, however, to augment quantum mechanics with non-local hidden variables to achieve a deterministic theory that is in agreement with experiment. An example is the Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics. ...''

while true can not be extended as you did to the Schrödinger equation. I.e. the Schrödinger equation has only local variables.

For a decade or more, Bell's inequality has been tested and it and these experiments have ruled out the possibility of local variables (If you want to keep causality, as I remember, and all who believe in determinism do.)

I was once very enthused with Bohm's version of QM but nowthink it must violate fact that all electrons are identical. I can't go in great detail but he has electrons as classical particles (go thru only one slit, etc) and adds the concept of an unobservable "guiding wave" which goes thru both slits and determines where they hit the phosphors of a screen to make an interference pattern, etc.

My problem with this concept is that each electron has it own guiding wave and is guided only by it, yet is possible to have two (or more) guiding waves overlap. Thus each wave must recognize "its electron" but all electrons are identical, so we now believe.

That seems quite like Bohm's QM POV. I am quite opposed philosophically to the idea that we see / experience only the current (to us) frame of a movie of the history (and future) of the universe. That all, past and future is determined and just experienced frame by frame for us.

I skipped your last link (limits of time and most anything can be found here at Sciforums.)

I have notified your personal opinion.
Thanks.

 

[Neverfly]

I am convinced that if the terms of throwing the dice are identical then the result is identical.


That's what common sense would say, I agree, but
Emil, that's just not the case. Experimentally not the case.

Do a google search for chaos theory.

I already tried with Emil.
Until Emil realizes that his cup is too full, he'll never be able to add anything to it.

For example, lets say that birds evolved from lizards (which I believe is the common belief among evolutionists...?). According to evolution, the wings must have formed gradually over time through a series of mutations, and these mutations must have all been functional and advantageous(not to mention symmetrical) in order to carry on. Since the fossil record is so rudely absent...

It is?
Why state facts about which you are ignorant?
That's very annoying.
Wings are nothing new:

Nor are feathers:

 

[GeoffP]

For example, lets say that birds evolved from lizards (which I believe is the common belief among evolutionists...?). According to evolution, the wings must have formed gradually over time through a series of mutations, and these mutations must have all been functional and advantageous(not to mention symmetrical) in order to carry on. Since the fossil record is so rudely absent... what do you imagine each mutation might have consisted of? Please give a step-by-step description of the possible evolution of a bird's wings(from a lizard).

You forget the natural advantages of feathers in heat insulation.

i) 'Warm-blooded' therapod develops abberant scales, which confer massive advantages in retention of body heat, producing a more heat-efficient small therapod.
ii) Radiation of members of the new form into multiple niches, including semi-arboreal, because of the instant, considerable energetic advantage of feathers.
iii) Elaboration of feathers in arboreal forms via further mutation. Short gliding flights now possible. (NB: feathered therapods - i.e. raptors and larger therapods such as T. rex had long persistence, suggesting general utility of this form.)
iv) Further mutational elaboration - feather structure able to support increasing weight. Longer glides possible. Archaeopteryx.
v) Mutational elaboration - pectoral muscles are able to invoke limited flapping. Longer flights possible.

Etc.

Although, in point of fact, Protoavis suggests much earlier evolution of Aves, with Archaeopteryx being kind of a left-over. Hard to say at this point. As for my projection above: there are others that are better, I imagine, but one can see how easily such a series of mutations could occur over a time scale that may approach 50 million years. For a modern passerine, that could be as much as 50 million generations. Averaged across the (presumably) longer generation times of a moderately sized therapod (plus various intermediate forms), this might be in the area of 20 million generations.

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

Hairs, feathers, teeth, mammary glands are all ectodermal organs. They all start in the same way. They all share the same regulatory setup in the beginning. It's mostly later when they start to diverge.

If you can make a tooth, it isn't difficult to make a hair. Or a feather. Genetically speaking.

Feathers are only a problem when you still live in the dark era of 'blueprint'. A one on one translation of all features with genes.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Please note that there is a difference between "that's just not the case" and "Experimentally not the case".

Chaos theory does not counter his statement/conviction.
Chaos theory, as I'm sure you are aware, relates to the sensitivity of an outcome to the opening conditions... i.e. comparison of outcomes from SIMILAR BUT NON-IDENTICAL starting conditions.

Emil is clearly detailing the theoretical case of IDENTICAL starting conditions.

Point accepted. My mistake.

 

[Billy T]

You forget the natural advantages of feathers in heat insulation....

Body hair probably is mainly for thermal control. In general animals that live in tropical lands (or where there is a lot of sunshine) need to limit how much sunlight/ radiant heat reaches their body. - Nature's clever way to do this is dark hair*. I.e. the thermal energy is absorbed by the hair a cm or more from the body and then transfered to the air.

In cold regions, for land animals (ones that do not live in the water** with layers of fat insulation), light colored hair is best. It serves as a thermal blanket to reduce body heat losses and also when thermal photons strike a hair, they tend to be scattered inward towards the body rather than absorbed in the hair.

That is only one factor in why arctic rabbits and polar bears have white fur. On the snow covered land being white helps the first survive and the second to sneak up on its prey.

I have a bird pet - it controls the thickness of air trapped in its feathers, thicker when it is cold. Thus for thermal control, I think feathers are better, and they certainly were first used for that, not flying. Flying was just a subsequent bonus. Thus I would bet the first flying animals developed in hot, sunny, lands where they had long feathers for good thermal control. Also feather covered arms, which could be wrapped around the body for warmth on cold clear sky night or stuck far from the body on hot sunny day, easily could evolve into wings.

-----------------
* Especially in the near IR and longer wavelength visible regions. (Only red reflecting skin I can think of is on type of monkey and it is only "where the sun don't shine.")
**For them, smooth skin with low coefficient of friction for water moving by is best.

 

[Emil]

In general animals that live in tropical lands (or where there is a lot of sunshine) need to limit how much sunlight/ radiant heat reaches their body. - Nature's clever way to do this is dark hair*. I.e. the thermal energy is absorbed by the hair a cm or more from the body and then transfered to the air.

In cold regions, for land animals (ones that do not live in the water** with layers of fat insulation), light colored hair is best. It serves as a thermal blanket to reduce body heat losses and also when thermal photons strike a hair, they tend to be scattered inward towards the body rather than absorbed in the hair.


Thus for thermal control, I think feathers are better, and they certainly were first used for that, not flying. Flying was just a subsequent bonus. Thus I would bet the first flying animals developed in hot, sunny, lands where they had long feathers for good thermal control. Also feather covered arms, which could be wrapped around the body for warmth on cold clear sky night or stuck far from the body on hot sunny day, easily could evolve into wings.

I think I begin to understand.

Looks like this?

dramatic restructuring of dinosaur feathers revealed by two youngsters of same species/

 

[Billy T]

I think I begin to understand. ...

Good. Yes that is the idea of feathers for thermal control. Note on the little guy the large area of feathers at end of long flexible tail - That guy invented the sun screening umbrella to shade body from hot sun..

 

[Neverfly]

I think I begin to understand.

Profound...


Keep up the good work and let's hope it becomes a more apparent habit than stamping your foot and ridiculing others...

 

[Shadow1]

waow, you do really love evolution! i think you love it because you hope that one day humans will be able to fly and move things and be an x-man or x-woman

 

[Neverfly]

waow, you do really love evolution! i think you love it because you hope that one day humans will be able to fly and move things and be an x-man or x-woman

Marvel comics has no relation to Evolution...


If you were talking to me:

I don't love Evolution.

I just dislike when people do whatever they can to misrepresent what is observed in order to support their own preconceptions.

I have an intense dislike for when people PROMOTE Ignorance simply because they prefer to hold on to fairy tales.

 

[matthew809]

You forget the natural advantages of feathers in heat insulation.

i) 'Warm-blooded' therapod develops abberant scales, which confer massive advantages in retention of body heat, producing a more heat-efficient small therapod.
ii) Radiation of members of the new form into multiple niches, including semi-arboreal, because of the instant, considerable energetic advantage of feathers.
iii) Elaboration of feathers in arboreal forms via further mutation. Short gliding flights now possible. (NB: feathered therapods - i.e. raptors and larger therapods such as T. rex had long persistence, suggesting general utility of this form.)
iv) Further mutational elaboration - feather structure able to support increasing weight. Longer glides possible. Archaeopteryx.
v) Mutational elaboration - pectoral muscles are able to invoke limited flapping. Longer flights possible.

I could make a similarly structured list describing the "evolution" of a Honda Civic starting from the earliest model.

The point is not whether the progression is logically sequential, but whether the progression is possible. Here's 3 major problems I have with evolution:

1) When wings evolve in steps, are we supposed to believe that the muscles and tendons and instincts and mechanical behavior of the animal just happens to mutate along with everything else. For example, just because an animal sprouts an extra appendage in some chance mutation, that doesn't mean that the appendage would have the correct joint, or muscles in order to actually use it. It would most likely just get in the way.

2) If a lizard is born with altered scales that somewhat resemble the beginnings of what might someday evolve into a feather... how would this mutation be any more advantageous when compared to the scales of the normal ones of it's kind?

Also, wouldn't this mutant lizard's altered gene(s) be diluted in the normal gene pool of it's kind after just one or a few reproduction cycles?

3) Given how many different species of living things we have on this planet, including all the different types of plants and sea life, how often do you suppose any life form will have a mutation? Does this rate match what we observe today? Also, in your calculation, consider the amount of mutations that must turn out not so good(these bad mutations must be many times greater than the good ones). Also consider the difference between what is a mutation and what isn't. For example, a population of moths being mostly white and then turning mostly black for a few years, and then turning back to white.... this is NOT mutation.

 

[Emil]

At this level I have the same concerns as matthew809
and add some more:


How appeared the venomous snake?
What is the probability to appear channel into tooth,due to random genetic mutations?
And to appear venomous glands and the channel that connects the tooth?
Do you think for these questions will give an answer discovery of more fossils?

 

[Emil]

I want to state very clearly.
I do not deny evolution but I think there are many aspects queries.
I was moved here to the theard "Denial of evolution" without my will.

 

[Neverfly]

I could make a similarly structured list describing the "evolution" of a Honda Civic starting from the earliest model.

The point is not whether the progression is logically sequential, but whether the progression is possible. Here's 3 major problems I have with evolution:

1) When wings evolve in steps, are we supposed to believe that the muscles and tendons and instincts and mechanical behavior of the animal just happens to mutate along with everything else. For example, just because an animal sprouts an extra appendage in some chance mutation, that doesn't mean that the appendage would have the correct joint, or muscles in order to actually use it. It would most likely just get in the way.

2) If a lizard is born with altered scales that somewhat resemble the beginnings of what might someday evolve into a feather... how would this mutation be any more advantageous when compared to the scales of the normal ones of it's kind?

Also, wouldn't this mutant lizard's altered gene(s) be diluted in the normal gene pool of it's kind after just one or a few reproduction cycles?

3) Given how many different species of living things we have on this planet, including all the different types of plants and sea life, how often do you suppose any life form will have a mutation? Does this rate match what we observe today? Also, in your calculation, consider the amount of mutations that must turn out not so good(these bad mutations must be many times greater than the good ones). Also consider the difference between what is a mutation and what isn't. For example, a population of moths being mostly white and then turning mostly black for a few years, and then turning back to white.... this is NOT mutation.

What good is half a wing? (Note: Half a wing is a bit of facetiousness. The responses deal with wings that are not Flight Capable.)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html

That said, mutations occur at the symmetric level. Check out Gliders. A transitional. Similar to the fossilized remains of Bats. However, it's squirrels that have taken that step in our age.
Secondly, you are presuming a mutation occurs all at once.
Remember - MILLIONS OF YEARS INVOLVED.
So the gliders develop the instincts. Over the course of thousands upon thousands of years, minute mutations that are an advantage to flight compound over time. As does adaptive behavior.
All the diverse species of birds that evolved today did not spawn from a diverse crowd. They had a common ancestor. So once that common ancestor developed these traits- ALL the generations to follow had them.
So it is not as though a Whole Bunch of Lizards up and evolved into a Whole bunch of birds.
A common ancestor evolved to gliding. And the descendants eventually to limited flight. Onward to full flight. From all of those generations, you had more mutations that increased Diversity.
Soon, you had several species of birds. Then as millions of years passed, all of those species had changed over time and new species diversified.

Your second question was already addressed by Billy T. If you were reading instead of Copy and pasting, you might have noticed that.

Your third question has also been repeatedly addressed. Mutations occur from many sources and most go unnoticed. MANY are detrimental.
If it weren't for carry over of detrimental genes, we would not have health problems, faults of "design" and some cancers, behavioral problems and all the like.
A seriously detrimental mutation clearly decreased mating ability. It may disable the ability for those critters to even survive. So, they don't survive to be seen. But if it's subtle enough to not prevent mating- it gets passed on. And all lifeforms on Earth suffer that effect.


Everything you need is archived. Read.
Mathew, every argument you just made I've read on Creationist websites. Rather than support creationism, they try to cast doubt on science.
All those questions are covered on TalkOrigins.

Emil, Your change in attitude is impressive- but research is required to gain knowledge...

The links to TalkOrigins have been posted several times. I'm fairly certain most folks don't really LOOK at the site.

So here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB940.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB941.html

An index...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC200

 

[GeoffP]

Body hair probably is mainly for thermal control. In general animals that live in tropical lands (or where there is a lot of sunshine) need to limit how much sunlight/ radiant heat reaches their body. - Nature's clever way to do this is dark hair*. I.e. the thermal energy is absorbed by the hair a cm or more from the body and then transfered to the air.

True, although we're discussing feathers here.

I have a bird pet - it controls the thickness of air trapped in its feathers, thicker when it is cold. Thus for thermal control, I think feathers are better, and they certainly were first used for that, not flying. Flying was just a subsequent bonus. Thus I would bet the first flying animals developed in hot, sunny, lands where they had long feathers for good thermal control. Also feather covered arms, which could be wrapped around the body for warmth on cold clear sky night or stuck far from the body on hot sunny day, easily could evolve into wings.

Very possible. This might even be a testable hypothesis from the paleontological perspective, if enough samples were available.

 

[GeoffP]

I could make a similarly structured list describing the "evolution" of a Honda Civic starting from the earliest model.

Except that a Honda Civic has no means of self-perpetuation, let alone with heritable mutations. You asked for a plausible mechanism by which such a transition might occur, and I provided one.

The point is not whether the progression is logically sequential, but whether the progression is possible. Here's 3 major problems I have with evolution:

1) When wings evolve in steps, are we supposed to believe that the muscles and tendons and instincts and mechanical behavior of the animal just happens to mutate along with everything else. For example, just because an animal sprouts an extra appendage in some chance mutation, that doesn't mean that the appendage would have the correct joint, or muscles in order to actually use it. It would most likely just get in the way.

Actually, this isn't the case. Billy and I have been outlining the uses of feathers apart from flight. The heat insulation advantages of feathers require no additional musculature; better regulation of the use of such feathers in thermoregulation would be possible with the development of pilatory (rather than skeletal) musculature (to press them against the body or "ruffle" them out to lose heat), but I think I differ here from Billy in that I think the development of feathers alone, without pilatory control, would be advantageous in a colder environment. Of course, they might have already had such muscles for the same reasons mammals have them. Hard to say. But feathers are advantageous even without flight.

2) If a lizard is born with altered scales that somewhat resemble the beginnings of what might someday evolve into a feather... how would this mutation be any more advantageous when compared to the scales of the normal ones of it's kind?

Simple. Feathers retain considerably more body heat than scales.

Also, wouldn't this mutant lizard's altered gene(s) be diluted in the normal gene pool of it's kind after just one or a few reproduction cycles?

If it possessed a selective advantage for the reasons outlined above, then in fact it becomes increasingly likely that such genes would persist, and even increase to fixation.

3) Given how many different species of living things we have on this planet, including all the different types of plants and sea life, how often do you suppose any life form will have a mutation?

That I can't tell you: but I can tell you that alleles for variant phenotype are exceedingly common, as evidenced by the hundreds and hundreds of quantitative trait locus (QTL) studies published on every trait conceivable from body weight to reproductive output. By definition, one might say that every organism in the world contains numerous mutations - different alleles, in other words. This is the basis of heredity. If you're looking for mutations of larger effect, try the blind cave fish papers I linked.

Does this rate match what we observe today?

Sure, seemingly. There's actually a shitload more variation than one ought to expect, when you think about it.

Also, in your calculation, consider the amount of mutations that must turn out not so good(these bad mutations must be many times greater than the good ones). Also consider the difference between what is a mutation and what isn't. For example, a population of moths being mostly white and then turning mostly black for a few years, and then turning back to white.... this is NOT mutation.

It certainly is: for genes for white moths to be favoured over black moths and the reverse, there must exist - by definition - mutant alleles to be selected for and against. Without such mutations, there is no microevolution - and we know full well that such microevolution occurs. You might think the importance of such colour morphs small, but when it determines the fitness of their carriers to such a great extent there's nothing really minor about it.

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

If the original feathers were for thermocontrol then you can test it.

Feathers should have evolved in small dinosaurs.