Evolution

[I-7]

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Also:

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

Also:

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.





What are your guys beliefs on this topic??

[wilkin250r]

I believe your post is too long.

[Hon300ex]

that nucking futs

[400exrules]

too much to read:bandit:

[400ex28]

DUDE i never knew that!!!!!

Originally posted by 400ex28
DUDE i never knew that!!!!!

[I-7]

I believe Einsteins theory of relativity plays a major role in the reconstruction of the evolutional process portrayed.

[Chef]

I believe you copy pasted that whole shmeal.

[Pappy]

well,

Einstein's Theory of Relativity also postulated that Energy and Matter are interchangeable in accordance with his famous formula of E=mC2. In other words, matter could be considered as simply 'slowed down' or crystallised 'Energy' and as such the human body is nothing more than a complex 'energy field'.

This insight provides a framework enabling one to begin to understand the Esoteric concept that the observable universe (including the human body) is made up of multi-dimensional energy fields and provides a scientific context to the Human Energy Fields or auras 'surrounding' human bodies observed by so many people. It also provides a context to the widespread rediscovery and acceptance of a host of 'new age' concepts pertaining to a holistic view universe in which everything is interconnected, and the health thereof.


whew, thank god for copy and paste:devil:

[I-7]

Well, you'll see how they correlate if you read my brief little write up.


Read this rather technical section not only to understand how very varied are matters of the intellect, but to appreciate the difficulties even mathematics faces in explaining itself. Profound questions — gaps, contradictions, ambiguities — lie beneath the most certain of procedures. Indeed, if pressed far enough, mathematics may be no more logical than poetry: just free creations of the human mind that unaccountably give order to ourselves and the natural world.

Introduction: Mathematics as Reality

Though mathematics might seem the clearest and most certain kind of knowledge we possess, there are problems just as serious as those in any other branch of philosophy. What is the nature of mathematics? In what sense do its propositions have meaning? {1}

Plato believed in Forms or Ideas that were eternal, capable of precise definition and independent of perception. Among such entities he included numbers and the objects of geometry — lines, points, circles — which were therefore apprehended not with the senses but with reason. "Mathematicals" — the objects mathematics deals with — were specific instances of ideal Forms. Since the true propositions of mathematics were true of the unchangeable relations between unchangeable objects, they were inevitably true, which means that mathematics discovered pre-existing truths "out there" rather than created something from our mental predispositions. And as for the objects perceived by our senses, one apple, two pears, etc. they are only poor and evanescent copies of the Forms one, two, etc., and something the philosopher need not overmuch concern himself with. Mathematics dealt with truth and ultimate reality. {2}

Aristotle disagreed. Forms were not entities remote from appearance but something which entered into objects of the world. That we can abstract oneness or circularity does not mean that these abstractions represent something remote and eternal. Mathematics was simply reasoning about idealizations. Aristotle looked closely at the structure of mathematics, distinguishing logic, principles used to demonstrate theorems, definitions (which do not suppose the defined actually exist), and hypotheses (which do suppose they actually exist). He also reflected on infinity, perceiving the difference between a potential infinity (e.g. adding one to a number ad infinitum) and a complete infinity (e.g. number of points into which a line is divisible). {3}

Leibniz brought together logic and mathematics. But whereas Aristotle used propositions of the subject- predicate form, Leibniz argued that the subject "contains" the predicate: a view that brought in infinity and God. Mathematical propositions are not true because they deal in eternal or idealized entities, but because their denial is logically impossible. They are true not only of this world, or the world of eternal Forms, but of all possible worlds. Unlike Plato, for whom constructions were adventitious aids, Leibniz saw the importance of notation, a symbolism of calculation, and so began what became very important in the twentieth century: a method of forming and arranging characters and signs to represent the relationships between mathematical thoughts. {4}

Mathematical entities for Kant were a-priori synthetic propositions, which of course provide the necessary conditions for objective experience. Time and space were matrices, the containers holding the changing material of perception. Mathematics was the description of space and time. If restricted to thought, mathematical concepts required only self-consistency, but the construction of such concepts involves space having a certain structure, which in Kant's day was described by Euclidean geometry. As for applied mathematics — the distinction between the abstract "two" and "two pears" — this is construction plus empirical matter. {5}

Kant, in his analysis of infinity, accepted Aristotle's distinction between potential and complete infinity, but did not think the latter was logically impossible. Complete infinity was an idea of reason, internally consistent, though of course never encountered in our world of sense perceptions. How consistent? Every schoolboy knows that infinity is something to which special rules apply. You cannot use simple mathematics to argue: infinity + 1 = infinity, so that (subtracting infinity both sides) 1 = 0. But what actually is infinity — something actual or potential? It matters very much. Some schools of mathematics avoid actual infinity because of the contradictions or antinomies that arise. Others are reluctant to do so as it bars them from many powerful and fascinating domains, from what Hilbert called "the paradise which Cantor has created for us." {6} Of course that paradise is somewhat counter-intuitive. There are hierarchies of infinite sets, infinite ordinal numbers, infinite cardinal numbers, etc. And mathematicians will take up different attitudes to such notions. A finitist like Aristotle would have accepted growing or potential infinities, but not complete ones, which would lack content and intelligibility. Transfinitists like Cantor, however, ascribed intelligibility and content even to complete infinities. And methodical transfinitists like Hilbert admitted transfinite concepts into mathematical theories because they were useful in simplifying and unifying theories, but did not believe the concepts fully existed. {7}

Mathematics as Logic

Gottlob Frege (1848-1925), Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) and their followers developed Leibniz's idea that mathematics was something logically undeniable. Frege used general laws of logic plus definitions, formulating a symbolic notation for the reasoning required. Inevitably, through the long chains of reasoning, these symbols became less intuitively obvious, the transition being mediated by definitions. What were these definitions? Russell saw them as notational conveniences, mere steps in the argument. Frege saw them as implying something worthy of careful thought, often presenting key mathematical concepts from new angles. If in Russell's case the definitions had no objective existence, in Frege's case the matter was not so clear: the definitions were logical objects which claim an existence equal to other mathematical entities. Nonetheless, Russell carried on, resolving and side-stepping many logical paradoxes, to create with Whitehead the monumental system of description and notation of the Principia Mathematica (1910-13). {8}

Many were impressed but not won over. If natural numbers were defined through classes — one of the system's more notable achievements — weren't these classes in turn defined through similarities, which left open how the similarities were themselves defined if the argument was not to be merely circular? The logical concept of number had also to be defined through the non-logical hypothesis of infinity, every natural number n requiring a unique successor n+1. And since such a requirement hardly applies to the real world, the concept of natural numbers differs in its two incarnations, in pure and applied mathematics. Does this matter? Yes indeed, as number is not continuous in atomic atomic processes, a fact acknowledged in the term quantum mechanics. Worse still, the Principia incorporated almost all of Cantor's transfinite mathematics, which gave rise to contradictions when matching class and subclass, difficulties which undermined the completeness with which numbers may be defined. {9}

Logic in geometry may be developed in two ways. The first is to use one-to-one correspondences. Geometric entities — lines, points, circle, etc. — are matched with numbers or sets of numbers, and geometric relationships are matched with relationships between numbers. The second is to avoid numbers altogether and define geometric entities partially but directly by their relationships to other geometric entities. Such definitions are logically disconnected from perceptual statements, so that the dichotomy between pure and applied mathematics continues, somewhat paralleling Plato's distinction between pure Forms and their earthly copies. Alternative self-consistent geometries can be developed, therefore, and one cannot say beforehand whether actuality (say the wider spaces of the cosmos) is or is not Euclidean. Moreover, the shortcomings of the logistic procedures remain, in geometry and in number theory.{10}

Mathematics as Exposition: Formalism

Even Russell saw the difficulty with set theory. We can distinguish sets that belong to themselves from sets that do not. But what happens when we consider the set of all sets that do not belong to themselves? Mathematics had been shaken to its core in the nineteenth century by the realization that the infallible mathematical intuition that underlay geometry was not infallible at all. There were space-filling curves. There were continuous curves that could be nowhere differentiated. There were geometries other than Euclid's that gave perfectly intelligible results. Now there was the logical paradox of a set both belonging and not belonging to itself. Ad-hoc solutions could be found, but something more substantial was wanted. David Hilbert (1862-1943) and his school tried to reach the same ends as Russell, but abandoned some of the larger claims of mathematics. Mathematics was simply the manipulation of symbols according to specified rules. The focus of interest was the entities themselves and the rules governing their manipulation, not the references they might or might not have to logic or to the physical world.

In fact Hilbert was not giving up Cantor's world of transfinite mathematics, but accommodating it to a mathematics concerned with concrete objects. Just as Kant had employed reason to categories beyond sense perceptions — moral freedoms and religious faith — so Hilbert applied the real notions of finite mathematics to the ideal notions of transfinite mathematics.

And the programme fared very well at first. It employed finite methods — i.e. concepts which could be insubstantiated in perception, statements in which the statements are correctly applied, and inferences from these statements to other statements. Most clearly this was seen in classical arithmetic. Transfinite mathematics, which is used in projective geometry and algebra, for example, gives rise to contradictions, which makes it all the more important to see arithmetic as fundamental. But of course non-elementary arithmetic is not straightforward, and a formalism had to be developed. H.B. Curry was stricter and clearer than Hilbert is this regard, and used (a) terms {tokens (lists of objects), operations (modes of combination) and rules of formation} (b) elementary propositions (lists of predicates and arguments),and (c) elementary theorems {axioms (propositions true unconditionally) and rules of procedure}. But Volume I of Hilbert and Bernays's classic work had been published, and II was being prepared when, in 1931, Gödel's second incompleteness theorem brought the programme to an end. Gödel showed, fairly simply and quite conclusively, that such formalisms could not formalize arithmetic completely.

What does this mean? Suppose we postulate an arithmetical expression called X. Traditional mathematics would prove X to be either true or false. If different mathematical routes taken within the system proved that X was both true and false, however, then the system was inconsistent. If X could neither be proved as true or false within the system — and the emphasis is crucial, as the consistency could be proved in other ways — then the system is incomplete. Gödel showed that there would always be propositions that were true, but which could not be deduced from the axioms.

But perhaps even before Gödel, there were difficulties papered over. The relationship between empirically-evident statements of pure mathematics and the empirically-not evident statements of applied mathematics was unclear. Actual infinite sets were not used, but their symbols did appear in metamathematics, these being likened somewhat implausibly to stroke expressions. And then there was the question of the correctness of constructions, which involved an outlawed logic, if only minimally.{11}

Mathematics as Intuition

For intuitionists like L.E.J. Brouwer (1881-1966) the subject matter of mathematics is intuited non-perceptual objects and constructions, these being introspectively self-evident. Indeed, mathematics begins with a languageless activity of the mind which moves on from one thing to another but keeps a memory of the first as the empty form of a common substratum of all such moves. Subsequently, such constructions have to be communicated so that they can be repeated — i.e. clearly, succinctly and honestly, as there is always the danger of mathematical language outrunning its content.

How does this work in practice? Intuitionist mathematics employs a special notation, and makes more restricted use of the law of the excluded middle (that something cannot be p' and not-p' at the same time). A postulate, for example, that the irrational number pi has an infinite number of unbroken sequences of a hundred zeros in its full expression would be conjectured as undecidable rather than true or false. But the logic is very different, particularly with regard to negation, the logic being a formulation of the principles employed in the specific mathematical construction rather than applied generally. But what of the individual, self-evident experiences which raise Wittgenstein problems of private languages? Do, moreover, we have to construct and then derive a contradiction for a proposition like a square circle cannot exist rather than conceive the impossibility of one existing? And wouldn't consistency be more easily tested by developing constructions further rather than waiting for self-evidence to appear? {12}

[tdsongster]

Every article I read about evolution never talks about how it works or why it is true, it just keeps saying that it is fact and religion is wrong.

Aside from this, I do have a question that no one has ever been able to answer about evolution. Let me begin with an example. If you work with your hands alot, they will develop caluses (not sure of spelling). Is this evolving or adapting?

This example would make sense that evolution is taking place. Maybe a better example would be climate change. If the temperature drops, animals develop thicker coats of fur. Makes sense, however, this does not explain things like flight. When I ask this question I usually get an answer that this took many generations and hundreds to thousands of year to take place. That is all fine and good, but what drove it. Did one generation decide to keep jumping in the air and flapping its arms/legs trying to fly and pass that on to the following generations?

What was the drivig force to develop flight over the many many generations. Nothing this sophisticated happens for no reason.

I have been told that nature will try many different things. This does not make sense to me either since, who is this nature you are talking about and if it is trying many different things then the pre-flight species would also be trying things other then flight (gills for instance).

Anyways, this post is NOT about arguments/flames in anyway. I would really like someone to tell me how evolution works. To say something as complex as flight is just random chance and yet it takes many complex things to happen in series over a long time (and not randomly trying other evolutionary paths) is not a factual answer.

Did I explain my question clear enough?

[Quad18star]

I believe I started reading the first half of it , then my mind started to drift off and I was imagining that I was on a nice hot beach .

About the only thing that actually made sense to me was the paragraph in the middle which talked about the age of the earths water and how animals have evolved while other species have died off . With the earths temperature rising at a steady rate , I believe that in thousands of years from now , we as humans will not look the same nor function the same as we do right now . Everything on earth has slowly changed itself over the last millions of years to accompany the new changes brought to the world . Whatever happens , I know I won't see it . lol

[troutman561]

or maybe ( oh holy crazyness) it was created by God or a "higher power" which is the cool new term cause ppl dont acknowlege God existing?

[stace609]

about the "calluses" thing...that's not evolution. it has to be a trait you can pass through your genes. that would be like to bodybuilders having a muscular baby or someone with a bunch of peircing having a baby with holes in its ears.

[tdsongster]

Originally posted by stace609
about the "calluses" thing...that's not evolution. it has to be a trait you can pass through your genes. that would be like to bodybuilders having a muscular baby or someone with a bunch of peircing having a baby with holes in its ears.

k, yeah, that was a bad example. But what about the climate getting colder. Wouldn't that be evolution for animals to grow thicker coats? That would be adapting to environment which makes sense but still doesn't explain flight.

Thanks

[troutman561]

so i evolve when it gets cold and i put a coat on?
animals genetics make them grow thicker hair each winter, thats how its always been

[Quad18star]

Originally posted by tdsongster
Every article I read about evolution never talks about how it works or why it is true, it just keeps saying that it is fact and religion is wrong.

Aside from this, I do have a question that no one has ever been able to answer about evolution. Let me begin with an example. If you work with your hands alot, they will develop caluses (not sure of spelling). Is this evolving or adapting?

This example would make sense that evolution is taking place. Maybe a better example would be climate change. If the temperature drops, animals develop thicker coats of fur. Makes sense, however, this does not explain things like flight. When I ask this question I usually get an answer that this took many generations and hundreds to thousands of year to take place. That is all fine and good, but what drove it. Did one generation decide to keep jumping in the air and flapping its arms/legs trying to fly and pass that on to the following generations?

What was the drivig force to develop flight over the many many generations. Nothing this sophisticated happens for no reason.

I have been told that nature will try many different things. This does not make sense to me either since, who is this nature you are talking about and if it is trying many different things then the pre-flight species would also be trying things other then flight (gills for instance).

Anyways, this post is NOT about arguments/flames in anyway. I would really like someone to tell me how evolution works. To say something as complex as flight is just random chance and yet it takes many complex things to happen in series over a long time (and not randomly trying other evolutionary paths) is not a factual answer.

Did I explain my question clear enough?

Good questions , and I wish I had the intelligence to answer something like that .

Your question about developping a calisse (?) can raise many debates . History shows that man has been working with his or her hands for thousands of years , but babies these days aren't born with calissed hands , which would in theory prove that this is just adaptation . But then one can argue the fact that wisdom teeth are useless . There are theories that suggest that wisdom teeth were used by cave men to crack through animal bones . While most every fossil or bones found from that time show that man had wisdom teeth , more and more people now days don't have them . This would show evolution . We don't use the wisdom teeth like they were intended , so "evolution" is getting rid of them naturally. This would also go for that organ in our body that is useless to us now ( sorry can't remember what it is) , but was once a vital organ when man ate raw meats .

As for flight ... I got no answer for that one ... I'm just as stumped as you are . :ermm:

I hope you enjoyed my theories . LOL :D

[troutman561]

oh yea, if evolution is still happening why arnt monkeys having humans... and techniqly the "evolution" thing goes on increasing chromosomes which should be better, so if thats tru we should be goldfish in a million years and ultimatly.. ferns

[Quad18star]

Originally posted by tdsongster
k, yeah, that was a bad example. But what about the climate getting colder. Wouldn't that be evolution for animals to grow thicker coats? That would be adapting to environment which makes sense but still doesn't explain flight.

Thanks

Scientific research shows that during cold temperatures , the human body grows more hair quicker to help regulate it's own temperature . So I guess that would be adaptation . But if animals or humans were to grow hair or fur that would discharge some type of heat , that would be evolution . I know it's a stupid/out of this world example , but it was just to try and explain my point .

[I-7]

Originally posted by tdsongster
Aside from this, I do have a question that no one has ever been able to answer about evolution. Let me begin with an example. If you work with your hands alot, they will develop caluses (not sure of spelling). Is this evolving or adapting?


Calluses happen when your skin gets irritated and they form to protect the underskin and internals. Its basically like you immune system fighting a cold but I do know where you come from.

Its a long process.. its not like it will happen in a few generations, it takes a very long time and I guess we are always adapting. It starts when only a few people have the certain advanced trait and it just gets spread. For example, a certain bird species is living on an island and their beaks are very small... but the seeds on that island that they need to eat are very big. Then along the line you have a bird that is born and its beak is considerably bigger. (just like sometimes babys are born with different unique qualities)

Obviously, the bird with the bigger beak will be able to eat the seeds easier and will survive better then the birds with the smaller beaks (natural selection). So the bird with the larger beak starts to take over and when it reproduces its birds also have big beaks so they also do much better then the birds with the smaller beaks so it spreads.

Its not like somehow scientifically along the lines its just like hmm we need a longer beak so lets give this bird a longer beak. It comes with varation among the offspring so some species will do better then others and in the end survive and spread that trait till all the bird population has large beaks.




Same with a fox living in the winter. One fox is born with a thicker coat and it survives over the fox with the thinner coat so that gene spreads until we classify it as an evolution.

[stace609]

getting a thicker coat when it's cold doesn't just happen. it's coded in the animals' genes. how any type of evolution works is say in a population of 1000 animals 200 have a gene that causes their coats to get slightly thicker when its cold. these animals survive more often then those who don't. so over the generations the animals with this gene reproduce and their children reproduce etc and they all carry this gene. now x number of generations down the line out of 1000 animals 800 have the gene for thick winter coat. now say things start to warm up all year round, the animals that don't have the thicker winter coat do just as well as those that do so x number of generations down the line there are 500 thick coats and 500 normal.

the flying one is a little harder. my guess it it started out like flying squirrels. these animals that lived in the trees or on cliffs or wherever "flew" better if they had these flaps on their arms. over the generations this flap eventually became a wing. or like in giraffes, they use to have short necks, but over generations the longer neck ones survived and passed on their genes.

think of it as selective breeding in dogs but the selective pressures are coming from nature. :)

[tdsongster]

Originally posted by Quad18star
Scientific research shows that during cold temperatures , the human body grows more hair quicker to help regulate it's own temperature . So I guess that would be adaptation . But if animals or humans were to grow hair or fur that would discharge some type of heat , that would be evolution . I know it's a stupid/out of this world example , but it was just to try and explain my point .

Is there a difference between adaptation and evolution? It would seem so until you take it to the cooler earth scenario. Drop the temperature and 1000 years later all the animals have thick coats of fur, that would prob be called evolution.

I am searching for answers, anyone got them?

[tdsongster]

Originally posted by stace609
getting a thicker coat when it's cold doesn't just happen. it's coded in the animals' genes. how any type of evolution works is say in a population of 1000 animals 200 have a gene that causes their coats to get slightly thicker when its cold. these animals survive more often then those who don't. so over the generations the animals with this gene reproduce and their children reproduce etc and they all carry this gene. now x number of generations down the line out of 1000 animals 800 have the gene for thick winter coat. now say things start to warm up all year round, the animals that don't have the thicker winter coat do just as well as those that do so x number of generations down the line there are 500 thick coats and 500 normal.

the flying one is a little harder. my guess it it started out like flying squirrels. these animals that lived in the trees or on cliffs or wherever "flew" better if they had these flaps on their arms. over the generations this flap eventually became a wing. or like in giraffes, they use to have short necks, but over generations the longer neck ones survived and passed on their genes.

think of it as selective breeding in dogs but the selective pressures are coming from nature. :)


In my 38 years, that is the BEST answer that I have ever heard thus far...

[Quad18star]

Originally posted by troutman561
oh yea, if evolution is still happening why arnt monkeys having humans... and techniqly the "evolution" thing goes on increasing chromosomes which should be better, so if thats tru we should be goldfish in a million years and ultimatly.. ferns

Who says in a million years from now , we won't have the capability to breath under water ??

Evolution happens every so slowly . It's like many deseases that we once thought we had cures for . The "cure" might work for 100 years , but then the desease evolves and actually finds a way to combat the "cure" and make itself immune to it .

[tdsongster]

Originally posted by Quad18star
Who says in a million years from now , we won't have the capability to breath under water ??

Evolution happens every so slowly . It's like many deseases that we once thought we had cures for . The "cure" might work for 100 years , but then the desease evolves and actually finds a way to combat the "cure" and make itself immune to it .

It makes sense that it happens slowly, but how does it know in which direction to go? Who/what controls that. Is any given species evolving in many different ways all at the same time? I would think no, but if not, why?

[I-7]

Originally posted by tdsongster
Is there a difference between adaptation and evolution? It would seem so until you take it to the cooler earth scenario. Drop the temperature and 1000 years later all the animals have thick coats of fur, that would prob be called evolution.

I am searching for answers, anyone got them?


I'll give you an example... yes they are different.

An adaptation would be in the winter we adapt to the cold by dressing in more layers and wearing thicker coats. For a fox or something living in the winter in the cold, they can adapt by making their shelters thicker. An evolution would be in the winter our skin grows thicker so we can keep more heat inside our bodies. For a fox an evolution would be growing thicker fur to insulate themselves more.

[stace609]

Originally posted by tdsongster
It makes sense that it happens slowly, but how does it know in which direction to go? Who/what controls that. Is any given species evolving in many different ways all at the same time? I would think no, but if not, why?

The environment controls it. Animals evolve to fill different ecological niches. And yes, one species can diverge into several daughter species. Take the island of Madagascar for example. There are tens of species of lemur on this island. They all evolved from one ancestral species but they split to fill different niches. some are nocturnal, some eat fruit, some eat bamboo, some live in trees, some live on the ground, etc. another great example are the finches of the galapogos. you can find those on google.

[tdsongster]

Originally posted by I-7
I'll give you an example... yes they are different.

An adaptation would be in the winter we adapt to the cold by dressing in more layers and wearing thicker coats. For a fox or something living in the winter in the cold, they can adapt by making their shelters thicker. An evolution would be in the winter our skin grows thicker so we can keep more heat inside our bodies. For a fox an evolution would be growing thicker fur to insulate themselves more.

Ok, but this goes back to the calused hands example. If you work with your hands alot you will get caluses, but that will not be a trait that you pass to your children. This definition is a biological one versus yours of wearing thicker clothes or a fox making a thicker shelter. See how it gets confusing?

[DeerNuts]

Originally posted by I-7
For a fox an evolution would be growing thicker fur to insulate themselves more.

But all foxes would grow thicker fur to insulate themselves. Deer, for example, ALL have lighter summer coats, and then ALL grow a heavier winter coat. Now, the thickness will vary by region of course-- the northern ones will have thicker coats,and will grow them at an earlier time.
What Im getting at is: How is that fox growing thicker fur an evolution? Isnt it just a "pre-wired" trait in their genes that allow this?

[tdsongster]

Originally posted by stace609
The environment controls it. Animals evolve to fill different ecological niches. And yes, one species can diverge into several daughter species. Take the island of Madagascar for example. There are tens of species of lemur on this island. They all evolved from one ancestral species but they split to fill different niches. some are nocturnal, some eat fruit, some eat bamboo, some live in trees, some live on the ground, etc. another great example are the finches of the galapogos. you can find those on google.

Where they live and when they sleep is not evolution??? If it is environment that controls evolution, it still does not explain flight. Or why water breathing animals came to be on land.

[Quad18star]

Originally posted by tdsongster
It makes sense that it happens slowly, but how does it know in which direction to go? Who/what controls that. Is any given species evolving in many different ways all at the same time? I would think no, but if not, why?

I honestly don't know the answer to those questions .

How would it know which way to go ??... I guess it would be like us humans .... you come to a fork in the road , do you turn left or turn right?? One way leads you to one place , the other leads somewhere else. You don't know where it leads until you get to the end . A desease branches to the left and ends up at a dead end ... the desease dies out ... or it branches to the right and finds a path to evolve into something bigger , thus resulting in a stronger desease .

I don't know if that explanation makes much sense to you . It sounded good in my head . LOL :ermm:

[I-7]

Originally posted by DeerNuts
But all foxes would grow thicker fur to insulate themselves. Deer, for example, ALL have lighter summer coats, and then ALL grow a heavier winter coat. Now, the thickness will vary by region of course-- the northern ones will have thicker coats,and will grow them at an earlier time.
What Im getting at is: How is that fox growing thicker fur an evolution? Isnt it just a "pre-wired" trait in their genes that allow this?

Ok then an evolution would be a fox recieving a trait getting stronger nose senses. That trait helps them survive. After awhile they survive over foxes with not as strong nose senses and soon after many generations the stronger nose population makes up basically the whole fox population.

[tdsongster]

Originally posted by I-7
Ok then an evolution would be a fox recieving a trait getting stronger nose senses. That trait helps them survive. After awhile they survive over foxes with not as strong nose senses and soon after many generations the stronger nose population makes up basically the whole fox population.


Ok, but who/what gave this fox the superior nose trait?

[stace609]

Where they live and when they sleep is a result of evolution. If all the lemurs were all awake at the same time and ate the same food the species would die about. Because of these environmental pressures they evolved to eat different things. I'm not talking about one lemur going to eat a leaf instead of fruit. this is over generations and generations. the bamboo lemur for instance has enzymes in his saliva that break down the poisons in the bamboo. a ring-tailed lemur couldn't just decide to go eat bamboo.

i believe i addressed flight along the same lines. why do flying squirrels "fly"? because it gives them advantage in their environment. why did early birds "fly"? because it gave them an advantage in their environment. this primitive form of flying would have progressed to include the current hollow bones and feather and elegant wings of modern birds.

[tdsongster]

Originally posted by stace609
Where they live and when they sleep is a result of evolution. If all the lemurs were all awake at the same time and ate the same food the species would die about. Because of these environmental pressures they evolved to eat different things. I'm not talking about one lemur going to eat a leaf instead of fruit. this is over generations and generations. the bamboo lemur for instance has enzymes in his saliva that break down the poisons in the bamboo. a ring-tailed lemur couldn't just decide to go eat bamboo.

i believe i addressed flight along the same lines. why do flying squirrels "fly"? because it gives them advantage in their environment. why did early birds "fly"? because it gave them an advantage in their environment. this primitive form of flying would have progressed to include the current hollow bones and feather and elegant wings of modern birds.


Ok, so how did flying squirrels come to fly?

[stace609]

Originally posted by tdsongster
Ok, but who/what gave this fox the superior nose trait?

it's not like this one fox had a nose that was supierior to all others. it's hard to think of things over such a period of time, but just think with humans. i might have better eyesight than you, but you are more physically adapted to climb a mountain that me. it's just little differences like that the act like a snowball and get bigger and bigger over generations.

but along those lines, some of these new traits can be mutations. i'm sure a lot of you have heard about that family that has "pinscher" hands? well if that was an adaptive trait in humans it wouldn't die out, it would become more and more popular.

[stace609]

Originally posted by tdsongster
Ok, so how did flying squirrels come to fly?

just like anything else. giraffes got longer and longer necks because it was a positive adaptation. some of these squirrels must have benefited from being able to leap from tree to tree. possibly trees were becomming more scarce and not overlapping. well the squirrels that had more connective tissue between their legs and their bodies were able to escape predators or get their food or not, well fall and die.

[Fred55]

Originally posted by tdsongster
Ok, but who/what gave this fox the superior nose trait?

it all has to do with gene replication, when genes replicate, its not all perfect, and some "mistakes" happen. some mistakes will kill the animal, some will add a trait to the animal

[I-7]

Originally posted by tdsongster
Ok, but who/what gave this fox the superior nose trait?


Your not really understanding that genetic mutations occur. Its rare - thats why we arent able to fly and do many other things that would make us a lot more efficient but they do occur and little by little the single mutation starts to spread... because it is an evolution that helps the species survive more efficiently. Some mutations are bad, some are good.

[Quad18star]

Originally posted by tdsongster
Ok, so how did flying squirrels come to fly?

Poor guy wanted to kill himself , so he jumped off the top of the tree ... to his disbelief , he was able to fly . ;)

I couldn't tell you why or how flight came about . Will we ever know for sure?? Most likely not. In a million years from now , will they know what cancer is ?? Probably not because it will have evolved into either soemthing bigger than it is right now , or will have died out .

[tdsongster]

Originally posted by stace609
just like anything else. giraffes got longer and longer necks because it was a positive adaptation. some of these squirrels must have benefited from being able to leap from tree to tree. possibly trees were becomming more scarce and not overlapping. well the squirrels that had more connective tissue between their legs and their bodies were able to escape predators or get their food or not, well fall and die.


Everything that I have seen about evolution is much smarter then that. A bird is an extremely sophisticated animal. To say that it got that way by random chance is not good enough. They have lightweight hollow bones which is good for flight. How did that come about? I keep getting the answer that the ones with this gene survived better. That is all fine and good, but where did it get the hollow bone gene? I am asking you to take a deeper look at what is going on.

[tdsongster]

Originally posted by I-7
Your not really understanding that genetic mutations occur. Its rare - thats why we arent able to fly and do many other things that would make us a lot more efficient but they do occur and little by little the single mutation starts to spread... because it is an evolution that helps the species survive more efficiently. Some mutations are bad, some are good.

You dont just geneticly mutate into flight.

[I-7]

Originally posted by tdsongster
Ok, so how did flying squirrels come to fly?

Lol I don't know how you can ask that and expect us to answer it. Its like saying how did cheetahs come to run fast?

[stace609]

Originally posted by tdsongster
You dont just geneticly mutate into flight.

I never said that. And I was just figuring you'd want some educated answers from an anthropology major who has taken numerous classes on human, animal, and primate evolution.

But I guess you just wanted to argue :)

[tdsongster]

Originally posted by I-7
Lol I don't know how you can ask that and expect us to answer it. Its like saying how did cheetahs come to run fast?

Exactly, no one knows how it works...

[tdsongster]

Originally posted by stace609
I never said that. And I was just figuring you'd want some educated answers from an anthropology major who has taken numerous classes on human, animal, and primate evolution.

But I guess you just wanted to argue :)

No, I don't want to argue, I am pressing for a better answer. I don't think anyone has a better answer then random chance.

[Fred55]

Originally posted by tdsongster
You dont just geneticly mutate into flight.
thats right, but you may have an animal that has a extra peice of skin because of a mutation ie. webbed feet, lets say it keeps on passing it on, its not causing the animal to die, or causing it any harm, so it keeps on going, but after a while, it starts to get bigger, due to mutations, as it gets larger, they can maybe start to glide. as some start to glide, some can do it better than others, with the better genes, and they survive better due to that, then as all of them can glide they learn to flap, and some can flap better than others and actually learn to stay aloft.. its a VERY long process that takes a LONG time to actually happen.

[tdsongster]

Originally posted by Fred55
thats right, but you may have an animal that has a extra peice of skin because of a mutation ie. webbed feet, lets say it keeps on passing it on, its not causing the animal to die, or causing it any harm, so it keeps on going, but after a while, it starts to get bigger, due to mutations, as it gets larger, they can maybe start to glide. as some start to glide, some can do it better than others, with the better genes, and they survive better due to that, then as all of them can glide they learn to flap, and some can flap better than others and actually learn to stay aloft.. its a VERY long process that takes a LONG time to actually happen.

So again, it is just random chance? You put enough animals on a planet, give it a whole lot of time and eventually one will fly?

[I-7]

Originally posted by tdsongster
So again, it is just random chance? You put enough animals on a planet, give it a whole lot of time and eventually one will fly?

Your too focused on the whole flying thing. Yes its all random chance, it is not 100% that after time an animal will eventually fly it just doesnt work like that. It just happened that on earth theres was a mutation and animals could survive better flying.

The mutations are random. thats it. everything else is natural selection. simple as that.

Thats why one of the evolutions for humans was higher brain functions... we never evolved to have stretchy bones or opposable knees... yet

[Quad18star]

Originally posted by tdsongster
So again, it is just random chance? You put enough animals on a planet, give it a whole lot of time and eventually one will fly?

You ever see what a dog that's part Lab and part Poodle looks like . Pretty screwed up .

Now just imagine a squirrel that screws a bird ... results .... squirrel with wings . :p

[Fred55]

its partially random, its random that the mutations happen, but not just random that they survive better and pass their genes on, its because they are better prepared for their particular enviroment.

[stace609]

here's some books for ya, let me know what you learn since apparently none of us know anything

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393321568/qid=1126757515/sr=5-1/ref=cm_lm_asin/103-7442253-6843863?v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465044263/qid=1126757515/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/103-7442253-6843863?v=glance&s=books

[bwamos]

Originally posted by I-7
When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

Ahh.. but you're basing the "fact" that macro-evolution exists because micro-evolution can be observed.

Most everyone with a rational mind knows that micro-evolution occurs. A moth changing colors after a couple generations due to enviromental change. This is obvious, and it is called adaptation.

However, I dare anyone to show me proof, of a single example of macro evolution. You can't because none have been found. Every single hypothetical example has at the very least a "missing link".

A fact can not be a fact without factual evidence to support it.


Ok, so how did flying squirrels come to fly?

Ahh, but this is a great example of micro-evolution. Flying Squirrels dont fly.. by the way. They glide at a steep decending angle. They don't gain altitude. ;)

However, take this example and make the squirrel into a bat-like creature that can actually fly. There will be a point when his phalanges (fingers/toes) will have to grow long enough to extend his wing span. Lets say they need to grow out 4" to give him enough wing surface to fly inder his own power...

Now what happens during this "evolution" when his toes are 3" long. He can not fly under his own power. He also can not move terrestrially nearly as efficently as he could in his previous form. This is what I would call the clumsy stage. Macro-Evolutionists like to call this the "missing link".

At this point in the process the critter will be much more likley to die to preadators than the original form. Therefore, survival of the fittest would dictate that de-evolution would occur, back into the form most fit for survival.

Micro-Evolution turns Squirrels into Flying Squirrels.

Macro evolution turns Jellyfish into Horses.