Biological Gears and Evolution

[Teannika]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gears-insect-plant-hopper-burrows/

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/functioning-mechanical-gears-seen-in-nature-for-the-first-time

 

 

A piece on the planthopper 'Issus Coleoptratus' came through my newsfeed today. I hadn't heard of this discovery before and found it very interesting that machine working gears already existed in an animal, long before humans invented them. What I am wondering is how could evolution explain these precise working gears being brought about through evolution? How could there possibly be an inbetween step in the process between the planthopper having no gears, to having gears?

[Reefgazer]

I haven't read the articles because I'm kind of pressed for time this morning; I'll read everything later. But in many biological systems, things that appear "new" actually aren't entirely new, but repurposed from another source. For example, blood clotting proteins are simply modifications of other proteins in the body. As another example, the flagella apparatus of bacteria is composed of modified proteins used elsewhere in the bacteria. So many "new" things arent really new, just repurposed. That means they're often isn't much of an in between step.

[Saddlemomma]

There are a lot of things that macro evolution just can't explain or reconcile.  I just came across another one which would dispute Darwinian evolution: Squid Recodes It's Own RNA.  This was discovered by scientists in Tel Aviv.  The question this raises is does this RNA editing support the evolutionary example of an unguided process, or does it exhibit signs of functional purpose?  If the answer is functional purpose, then that opens up a whole new can of worms.

[albeto.]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gears-insect-plant-hopper-burrows/

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/functioning-mechanical-gears-seen-in-nature-for-the-first-time

 

 

A piece on the planthopper 'Issus Coleoptratus' came through my newsfeed today. I hadn't heard of this discovery before and found it very interesting that machine working gears already existed in an animal, long before humans invented them. What I am wondering is how could evolution explain these precise working gears being brought about through evolution? How could there possibly be an inbetween step in the process between the planthopper having no gears, to having gears?

Pretty cool, innit?!? From what I understand, these structures have been known since the middle of last century. The recent research that has caught the attention of popular media confirms their purpose. Simply speaking, they act as a kind of "training wheel" for leafhopper nymphs (the immatures which are not able to fly). These structures work to keep the legs in sync when activated. We're talking a fraction of a second here, some 30 miliseconds or something, and so synchronization increases the insect's agility and maneuverability.

 

It's reasonable to assume that among the internal structures that exist in leafhopper nymphs, those that have some kind of crude, timing mechanism faired better than those who don't, with regard to escaping predators and living long enough to reproduce. Over millions of generations, those animals that have this structure become more populous than those who don't when that function increases the animals' reproduction potential. Of that population, those whose structures are more detailed fair better than those who don't.

 

The theory of evolution explains the biodiversity in the world through a process called natural selection. You can learn more about how natural selection works here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

[Mergath]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gears-insect-plant-hopper-burrows/

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/functioning-mechanical-gears-seen-in-nature-for-the-first-time

 

 

A piece on the planthopper 'Issus Coleoptratus' came through my newsfeed today. I hadn't heard of this discovery before and found it very interesting that machine working gears already existed in an animal, long before humans invented them. What I am wondering is how could evolution explain these precise working gears being brought about through evolution? How could there possibly be an inbetween step in the process between the planthopper having no gears, to having gears?

 

Are you asking because you actually want an answer, or are you going to automatically reject any answer besides, "Gee, I don't know, evolution must not be real!"

[Lolly]

Me, I just wish "new" science would quit telling me birds are reptiles. I CANNOT accept that. No. Way. No need to restructure there.

[Tanaqui]

There are a lot of things that macro evolution just can't explain or reconcile.  I just came across another one which would dispute Darwinian evolution: Squid Recodes It's Own RNA.  This was discovered by scientists in Tel Aviv.  The question this raises is does this RNA editing support the evolutionary example of an unguided process, or does it exhibit signs of functional purpose?  If the answer is functional purpose, then that opens up a whole new can of worms.

 

You know, there's so much I can say in reply to this, but I'm going to start with a simple question:

 

What, in your own words, is the significance of this?

[albeto.]

There are a lot of things that macro evolution just can't explain or reconcile.  I just came across another one which would dispute Darwinian evolution: Squid Recodes It's Own RNA.  This was discovered by scientists in Tel Aviv.  The question this raises is does this RNA editing support the evolutionary example of an unguided process, or does it exhibit signs of functional purpose?  If the answer is functional purpose, then that opens up a whole new can of worms.

 

The theory of evolution is a scientific explanation for an observable phenomenon. The observation is the biodiversity of the flora and fauna of the earth. No scientist worth his/her weight in salt would suggest it can explain everything. How would one even know when "everything" has been reached? It's a silly accusation to make. There are many things that cannot be explained, and many things that when explained, open up new questions and new mysteries. This shouldn't be mistaken for not being a credible explanation.

 

The source you link, Discovery Institute, has a specific agenda that automatically negates itself as a scientific institution. It exists to promote and "defend the importance of Judeo-Christian conceptions of the rule of law, the nature of man and the necessity of limiting the power of government," and so on. It doesn't function to explore the natural world with a goal to understand and explain what we see, but to justify religious beliefs within the scientific rhetoric increasingly expected when one makes claims about the natural world.

 

The article illustrates this agenda:

 

 

RNA editing is not new, but finding it to be a "major player" is, indeed, "astonishing." Needless to say, finding RNA editing at such a large extent raises lots of questions. For one thing, it casts another strong blow at the "Central Dogma" of genetics (the idea that DNA is the master control of the cell). The Central Dogma has been running on hard times for years now. But if DNA is not controlling what proteins are manufactured, what is?

 

There is no "blow" against genetics as a viable explanation within biology, and there is no "dogma," central or otherwise. That's nonsense. The article was written to take a recent scientific study and use it to "defend the importance of Judeo-Christian conceptions of the rule of law, the nature of man and the necessity of limiting the power of government." This isn't science, it's religion and by extension, politics.

 

A relevant, scientific article about the same thing can be found here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150212114327.htm

[Teannika]

Pretty cool, innit?!? From what I understand, these structures have been known since the middle of last century. The recent research that has caught the attention of popular media confirms their purpose. Simply speaking, they act as a kind of "training wheel" for leafhopper nymphs (the immatures which are not able to fly). These structures work to keep the legs in sync when activated. We're talking a fraction of a second here, some 30 miliseconds or something, and so synchronization increases the insect's agility and maneuverability.

 

It's reasonable to assume that among the internal structures that exist in leafhopper nymphs, those that have some kind of crude, timing mechanism faired better than those who don't, with regard to escaping predators and living long enough to reproduce. Over millions of generations, those animals that have this structure become more populous than those who don't when that function increases the animals' reproduction potential. Of that population, those whose structures are more detailed fair better than those who don't.

 

The theory of evolution explains the biodiversity in the world through a process called natural selection. You can learn more about how natural selection works here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

I think it's very cool actually, my husband is a mechanic so I excitedly showed him :)

 

My question is, how could a planthopper get the gear in the first place? How could it develop a gear system that would not work during the developing stages? It is a sophisticated and precise gear, and if it wasn't fully functional how could it be of any advantage, it would have disadvantaged the planthopper.

 

How did the planthopper think long term to evolve something that would not function in the middle stages?

[Teannika]

Are you asking because you actually want an answer, or are you going to automatically reject any answer besides, "Gee, I don't know, evolution must not be real!"

 

I'd be happy to be able to understand this from an evolutionist's perspective. The articles that I read gave no insight into the stages before the gear existed, and that's where my thoughts are stuck.

[Mergath]

I think it's very cool actually, my husband is a mechanic so I excitedly showed him :)

 

My question is, how could a planthopper get the gear in the first place? How could it develop a gear system that would not work during the developing stages? It is a sophisticated and precise gear, and if it wasn't fully functional how could it be of any advantage, it would have disadvantaged the planthopper.

 

How did the planthopper think long term to evolve something that would not function in the middle stages?

Do you remember in the last evolution thread where we all told you that you were completely misunderstanding how evolution works? And that you weren't going to be able to understand this kind of thing until you did some reading on the basics of biology and evolution? That still applies.

[Mergath]

I'd be happy to be able to understand this from an evolutionist's perspective. The articles that I read gave no insight into the stages before the gear existed, and that's where my thoughts are stuck.

As long as you think living organisms intentionally pop out new parts in order to improve themselves, it probably isn't going to make much sense to you. I'm not trying to be rude, but you really do need to read a good basic bio text, then come back and read these articles again.

[albeto.]

How did the planthopper think long term to evolve something that would not function in the middle stages?

 

Can you explain this a bit further? What makes you say the plant hopper thinks about its internal physiological structures, long term or otherwise?

[Teannika]

Do you remember in the last evolution thread where we all told you that you were completely misunderstanding how evolution works? And that you weren't going to be able to understand this kind of thing until you did some reading on the basics of biology and evolution? That still applies.

 

Why don't you help me out by saying what the thing is that I don't understand is. It should only take you a sentence. Then I can specifically look into it and think about it.

 

I did assume a problem would be had with my last sentence in the quote above where I mentioned thinking ahead. I purposely wanted to express it that way as from my perspective I can't see how chance could develop a gear that would have a future purpose thousands or millions of years in the making during the transitional phase with it not serving any purpose.

[Mergath]

Why don't you help me out by saying what the thing is that I don't understand is. It should only take you a sentence. Then I can specifically look into it and think about it.

 

I did assume a problem would be had with my last sentence in the quote above where I mentioned thinking ahead. I purposely wanted to express it that way as from my perspective I can't see how chance could develop a gear that would have a future purpose thousands or millions of years in the making during the transitional phase with it not serving any purpose.

Start by studying natural selection from a secular perspective.

[kiana]

I'd be happy to be able to understand this from an evolutionist's perspective. The articles that I read gave no insight into the stages before the gear existed, and that's where my thoughts are stuck.

 

The thing is that you're thinking of evolution as something the animal directs. It's not (imagine if it were, we would have such awesome super powers now).

 

Something like this would probably have begin as a single bump -- a single proto-tooth of the gear, if you will, that caught just slightly and gave just a slight advantage. Even though it's a slight advantage, it adds up over generations -- look at how rapidly lactose persistence has spread through humans, and our generations are so much longer.

 

Once something has evolved in the first place (such as limbs, eyes), adaptation occurs much more quickly. Once there's a gene that says, roughly, 'put a bump HERE', it's pretty easy for a mutation to say 'put two bumps HERE like so', or more so. Of course, there are going to be deleterious mutations as well -- for example, two bumps that actually lock the legs from moving at all. But those creatures would die out very rapidly, so those mutations would not persist in the gene pool.

[Teannika]

Can you explain this a bit further? What makes you say the plant hopper thinks about its internal physiological structures, long term or otherwise?

What made the gear? I'm not expecting you to have to give the exact answer of course, but if we join heads on this, how do we imagine the process of it being made over millions of years and why.

[Teannika]

The thing is that you're thinking of evolution as something the animal directs. It's not (imagine if it were, we would have such awesome super powers now).

 

Something like this would probably have begin as a single bump -- a single proto-tooth of the gear, if you will, that caught just slightly and gave just a slight advantage. Even though it's a slight advantage, it adds up over generations -- look at how rapidly lactose persistence has spread through humans, and our generations are so much longer.

 

Once something has evolved in the first place (such as limbs, eyes), adaptation occurs much more quickly. Once there's a gene that says, roughly, 'put a bump HERE', it's pretty easy for a mutation to say 'put two bumps HERE like so', or more so. Of course, there are going to be deleterious mutations as well -- for example, two bumps that actually lock the legs from moving at all. But those creatures would die out very rapidly, so those mutations would not persist in the gene pool.

 

Thankyou, this is the kind of answer that I am looking for.

[albeto.]

Why don't you help me out by saying what the thing is that I don't understand is. It should only take you a sentence. Then I can specifically look into it and think about it.

 

I did assume a problem would be had with my last sentence in the quote above where I mentioned thinking ahead. I purposely wanted to express it that way as from my perspective I can't see how chance could develop a gear that would have a future purpose thousands or millions of years in the making during the transitional phase with it not serving any purpose.

 

Because these structures are no cognizant, there does not exist any concept of "purpose." A biological structure behaves according to its biological design, like a chemical bond behaves according to its chemical design. There is no thought process behind it any more than there is a thought process behind magnets attracting ferris metals. They either do, or don't attract. Chemicals either do or don't bond. Neurons in the ganglia either do or don't twitch. Those neurons that have an impulse to twitch and a corresponding structure that responds to the twitch in a beneficial way have an advantage over the bodies whose neurons lack that structure, or a less detailed structure.

 

Here's one illustration that might help explain how these genetic codes are passed from generation to generation, with random mutations. In this film, you'll see just a line being drawn. I can't find the video that shows a person walking from person to person, asking them to draw on the tablet. Each person sees only the marks left behind from the previous volunteer. Not all the marks show through (if you've ever written a check with a duplicate under it, or if you are old enough to remember making marks on your xerox pages with your fingernail on the paper below, you'll know how incomplete images show up). After 500 volunteers draw the mark they see, the film maker speeds it up to show just the drawings:

 

 

[Ipsey]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gears-insect-plant-hopper-burrows/

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/functioning-mechanical-gears-seen-in-nature-for-the-first-time

 

 

A piece on the planthopper 'Issus Coleoptratus' came through my newsfeed today. I hadn't heard of this discovery before and found it very interesting that machine working gears already existed in an animal, long before humans invented them. What I am wondering is how could evolution explain these precise working gears being brought about through evolution? How could there possibly be an inbetween step in the process between the planthopper having no gears, to having gears?

 

 

This argument is what's commonly called "Irreducible complexity" if you wish to learn more about it and why modern science roundly rejects it as an evidence against evolution.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity  for starters.

 

Kiana did a lovely job explaining how these types of structures may develop over millions of years.

 

It helps to remember evolution doesn't happen in a specific "direction" or toward a specific "goal" or "advancement." The "gear" was never some sort of ultimate goal of evolutionary change in the planthopper, it's just what happened to occur as these genetic changes arose that improved the animal's fitness (which, in biological terms, means its ability to survive and reproduce in its environment).  

[Tanaqui]

 

My question is, how could a planthopper get the gear in the first place? How could it develop a gear system that would not work during the developing stages? It is a sophisticated and precise gear, and if it wasn't fully functional how could it be of any advantage, it would have disadvantaged the planthopper.

 

I don't know about gears, but I can give a simple explanation based on an insect feature I do know a little about - wings.

 

Long wings on a dragonfly help it to fly. Shorter wings would be less helpful. The question of the hour is "How could long wings evolve if mutant dragonflies with super extra short wings are not capable of flight?"

 

There are a few competing theories here, and it should be noted that in this case, multiple theories could be correct if wings evolved multiple times. I'm going to write out one possible pathway.

 

Perhaps one type of insect had a small mutation that caused a small growth from the sides. That growth didn't do much, but it DID allow the insect to collect heat more efficiently and stay active during colder times of the day or year. This allowed the insect species to move into a new niche. Over time, those members of that species with larger growths were more successful. Eventually, the growths had evolved to be large enough to be of some small assistance in gliding. This allowed the insects with those large growths a selective advantage when avoiding predators in trees, as they could safely get to the ground. That, in turn, encourage the evolution of larger "gliders". Some members of the species could move their gliding growth proto-wings better than others. Those lived longer and had more offspring than the less maneuverable ones. Over many many generations, true wings evolved.

 

As you can see from this example, insect wings could have evolved because they helped insects stay warm, and only later become useful for flight. Computer models seem to back this up.

 

Note: I am not asserting that this DID happen exactly like that, simply that it plausibly COULD have happened. There are, as I said, competing theories about the evolution of flight in insects, hampered in no small part by an incomplete fossil record. Really, it's amazing that there are any fossils, when you think about it.

 

Feathers in birds could've evolved in much the same way, btw - first an adaptation that kept the proto-birds warm, then later one that became useful for flight.

[albeto.]

What made the gear? I'm not expecting you to have to give the exact answer of course, but if we join heads on this, how do we imagine the process of it being made over millions of years and why.

 

The theologian's job is to figure out purpose, the scientist's job is to explain what is seen, not attribute meaning to it. The thing about evolution is, meaning doesn't have to be attributed to it to make sense. Supernatural direction doesn't need to be invoked to explain the phenomenon. A natural explanation is actually much, much more elegant, sensible, and reliable. I would encourage you to stop trying to figure out a purpose behind such direction, and instead learn about the process. Have you had any time to poke through the link I offered upthread?

[Forget-Me-Not]

Khan Academy has a great section on natural selection. That might be a good place for you to start. :)

[Teannika]

The theologian's job is to figure out purpose, the scientist's job is to explain what is seen, not attribute meaning to it. The thing about evolution is, meaning doesn't have to be attributed to it to make sense. Supernatural direction doesn't need to be invoked to explain the phenomenon. A natural explanation is actually much, much more elegant, sensible, and reliable. I would encourage you to stop trying to figure out a purpose behind such direction, and instead learn about the process. Have you had any time to poke through the link I offered upthread?

 

That's why I used the word 'process'. I'm not trying to think about the purpose here, as from an evolutionists perspective I have to assume 'no purpose.' I'm trying to get a mental picture of how the gear developed through natural selection and random chances over millions of years (or hundreds of thousands of years, or tens of thousands of years, or thousands of years etc.)

 

Thankyou everyone for the input so far. As I said, I'm trying to get a mental step-by-step picture of this, so all input helps me to see the possible stages that may have taken place in the evolutionists scenario. This will take a while for me to dwell on and and analyse in my own mind, so I won't be rushing replies. I need time to take it in and question it.

 

It's helpful for me to think about one thing at a time, which is why I like just looking at this one example of the gear. I do appreciate the example of the wings though, but as for the gears, that's specifically where my focus is right now.

[Teannika]

Also, I will be looking at links. I open them all up and read them. So that will slow me down as well :)

[Ipsey]

That's why I used the word 'process'. I'm not trying to think about the purpose here, as from an evolutionists perspective I have to assume 'no purpose.' I'm trying to get a mental picture of how the gear developed through natural selection and random chances over millions of years (or hundreds of thousands of years, or tens of thousands of years, or thousands of years etc.)

 

Thankyou everyone for the input so far. As I said, I'm trying to get a mental step-by-step picture of this, so all input helps me to see the possible stages that may have taken place in the evolutionists scenario. This will take a while for me to dwell on and and analyse in my own mind, so I won't be rushing replies. I need time to take it in and question it.

 

It's helpful for me to think about one thing at a time, which is why I like just looking at this one example of the gear. I do appreciate the example of the wings though, but as for the gears, that's specifically where my focus is right now.

 

It is really interesting to consider it!  Another possibility, I think more likely than the one "bump" on the gear theory would be that there were two smooth disk gear-like things (I have no idea what they did/do--perhaps mere friction was enough), and then perhaps there was a gene that made them rough, or rougher. And the round things evolved, getting rougher and rougher as the individuals who had them (presumably had greater fitness) to eventually become the "gears" we see now. In another 300,000 years, who knows that those "gears" will look like? There's nothing to say that this is the ideal for them or that they're going to stop evolving--or what that entire species may look like. Maybe the cogs will change in some way if there is a beneficial mutation of some sort that can be passed on.  All we know is what they look like now, and we _might_ be able to work backwards and find the pressures that directed certain adaptations.

[Teannika]

Because these structures are no cognizant, there does not exist any concept of "purpose." A biological structure behaves according to its biological design, like a chemical bond behaves according to its chemical design. There is no thought process behind it any more than there is a thought process behind magnets attracting ferris metals. They either do, or don't attract. Chemicals either do or don't bond. Neurons in the ganglia either do or don't twitch. Those neurons that have an impulse to twitch and a corresponding structure that responds to the twitch in a beneficial way have an advantage over the bodies whose neurons lack that structure, or a less detailed structure.

 

Here's one illustration that might help explain how these genetic codes are passed from generation to generation, with random mutations. In this film, you'll see just a line being drawn. I can't find the video that shows a person walking from person to person, asking them to draw on the tablet. Each person sees only the marks left behind from the previous volunteer. Not all the marks show through (if you've ever written a check with a duplicate under it, or if you are old enough to remember making marks on your xerox pages with your fingernail on the paper below, you'll know how incomplete images show up). After 500 volunteers draw the mark they see, the film maker speeds it up to show just the drawings:

 

 

 

Doesn't this illustrate the opposite result to what evolution claims? Things getting more and more chaotic through chance. Start with a perfect line, end up with chaos.

[albeto.]

Doesn't this illustrate the opposite result to what evolution claims? Things getting more and more chaotic through chance. Start with a perfect line, end up with chaos.

 

What does that mean, "more chaotic," though? More chaotic than what? Than when? What's the standard, away from which you're moving here?

 

ETA: Also, don't misunderstand the illustration. It's not about producing the perfect line, it's an illustration that shows how changes are small, random, undirected, and over time show a difference. That scale is throwing you off, I think. You seem to understand tiny differences, but can't imagine how that pattern can keep going and going and going, until the differences are quite major. Is that close?

[Ipsey]

Doesn't this illustrate the opposite result to what evolution claims? Things getting more and more chaotic through chance. Start with a perfect line, end up with chaos.

 

Evolution is not moving "toward" something. It is not connected with moving toward or away from chaos. It is change in response to external pressures. 

 

(Reminds me of the silly platypus meme "Go home, evolution. You're drunk.-- Is a platypus with all of its strange adaptations "chaotic"? More chaotic than a cat? No, evolution is not in the business of comparing "chaos" and "weird" from "normal" or "correct")

 

That's not the point of the illustration. It merely shows that many little changes can create something very different from the original.

 

There is not a magic "start" or "end" or "straight" or "chaos" to evolution because there's no "perfect" things we're comparing the changes with.

[sunflowerlady]

Teannika, on one of the last threads where evolution was discussed, there was a link to an old thread where evolution was explained and discussed in great detail. The member who shared her knowledge was a scientist and a specialist in biology. I checked the thread out and it was really informative. I realized how.little I know or recall from when I learned it in school.

 

Several books were recommended and one was called "Why Evolution is True". I got it from the library and started reading it and taking notes this week. I am still in chapter 1 but have learned a lot already. I recommend the old thread and this book. There were other book recommendations also.

[Ipsey]

Teannika, on one of the last threads where evolution was discussed, there was a link to an old thread where evolution was explained and discussed in great detail. The member who shared her knowledge was a scientist and a specialist in biology. I checked the thread out and it was really informative. I realized how.little I know or recall from when I learned it in school.

 

Several books were recommended and one was called "Why Evolution is True". I got it from the library and started reading it and taking notes this week. I am still in chapter 1 but have learned a lot already. I recommend the old thread and this book. There were other book recommendations also.

 

Yeesss!  I can't remember the name of the poster, but she's a leading evolutionary biologist in NZ, I believe, and she did a very fine job of answering questions. She hesitates to get involved on most evolution threads, but she might find this one interesting as Teannika seems really interested in learning and understanding more about the science.

 

I really learned a lot reading that evo. thread!

 

Can you find it and link it?

[kiana]

I'm horrible at finding threads but I'm 99% sure it was lewelma. The title was something like "this unscientific american watches a fish walk out of the water" or something like that. 

[Chris in VA]

Thanks for mentioning that thread--BEST description/explanation I've ever read.

[Tanaqui]

 

Doesn't this illustrate the opposite result to what evolution claims? Things getting more and more chaotic through chance. Start with a perfect line, end up with chaos.

 

That's not what it looks like to me. It looks like we're going from a simple line to a rather complex picture made up of varying line segments.

 

Of course, that's a view that's also not an accurate metaphor for evolution :)

[Ipsey]

Here's "The" Thread. :)

 

I don't think I'm linking it correctly...http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/345246-the-unscientific-american-watches-a-mammal-walk-into-the-water-and-grow-fins/?hl=%20unscientific%20%20american

 

 

[Tsuga]

Why don't you help me out by saying what the thing is that I don't understand is. It should only take you a sentence. 

 

I really don't think that evolutionary biology (or the mechanics of black holes, or economics...) can be expressed in one sentence.

 

If you are saying, "I won't believe something if it cannot be expressed in extremely simple terms," then what you are doing is refusing to believe anything that is actually complex. You are saying, "I believe the world is a simple place and that 'how we got here' can be explained in one sentence and that the principles, processes, and events that led to it can be explained on a message board in one sentence and be understood by someone like me."

 

If that's your starting assumption, you are going to have a lot of problems, starting I suppose with the water cycle and moving all the way through evolution, the intersection between neuroscience and social science, and up to black holes and beyond.

 

You may choose not to believe in these things. However, accept that it's due to a failure to accept / process complexity on your part. It's not due to some failure on the part of your interoggatees, because they didn't create the complexity.

[sunflowerlady]

Thank you , Ipsey! That is the thread! The link you posted works for me.:)

 

I was searching for it and having no success.

[Reefgazer]

It's funny...when I was a kid, I had the same squicky reaction to birds and reptiles, just..ick. I I don't cotton to either one of those animals, really. Now that I have been working field of biology for a while, I realize there's a reason why have the same reaction to both animals. It all makes sense now-they are the same darned thing, lol.

 

Me, I just wish "new" science would quit telling me birds are reptiles. I CANNOT accept that. No. Way. No need to restructure there.

[Reefgazer]

Here, let me try: Try and stop thinking of animals or cells or even individual organisms as having a biological goal. Evolution doesn't have goals; things appear by chance. If they are advantageous in the owner's environment, at least not detrimental, they will survive in the population. Some disadvantageous things also survive if they also of confer advantages on the individual, such as sickle cell anemia. But these characteristics don't appear as the result of any guided conscious action. internalizing this idea will help you to understand evolution.

Why don't you help me out by saying what the thing is that I don't understand is. It should only take you a sentence. Then I can specifically look into it and think about it.

 

I did assume a problem would be had with my last sentence in the quote above where I mentioned thinking ahead. I purposely wanted to express it that way as from my perspective I can't see how chance could develop a gear that would have a future purpose thousands or millions of years in the making during the transitional phase with it not serving any purpose.

[Reefgazer]

You would probably like Ken Miller's "Only A Theory". This book goes a long way toward explaining evolution in lay men's terms, without being disrespectful of someone's religious beliefs.

[IdahoHomeschooler]

Me, I just wish "new" science would quit telling me birds are reptiles. I CANNOT accept that. No. Way. No need to restructure there.

I don't know about the claim that they are reptiles, but they are definitely related to them. Why is that difficult to accept?

[Teannika]

Evolution is not moving "toward" something. It is not connected with moving toward or away from chaos. It is change in response to external pressures.

 

(Reminds me of the silly platypus meme "Go home, evolution. You're drunk.-- Is a platypus with all of its strange adaptations "chaotic"? More chaotic than a cat? No, evolution is not in the business of comparing "chaos" and "weird" from "normal" or "correct")

 

That's not the point of the illustration. It merely shows that many little changes can create something very different from the original.

 

There is not a magic "start" or "end" or "straight" or "chaos" to evolution because there's no "perfect" things we're comparing the changes with.

I understand the many little changes principle, I can visualise that. The problem is what directs the little changes. Why did the little bump for a cog form in the first place? How was the cog then also by chance formed in the right position on the opposite side of the body? Then multiple, evenly spaced, precise cogs formed. And how were the initial stages of cogs encoded and replicated through reproduction to be passed on? In this case, the specific problem is how could it still function by chance before the cogs were fully formed? (Especially if we understand that the cogs may have taken millions of generations of planthoppers until it was completely formed as we see today.) We know what happens when a cog is missing in a mechanical gear. How could the insect propel itself in the meanwhile? And survive, and then pass on her semi-formed, then fully-formed cogs to future generations?

 

The problem I see with the illustration and your comment is that we do have many living things that function in a complete way today. In fact, wouldn't everything we see surviving today be in its complete form? By definition the word 'evolution' can mean advancement and progress. So are things still just becoming randomly better (and not worse) today within the living world? Why didn't the planthopper develop a characteristic that would hinder it instead? And if it did and died out, then why couldn't it survive and retain some insignificant hinderances that weren't life threatening? Are there many examples of hinderances in the living world being maintained in creatures today?

[Teannika]

Teannika, on one of the last threads where evolution was discussed, there was a link to an old thread where evolution was explained and discussed in great detail. The member who shared her knowledge was a scientist and a specialist in biology. I checked the thread out and it was really informative. I realized how.little I know or recall from when I learned it in school.

 

Several books were recommended and one was called "Why Evolution is True". I got it from the library and started reading it and taking notes this week. I am still in chapter 1 but have learned a lot already. I recommend the old thread and this book. There were other book recommendations also.

Thankyou, I think that's the thread I read last time, and I still came out wondering how people believed it. I'll take another look though, especially as I remembered there was something that caught my attention on it and I had a querie. I'll post my comment on that thread when I get back to it.

[Teannika]

The thing is that you're thinking of evolution as something the animal directs. It's not (imagine if it were, we would have such awesome super powers now).

 

Something like this would probably have begin as a single bump -- a single proto-tooth of the gear, if you will, that caught just slightly and gave just a slight advantage. Even though it's a slight advantage, it adds up over generations -- look at how rapidly lactose persistence has spread through humans, and our generations are so much longer.

 

Once something has evolved in the first place (such as limbs, eyes), adaptation occurs much more quickly. Once there's a gene that says, roughly, 'put a bump HERE', it's pretty easy for a mutation to say 'put two bumps HERE like so', or more so. Of course, there are going to be deleterious mutations as well -- for example, two bumps that actually lock the legs from moving at all. But those creatures would die out very rapidly, so those mutations would not persist in the gene pool.

 

But a single bump would be to no advantage whatsoever.

[Teannika]

I really don't think that evolutionary biology (or the mechanics of black holes, or economics...) can be expressed in one sentence.

 

If you are saying, "I won't believe something if it cannot be expressed in extremely simple terms," then what you are doing is refusing to believe anything that is actually complex. You are saying, "I believe the world is a simple place and that 'how we got here' can be explained in one sentence and that the principles, processes, and events that led to it can be explained on a message board in one sentence and be understood by someone like me."

 

If that's your starting assumption, you are going to have a lot of problems, starting I suppose with the water cycle and moving all the way through evolution, the intersection between neuroscience and social science, and up to black holes and beyond.

 

You may choose not to believe in these things. However, accept that it's due to a failure to accept / process complexity on your part. It's not due to some failure on the part of your interoggatees, because they didn't create the complexity.

No, that's not what I was saying at all, I'm mathematically minded and a problem solver, so I like to think about things critically. Mergath had made a similar comment to her post above in a previous thread, so I know she believes that I don't know enough to intelligently discuss evolution. And I can accept that, but felt her comment too vague and generalised to give me any direction whatsoever about what I don't know or get. Her next response answered me well when she said 'natural selection.' There's nothing wrong with improving ones knowledge, I'm all for that.

 

Actually I should have answered something else that Mergath said previously (not in this thread sorry), that I didn't respond to, and didn't feel a need to at the time. She told me to stop reading Answers in Genesis. I guess she was either mocking me, or at least just wanting to bag the site out. The truth is I haven't been reading that site. I'd say maybe I've been directed to an article on there a couple of times in my life, but I cannot state what or even remember it. (Im just covering myself that I may have been on it.) I'm willing to look at all angles, so I don't oppose looking at Christian sites, and I also don't agree with Albeto that there is no value in them, but my point is that I haven't been greatly influenced by them. Just for the record.

[Garga]

In my mind evolution all by itself is a tough pill to swallow. The odds of all these things happening in harmony at all the same time? It strains credulity.

 

But at the same time, there is so much scientific evidence for it. There's a ton of it out there and trying to explain it away also strains credulity.

 

I am a staunch Christian. You're never going to convince me that God isn't there. So, as Sherlock says, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

 

There is a God. There is evolution. Evolution is just about impossible. But God can do the impossible. Therefore, God created the world through evolution. To me, there's no other way that random bumps and such turned into these finely tuned instruments without the active hand of God.

 

I know my beliefs fly in the face of the literal 7 day creation and I'm completely at peace with that. I think it's even more spectacular that rather than flash! bang! creating everything in 7 days, he set the ball rolling a billion years ago just waiting until his children came on the scene at 23:58 o'clock. What patience and forethought. The little things in my life can't stand against that kind of eternal being.

 

Ok--sermon done for the day!

 

ETA: I think it's a beautiful thing that science is finding out how all this works. I think it's marvelous to uncover what happened and how things were done. I don't find science at odds with my religion at all. The only place where we part is science stops at "this is how it was done," and I continue with "because God set it in motion that way."

[Teannika]

It is really interesting to consider it! Another possibility, I think more likely than the one "bump" on the gear theory would be that there were two smooth disk gear-like things (I have no idea what they did/do--perhaps mere friction was enough), and then perhaps there was a gene that made them rough, or rougher. And the round things evolved, getting rougher and rougher as the individuals who had them (presumably had greater fitness) to eventually become the "gears" we see now. In another 300,000 years, who knows that those "gears" will look like? There's nothing to say that this is the ideal for them or that they're going to stop evolving--or what that entire species may look like. Maybe the cogs will change in some way if there is a beneficial mutation of some sort that can be passed on. All we know is what they look like now, and we _might_ be able to work backwards and find the pressures that directed certain adaptations.

 

Thankyou for this. This is the only thing I could "imagine" it kinda happening, (without understanding the whys.)

 

I also read that the cogs aren't present on the adult. So that's another thing to factor in. :)

[Teannika]

In my mind evolution all by itself is a tough pill to swallow. The odds of all these things happening in harmony at all the same time? It strains credulity.

 

But at the same time, there is so much scientific evidence for it. There's a ton of it out there and trying to explain it away also strains credulity.

 

I am a staunch Christian. You're never going to convince me that God isn't there. So, as Sherlock says, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

 

There is a God. There is evolution. Evolution is just about impossible. But God can do the impossible. Therefore, God created the world through evolution. To me, there's no other way that random bumps and such turned into these finely tuned instruments without the active hand of God.

 

I know my beliefs fly in the face of the literal 7 day creation and I'm completely at peace with that. I think it's even more spectacular that rather than flash! bang! creating everything in 7 days, he set the ball rolling a billion years ago just waiting until his children came on the scene at 23:58 o'clock. What patience and forethought. The little things in my life can't stand against that kind of eternal being.

 

Ok--sermon done for the day!

 

ETA: I think it's a beautiful thing that science is finding out how all this works. I think it's marvelous to uncover what happened and how things were done. I don't find science at odds with my religion at all. The only place where we part is science stops at "this is how it was done," and I continue with "because God set it in motion that way."

 

'The odds'. This is totally where I am stuck in being able to understand how evolutionist's are convinced that things evolved all by themselves by chance to coexist in harmony as we see them doing today. By chance, which happens to happen by chance at exactly the right timing between species and so on. So many by chance upon chance of simultaneous occurrences creating the world as we know it today. Surely probability should be enough to disprove evolution.

[albeto.]

I understand the many little changes principle, I can visualise that. The problem is what directs the little changes. Why did the little bump for a cog form in the first place? How was the cog then also by chance formed in the right position on the opposite side of the body? Then multiple, evenly spaced, precise cogs formed. And how were the initial stages of cogs encoded and replicated through reproduction to be passed on? In this case, the specific problem is how could it still function by chance before the cogs were fully formed? (Especially if we understand that the cogs may have taken millions of generations of planthoppers until it was completely formed as we see today.) We know what happens when a cog is missing in a mechanical gear. How could the insect propel itself in the meanwhile? And survive, and then pass on her semi-formed, then fully-formed cogs to future generations?

 

The problem I see with the illustration and your comment is that we do have many living things that function in a complete way today. In fact, wouldn't everything we see surviving today be in its complete form? By definition the word 'evolution' can mean advancement and progress. So are things still just becoming randomly better (and not worse) today within the living world? Why didn't the planthopper develop a characteristic that would hinder it instead? And if it did and died out, then why couldn't it survive and retain some insignificant hinderances that weren't life threatening? Are there many examples of hinderances in the living world being maintained in creatures today?

Teannika, I emailed my husband, an evolutionary biologist, your question. Here is his reply:

 

The cog wasn't really "formed by chance", nor is it now "fully formed" in the

sense you mean. The planthopper lineage had functional legs for jumping before

these cogs - other groups of leafhoppers/planthoppers have different mechanisms

for controlled jumping. Look at it this way... Regarding the initial state of

the inner surface of the hind trochanter (a basal hind leg segment), the

"pre-cog-bearing" ancestor had *some* texture (smooth, rought, whatever) there.

It may have served little to no function in helping to keep the hind legs in

sync when jumping. The presence of this texture is genetically driven, in the

same way that your skin texture is, or the texture on a crustacean's shell, or

any other external body texture. All the individuals in a population had some

kind of texture on that leg segment that was driven by genetics. Of course,

being genetically driven, there will always be variation among individuals in a

population (just look at variation among humans in any number of

characteristics). Variation is normal. For the texture on that inner surface of

the trochanter, *some* individuals were "more successful" with some influence

from a certain texture - whether rougher, more dense bumps, less dense bumps,

whatever, due to the contact between the left and right trochanters while

jumping. By "more successful", I mean more individuals survive to reproduction

than those having other textures. If this texture is providing an advantage

(being able to control your jump may be an advantage), population genetics

would dictate that over time (even if the advantage is slight) there will

ultimately be more individuals with the more advantageous texture. With lots of

time, the less successful textures can simply disappear, because they are

drowned out by the more successful texture-bearing part of the population.

Apply this principle through a few million years, where certain textures of the

trochanter are tested, some providing a greater survival advantage, and some

not. The successful ones are perpetuated because there are more individuals

with that genetic makeup surviving to reproduce. And you can see how such a cog

mechanism (which is probably extremely efficient at making their jump very

controlled, which could be a great advantage for survival) can develop.

Ultimately, it is a very good structure for what it does (i.e., keeping the

hind legs in sync during a jump), but that doesn't mean it's "over" or "fully

evolved". Structures are continuing to be refined based on survival advantages,

even if these advantages are only slight in the short run.

 

There is no such thing as a "complete form", because there are a variety of

external influences that can change what is an advantage and what is a

disadvantage. The industrial revolution caused evolution on a scale that we

could witness in the peppered moth, Biston beluaria. It is an excellent example

of evolution in action. It would be very worthwhile for you to read about this,

as it makes things very clear regarding how populations change due to natural

selection.

 

I hope that helps.  :)

[Ipsey]

'The odds'. This is totally where I am stuck in being able to understand how evolutionist's are convinced that things evolved all by themselves by chance to coexist in harmony as we see them doing today. By chance, which happens to happen by chance at exactly the right timing between species and so on. So many by chance upon chance of simultaneous occurrences creating the world as we know it today. Surely probability should be enough to disprove evolution.

 

Things aren't coexisting "in harmony." Species are dying out all of the time unless they're evolving to survive in their environment.

 

We are all adapting and evolving in order to continue existing.

 

What you see as "harmony" is just all of us survivors.

 

These things aren't happening by chance. Pressures arise, species adapt, and these adaptations create pressures on other animals and they adapt. Things aren't happening magically all at the same time and unconnected. These adaptations affect other animals and they must adapt or die as well. We are a _system_.

 

So, if you can possibly jettison the magical "chance upon chance of simultaneous occurrences" because this is _not_ what's happening, you'll be stepping in the right direction.