Biological Gears and Evolution

[Tanaqui]

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."

 

There are a great many scientists who have the same thought (although they vary in exactly which gods they believe in, and what religion they adhere to). Since you can't prove a negative, it'd be really hard to disprove the existence of deities!

 

The problem is what directs the little changes. Why did the little bump for a cog form in the first place?

 

You need to wipe the thought "something directs this" from your mind. Either there's an omnipotent puppetmaster deity doing everything, in which case the odds don't matter one whit, or (more likely) there is no conscious direction of any sort. The first step that led to these little gears was a random, utterly random mutation.

 

But a single bump would be to no advantage whatsoever.

 

As a gear, maybe not. But remember, it might have had an advantage doing something else. Evolution is kludgy. Ever work or live someplace that was laid out in this ridiculous, unintuitive way? And you wondered WHY they made you go up two flights of stairs to end up in the basement? And when you asked, you got this long answer involving people who were no longer there, and the whole place was laid out like a maze to solve generations of problems because it was never going to be possible to just start over from scratch?

 

Okay, that's what evolution is like. Evolution is like the guy who needs to carry something heavy home, and he doesn't have a car, and he doesn't have a bike, so he repurposes an office chair.

 

Evolution is "there's a selective advantage to better communication, and we already use verbal calls, so those creatures with mouths better evolved for speech will be the winners in this race" even though the same advantages that make human speech possible also make us prone to impacted wisdom teeth and asphyxiation. We couldn't just make a new system for speech, we had to evolve speech with what we had, which was a tongue and teeth and a larynx. The tongue is so primary for speech that we tend to use the very word "tongue" to mean "language", but of course most animals use their tongues primarily for eating.

 

So let's say that these gears first formed as a mutated little bump. Clearly, if that's how it went down, that little bump was a selective advantage - but it might not have been an advantage that made them jump faster. It might have helped them do something else.

 

Why didn't the planthopper develop a characteristic that would hinder it instead?

 

Hinder it enough to kill it and leave no survivors? Then we wouldn't be discussing it now. Probably lots of ancestral planthoppers did just that, except they weren't so ancestral as they left no descendents.

 

 

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?

 

Absofreakinglutely.

 

Look at the panda. A confirmed herbivore, retains a carnivore's digestive system.

 

Look at humans. In addition to the adaptations that make verbal speech possible, consider human intelligence. Our huge brains are a terrific advantage! As a consequence, humans suffered great maternal mortality until fairly recently (and still do in some parts of the world), and human infants are born so underdeveloped that they can't even hold their heads up. One prominent theory is that SIDS happens when babies forget to breathe while sleeping, something they wouldn't do if they could spend a few more months in the womb. If we could start from scratch, we'd build ourselves better.

 

Look at peacocks. Peahens think those tails are hawt! That sort of tail may signal "I'm so awesome, I can survive and maintain this terrific tail!" And it would tend to indicate that the peacock is awesome - those tails are an enormous energy investment, and put them at risk of being trapped or eaten.

 

Look at ostriches. They don't fly. They maintain wings, however, and have to get around on weaker, hollow bones because those features were advantageous to their ancestors that DID fly. (Bats, conversely, have the heavy bones typical of mammals, even though those bones are a disadvantage to anything that spends considerable time in the air.)

 

Whales have lungs instead of gills. As they live in the water, it should be self-evident that having to come up for air periodically is an enormous disadvantage.

 

There are parasites that evolved when one of hosts lived in different environments. A significant amount of parasite energy, which could objectively have been better spent growing and reproducing, is put to use maneuvering their host into the right environment so the parasite can finish its life cycle (generally by having the host get eaten by some other creature that lives where the host's ancestors lived). There's no way that's not a hindrance.

 

[IdahoHomeschooler]

Surely probability should be enough to disprove evolution.

Um, no. Evolution is a given. We have proof of this. In fact, when I began studying prehistory last year, I was BLOWN AWAY by how much evidence we have. It is really quite spectacular.

[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.

 

Honestly, I don't think either one of us have the scientific background to say that statistics and probability that evolution is "disproven." We do have the VAST preponderance of scientists in the world who aren't relying on statistics and who do understand the biology who are convinced that evolution is the best system to explain the development of the species and biology as we see it and who aren't a whit moved by whatever statistics you're talking about. 

 

You really, really need some sort of academic grounding in some basic biology because you're trying to explain your understanding of this idea, and we keep telling you that you're not in the ball park.

 

I think it's great if you're trying to read academic and scientific sources.  Once you can understand the basic concepts you may be able to get a better handle on this.

[Tanaqui]

'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.

 

1. We don't coexist in harmony. Even without human influence, organisms go extinct all the time. And they eat each other, and they drive each other off, and they strangle each other, and they compete viciously for every advantage they can get. Nature, red in tooth and claw!

 

2. For every beneficial mutation, there are many more which are not beneficial at this time (but not detrimental either, and so are retained) or which are harmful. Your complaint is like saying "I can't believe Harvard even exists, the odds against admission are 100 : 1!

 

3. In fact, you state "probability", but you give no idea of what those numbers might be, nor do you actually seem to run those numbers to see if they're realistic or not. This leads me to suspect two things. A. That you don't really understand probability or statistics any better than you understand evolution and B. That you have no idea what the odds actually are of beneficial mutations arising. Actually, I am starting to suspect a third thing, which is that you are not really arguing in good faith.

[Greta]

'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.

Evolutionary biologists do not argue that all of these things happened by chance. Evolution is driven by "forces" such as natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift, sexual selection, and others, and these forces are understandable and measurable. Just like the formation, arrangement, and motion of stars, planets, solar systems, and galaxies is driven by the force of gravity. Physicists are not saying all of that happened by chance. They are saying that there is a naturally occuring force in our universe, a "law of nature", that we call gravity which shaped these things. Biologists are saying that there are laws of nature which govern how living things change over time. Not mere chance.

[Teannika]

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. :)

This is a good answer, thankyou.

So could you just ask him for me... â˜ºï¸ If he has time and doesn't mind...

 

Would cog gears that are not fully formed still be able to function? Halfway between a texture and a cog system. (I know he said there's no such thing as complete form, but I can only see these cogs as fully formed and perfectly functional, so he'll have to ignore me using that term.)

 

What about the ratios needed for them to work? I guess what I'm trying to understand is how the gears worked before the exact proportions needed were present. My limited understanding is that certain parameters would need to be in place. I'll try to research this mechanical aspect a bit more myself, see if I can understand what is necessary to be in place for functionality.

[Teannika]

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.

I'm not sure if I can! 😃

At the moment my head is about explode from the mere mention and attempted visualisation of chances upon chances upon chances.... I have to try really hard to focus on one thing at a time to even begin to look at this from an evolutionist's viewpoint.

 

 

Question: Do you think that the system might stop working one day? Is that a possibility?

[abacus2]

'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.

 

The thing about probability is that it is forward looking. We consider the probability that something might happen in the future.

 

However, everything that has already happened has a probability of 1 (or 100%). For instance, assume Mrs. Mom has a family of six daughters. What is the probability of a woman having six daughters? Pretty low, right? But what is the probability of Mrs. Mom having six daughters? 100%, because she does have six daughters.

 

The same thing is true of the amazing, crazy world around us. There were trillions of possibilities, but the things that have happened, happened. The probability of the world being the way it is is 100% because the world is this way. 

[Teannika]

Um, no. Evolution is a given. We have proof of this. In fact, when I began studying prehistory last year, I was BLOWN AWAY by how much evidence we have. It is really quite spectacular.

 

I don't understand sorry.

There's hard proof of evolution? It has been witnessed? Can you point me to it please, and not the theoretical side.

[Teannika]

There are a great many scientists who have the same thought (although they vary in exactly which gods they believe in, and what religion they adhere to). Since you can't prove a negative, it'd be really hard to disprove the existence of deities!

 

 

You need to wipe the thought "something directs this" from your mind. Either there's an omnipotent puppetmaster deity doing everything, in which case the odds don't matter one whit, or (more likely) there is no conscious direction of any sort. The first step that led to these little gears was a random, utterly random mutation.

 

 

As a gear, maybe not. But remember, it might have had an advantage doing something else. Evolution is kludgy. Ever work or live someplace that was laid out in this ridiculous, unintuitive way? And you wondered WHY they made you go up two flights of stairs to end up in the basement? And when you asked, you got this long answer involving people who were no longer there, and the whole place was laid out like a maze to solve generations of problems because it was never going to be possible to just start over from scratch?

 

Okay, that's what evolution is like. Evolution is like the guy who needs to carry something heavy home, and he doesn't have a car, and he doesn't have a bike, so he repurposes an office chair.

 

Evolution is "there's a selective advantage to better communication, and we already use verbal calls, so those creatures with mouths better evolved for speech will be the winners in this race" even though the same advantages that make human speech possible also make us prone to impacted wisdom teeth and asphyxiation. We couldn't just make a new system for speech, we had to evolve speech with what we had, which was a tongue and teeth and a larynx. The tongue is so primary for speech that we tend to use the very word "tongue" to mean "language", but of course most animals use their tongues primarily for eating.

 

So let's say that these gears first formed as a mutated little bump. Clearly, if that's how it went down, that little bump was a selective advantage - but it might not have been an advantage that made them jump faster. It might have helped them do something else.

 

 

Hinder it enough to kill it and leave no survivors? Then we wouldn't be discussing it now. Probably lots of ancestral planthoppers did just that, except they weren't so ancestral as they left no descendents.

 

 

Absofreakinglutely.

 

Look at the panda. A confirmed herbivore, retains a carnivore's digestive system.

 

Look at humans. In addition to the adaptations that make verbal speech possible, consider human intelligence. Our huge brains are a terrific advantage! As a consequence, humans suffered great maternal mortality until fairly recently (and still do in some parts of the world), and human infants are born so underdeveloped that they can't even hold their heads up. One prominent theory is that SIDS happens when babies forget to breathe while sleeping, something they wouldn't do if they could spend a few more months in the womb. If we could start from scratch, we'd build ourselves better.

 

Look at peacocks. Peahens think those tails are hawt! That sort of tail may signal "I'm so awesome, I can survive and maintain this terrific tail!" And it would tend to indicate that the peacock is awesome - those tails are an enormous energy investment, and put them at risk of being trapped or eaten.

 

Look at ostriches. They don't fly. They maintain wings, however, and have to get around on weaker, hollow bones because those features were advantageous to their ancestors that DID fly. (Bats, conversely, have the heavy bones typical of mammals, even though those bones are a disadvantage to anything that spends considerable time in the air.)

 

Whales have lungs instead of gills. As they live in the water, it should be self-evident that having to come up for air periodically is an enormous disadvantage.

 

There are parasites that evolved when one of hosts lived in different environments. A significant amount of parasite energy, which could objectively have been better spent growing and reproducing, is put to use maneuvering their host into the right environment so the parasite can finish its life cycle (generally by having the host get eaten by some other creature that lives where the host's ancestors lived). There's no way that's not a hindrance.

 

Thankyou for taking the effort to write out these examples for me. I'll take them on board. There are some aspects to 'hinderances' that I can resolve within my faith of how God created animals and may have purposely limited them in some areas, but this is good knowledge for me to build upon for my own understanding.

[Teannika]

Honestly, I don't think either one of us have the scientific background to say that statistics and probability that evolution is "disproven." We do have the VAST preponderance of scientists in the world who aren't relying on statistics and who do understand the biology who are convinced that evolution is the best system to explain the development of the species and biology as we see it and who aren't a whit moved by whatever statistics you're talking about.

 

You really, really need some sort of academic grounding in some basic biology because you're trying to explain your understanding of this idea, and we keep telling you that you're not in the ball park.

 

I think it's great if you're trying to read academic and scientific sources. Once you can understand the basic concepts you may be able to get a better handle on this.

 

Well in my mind it is incredible, just because it's so complex. You're right about my limited "uneducated" understanding though. However I'll learn from this conversation, and that's one reason I'm willing to risk letting it show just how uneducated I am in this area.

 

I really don't want to frustrate anyone for having to read my comments. I'll go and do some more reading, and try to only bring a specific question when I get stuck. For those who are tired of my comments, please just stop reading! You might learn from what other people share though, so that's one thing.

[albeto.]

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

 

That shouldn't be too hard. After all, a caterpillar doesn't look anything like the butterfly. Insects can undergo some extraordinary physical changes in a single lifetime.

 

 

 

 

[Reefgazer]

Bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant is an example of evolution in action.  So are bedbugs becoming tolerant to current pesticides.  Not that "in action" is necessary to conclude that evolution occurs, but those are examples, if you need that.

I don't understand sorry.
There's hard proof of evolution? It has been witnessed? Can you point me to it please, and not the theoretical side.

 

[albeto.]

'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.

 

Trying to understand evolution now as a "complete picture" is like trying to understand why two people can communicate with each other hundreds, if not thousands of miles apart, immediately. We're right now, in the year 2015, typing on computers in our own homes, replying to each other, as well as many others. This communication is so much faster than writing letters. Can you imagine going in a time machine, back to the year 1715 and trying to explain to your ancestors how their descendent's will have personal printers in their own homes, communicating with each other in less time than it takes to write a letter? To put this in perspective, this is the printer Benjamin Franklin supposedly used in 1725. Mine is sitting on my lap and runs on battery power. How likely do you think your ancestors would respond to your stories? Would they try and imagine Ben Franklin's printer morphing into a small, laptop version?

 

What if instead you could show them the many technological changes that have occurred over the span of three centuries? What if you could explain to them how electricity could be wired into homes, how batteries could harness power, and how computer technology could use silicone to revolutionize communication? Would they likely stop trying to morph the printer in their imaginations, and instead understand at the individual steps, and see the differences between our year and theirs as a long series of these individual steps?

 

This is why people are suggesting you understand the science of biology, chemistry, physics, how things work on a minute scale, and the effects that has on the large scale. To understand evolution is to put together many, many pieces of knowledge. It's one reason I like that link I shared earlier. I know you've got lots to look at, I don't mean to harp on you about this, but to let you know it explains these pieces of knowledge in approachable ways for those not familiar with them.

 

 

I'll let my husband see the thread, including your question, and hopefully he can respond before too long.

 

 

[Tanaqui]

There's hard proof of evolution? It has been witnessed? Can you point me to it please, and not the theoretical side.

 

Let's look at dog breeds. In the past 100 years, dog breeds have changed substantially in appearance. Breeding isn't exactly "natural" selection, but it certainly is evolution. For that matter, something similar has happened to dairy cows. It's worth noting that these changes are not exactly objectively beneficial for the dogs and cows in question, especially not the dogs. However, there is a selective pressure, and so....

 

Of course, you'll likely respond that those are still dogs and cows. While there is some not-terribly-serious debate over whether or not dogs constitute a ring species (and apparently some over whether or not "ring species" is a valid description of anything that exists in nature - I truly learn something new each and every day), I can see the point. You're asking whether or not we've observed speciation in anything like a human timeframe.

 

The answer to that question is yes, we have. More than once.

 

And, of course, let's not forget the long-running e. coli evolution experiment.

[Rosie_0801]

So let's say that these gears first formed as a mutated little bump. Clearly, if that's how it went down, that little bump was a selective advantage - but it might not have been an advantage that made them jump faster. It might have helped them do something else.

 

Or it could be a complete incidental that is linked to another gene/characteristic that was advantageous and kind of hitched along for the ride, coming in handy and some point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It took a couple of hundred years from wolves to the wide variety of dog breeds around today. A few million years is plenty of time for all sorts of weird stuff to happen.

 

The Theory of Evolution not only explains the evidence we've found. It also predicts what else we should find to fill in the fossil record, for example, and we (scientists) keep "guessing" right.

 

 

 

 

 

Question: Do you think that the system might stop working one day? Is that a possibility?

No. There will always be some getting more nookie than others.

[IdahoHomeschooler]

I don't understand sorry.

There's hard proof of evolution? It has been witnessed? Can you point me to it please, and not the theoretical side.

Well, to be honest, I have no time to put together a post listing the vast amounts of evidence that exists. I trust that if you were so inclined, you would be as perfectly capable of searching out resources as I was. Has evolution been witnessed? Of course it has! How else do you think scientists have been able to understand the processes that have shaped biology? Evolution isn't based on a guess that some atheist came up with to do away with God. There is enough evidence for it to become an actual scientific theory, just like the theory of gravity. That is a pretty big deal!

[albeto.]

I'm not sure if I can! 😃

At the moment my head is about explode from the mere mention and attempted visualisation of chances upon chances upon chances.... I have to try really hard to focus on one thing at a time to even begin to look at this from an evolutionist's viewpoint.

You might find a couple series to watch helpful. The first one is Your Inner Fish. It's a series of three, hour long programs that show with stunning visuals, just how our physical form can be seen as an evolutionary path.

 

Another is Carl Sagan's Cosmos. Neil DeGrasse Tyson just finished a remake of this, both are fantastic, and all of these would be good to watch with your kids. Here's a clip from Sagan's Cosmos explaining evolution.

 

 

 

Question: Do you think that the system might stop working one day? Is that a possibility?

That's like asking if gravity will stop working, or magnets will stop working, or chemicals will stop bonding. As long as there is biological organisms and genetics and reproduction, the process of evolution will continue. Think of it as a series of cause and effect. Each effect becomes the next cause in time.

 

 

 

 

[albeto.]

Thankyou for taking the effort to write out these examples for me. I'll take them on board. There are some aspects to 'hinderances' that I can resolve within my faith of how God created animals and may have purposely limited them in some areas, but this is good knowledge for me to build upon for my own understanding.

Earlier you'd mentioned that I think there is no value in certain sources, like the Discovery Institute linked earlier in this thread. I don't agree with that. There is value, but the value is not to teach how evolution works, the value is to reconcile faith with a growing understanding of our natural world, an understanding that does not require faith. As long as you refer to sources that function to preserve your faith, you will get a censored lesson, a misrepresentation of evolution. Your education will be limited by these resources because their mission is not to teach you science, it is to promote and protect religious faith within the vocabulary of science. Clearly, as others have already mentioned, there are a great many Christians (and Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs, and Baha'i, and goodness, so many more) who do not lose their faith as they learn about science, and specifically the theory of evolution.

[albeto.]

I don't understand sorry.

There's hard proof of evolution? It has been witnessed? Can you point me to it please, and not the theoretical side.

 

The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, that is, it explains an observable phenomenon. That observation is biodiversity. The time line of this discovery goes back centuries, when geologists noted objective evidence to show the age of the earth was at least millions of years. Over the years, discoveries in genetics, geology, chemistry, biology, and all kinds of specialized fields led to this Big Picture. You can explore an interactive time line of evolutionary thought here. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace were the first to discover conclusive evidence that explained how evolution works (through a process called natural selection). We credit Darwin as the discoverer because he published his works first. Darwin's grandfather and his generation of scientists recognized the theory of evolution's credibility, but they hadn't come up with the concrete evidence. Charles Darwin did, and you can read about it in On the Origin of Species. You can familiarize yourself with some of the subsequent support (evidence) here.

[Rosie_0801]

Evolution isn't based on a guess that some atheist came up with to do away with God. 

 

:lol:

 

 "Evolutionists" can believe in God all they want. The Theory of Evolution is incompatible with YEC, not with God (any of them.) 

[Tsuga]

I would like to say something about probability. Probability does not describe what ought to be, or what can be. It is an epistemological exercise. It describes what we can expect based on what we know. So things which have actually occurred have a probability of 1 (100%).

 

So, for example, the probability that I am typing this is 100%, because it is an actual, occurring event.

 

Probability is usually used to predict future events (that an event WILL occur) based on past knowledge: variance, mean, distribution, etc. 

 

To use it to say--"This seemed unlikely, so I don't believe it is happening now" does not make sense. It is like saying that you don't believe the Seahawks lost the Super Bowl because they weren't supposed to win according to probability. But okay, there was always a good chance for the Patriots, so let's say it's like saying that any given person couldn't win the lottery. The chances that any one person will win Powerball are abysmally small. But someone's going to win, and after the fact, the probability that they are the winner is 1. They won. It was unlikely, extremely unlikely, but it happened so there you have it.

 

Arguing that probability suggests that evolution "could not" have happened is a gross misunderstanding of probability.

[kiana]

Other people have discussed the probability question, but I'm going to discuss again.

 

The problem with attempting to calculate the probability post hoc and conclude just how improbable it is to produce the world we live in is that the events have already happened. All of the worlds where life never arose at all, or life died out due to something like a bigger, badder dinosaur killer, well, they aren't here to calculate a probability. So this has already introduced bias.

 

Sorry for the gruesome example, but picture that you take 1,000 men. And you line them up and you walk down and you shoot 90% of them, rolling a ten-sided die to select which one lives. Then you line up the 100 survivors and go down and shoot 90% of them again, choosing them the same way. Now 10 survive of the original 1,000. Do those men feel lucky? I sure would! They had a very small chance of surviving both selections. But the problem with this is that given this selection process, ten men were always going to survive. The only choice was which ten.

[Lolly]

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

 

Actually, related to is not difficult to accept. The decision to change them to being reptiles is. I cannot call a bird a reptile. I spent too much time learning this stuff. Science is not allowed to just up and decide to change it. Especially not without good reason. The single fact that one is endothermic and one exothermic is enough to keep them separated. Add in those feathers, and...It isn't like we are talking about one little species here that has a slight difference. I cannot see a reason to make the move. Mention a common ancestor. No problem. But to move a large category completely into another? Nope. Just cannot accept it. These guys.......are reptiles. These guys......they are birds. As far as classification goes, why use a system that isn't as good just because it is newer? Makes no sense. I refuse to comply.

[Ipsey]

This is a good answer, thankyou.

So could you just ask him for me... â˜ºï¸ If he has time and doesn't mind...

 

Would cog gears that are not fully formed still be able to function? Halfway between a texture and a cog system. (I know he said there's no such thing as complete form, but I can only see these cogs as fully formed and perfectly functional, so he'll have to ignore me using that term.)

 

What about the ratios needed for them to work? I guess what I'm trying to understand is how the gears worked before the exact proportions needed were present. My limited understanding is that certain parameters would need to be in place. I'll try to research this mechanical aspect a bit more myself, see if I can understand what is necessary to be in place for functionality.

 

Functionality for what?

 

You seem to have some "function" goal in mind--just because these gears serve a function now--that these gears were not "functional" before their form now, and couldn't have served any purpose (this one or another one) before they reached this magical moment in their development. Or, perhaps these served the same function, but less efficiently in previous stages of cog development.

 

If you pursue this "mechanical aspect a bit more [to see] if [you] can understand what is necessary to be in place for functionality" you've still got it completely backasswards. 

 

I think the videos that Albeto linked would be a good start.

[Reefgazer]

That decision comes because cladistic evolutionary biologists have gained professional dominance over systemic evolutionary biologist. So I joke about reptiles being birds, but I do agree with you...degree of divergence does matter when we assigning things to a category. But the clardists do not agree with me. Anyway there are plenty of evolutionary systematists out there so you don't have to "comply"with the cladists.

 

Actually, related to is not difficult to accept. The decision to change them to being reptiles is. I cannot call a bird a reptile. I spent too much time learning this stuff. Science is not allowed to just up and decide to change it. Especially not without good reason. The single fact that one is endothermic and one exothermic is enough to keep them separated. Add in those feathers, and...It isn't like we are talking about one little species here that has a slight difference. I cannot see a reason to make the move. Mention a common ancestor. No problem. But to move a large category completely into another? Nope. Just cannot accept it. These guys.......are reptiles. These guys......they are birds. As far as classification goes, why use a system that isn't as good just because it is newer? Makes no sense. I refuse to comply.

[Minerva]

For a good, accessible, highly readable book about observable evolution I highly recommend The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner. 

[chiguirre]

Actually, related to is not difficult to accept. The decision to change them to being reptiles is. I cannot call a bird a reptile. I spent too much time learning this stuff. Science is not allowed to just up and decide to change it. Especially not without good reason. The single fact that one is endothermic and one exothermic is enough to keep them separated. Add in those feathers, and...It isn't like we are talking about one little species here that has a slight difference. I cannot see a reason to make the move. Mention a common ancestor. No problem. But to move a large category completely into another? Nope. Just cannot accept it. These guys.......are reptiles. These guys......they are birds. As far as classification goes, why use a system that isn't as good just because it is newer? Makes no sense. I refuse to comply.

You know, I understand not wanting to eat "reptile nuggets". But archaeopteryx  is a pretty strong argument:

 

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

 

I'm really glad chicken don't have teeth!

[Ipsey]

For a good, accessible, highly readable book about observable evolution I highly recommend The Beak of the Finch by Jonathan Weiner. 

 

I made a resolution LAST year to read more non-fiction, and I failed miserably. I'd love to read this book. I've just placed a hold for it in my library interlibrary loan system. I should have it in a few days.

 

Anyone else want to read it with me and do a book-thread as we read, sort of book-group style?  Teannika? Anyone?

 

 

 

P.S. Here looks to be the development of new species scientists are watching right now.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/science/in-bedbugs-scientists-see-a-model-of-evolution.html?_r=0

 

(I think it was referred to in a previous post--pardon if I'm just relinking here.  Bedbugs! YAY!)

[Greta]

I made a resolution LAST year to read more non-fiction, and I failed miserably. I'd love to read this book. I've just placed a hold for it in my library interlibrary loan system. I should have it in a few days.

 

Anyone else want to read it with me and do a book-thread as we read, sort of book-group style? Teannika? Anyone?

I do! I also requested it through my local system of libraries, so should get it in a few days.

[Pam in CT]

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.

 

Really, it's not reducible to a sentence.  

 

You write often about trying to make a picture in your mind, in order to make sense of a concept.  That's terrific! Visualizing is an excellent method, and it's great that you recognize your own learning style.

 

 

Try making a picture in your mind, of catapulting back in time and having a conversation with, say, Leonardo da Vinci.  You mention cell phones.  Brilliant, curious, innovating mind that he is, he really wants to understand how it is possible that one person living in, say, Florence, and another in, say, Amsterdam could possibly have a real time reciprocal conversation just by holding up to their ears two bits of metal the size of two decks of cards.  It seems incredible to him!  Defies his imagination!  Yet he's a curious sort.  So he asks you to explain it.

 

In a sentence.

 

You can't.  Not in way that would be credible to him.  Not in a way he could be able to visualize.

 

Not because you yourself don't understand the series of mechanisms and systems underlying all the different aspects of radio and cellular and transistor technology, or the systems of physical infrastructure that make the connections between Florence and Amsterdam possible.  Not because da Vinci's cognitive capacity is too limited to absorb that content.  Not because you aren't speaking clearly and articulately. 

 

You can't reduce "how do cell phones work" to a sentence because there is more than a sentence's worth of interlocking mechanisms, systems and dynamics -- each one of which takes more than a sentence to define -- that work together.  Similarly, "how does evolution work."

 

 

 

That's not at all to say it's too complicated for an ordinary person to understand.  It's not.  Da Vinci would certainly be cognitively capable of grasping the main elements, and you as well, if you wish to.  The earlier linked thread is quite an excellent summary of the main elements/observed dynamics/systems underlying the theory.

 

But you do have to let go of the notion that if the theory can't be reduced to one sentence, I can't deal with it.

 

 

 

 

(and relatedly, what the word "theory" means....

 

 

[sunflowerlady]

I made a resolution LAST year to read more non-fiction, and I failed miserably. I'd love to read this book. I've just placed a hold for it in my library interlibrary loan system. I should have it in a few days.

 

Anyone else want to read it with me and do a book-thread as we read, sort of book-group style?  Teannika? Anyone?

 

 

 

P.S. Here looks to be the development of new species scientists are watching right now.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/science/in-bedbugs-scientists-see-a-model-of-evolution.html?_r=0

 

(I think it was referred to in a previous post--pardon if I'm just relinking here.  Bedbugs! YAY!)

I would love to do a book study.   :001_smile:  I am adding that book to my list. Right now I am making my way through "Why Evolution is True"/

[Χά�ων]

You know, I understand not wanting to eat "reptile nuggets". But archaeopteryx  is a pretty strong argument:

 

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

 

I'm really glad chicken don't have teeth!

They have found the gene to give chickens teeth again.

 

I think this is the video where he talks about. 

 

 

[Χά�ων]

More on chicken teeth. My son finds chickens with teeth more interesting than math.

 

 https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/crash-course1/partner-topic-crash-course-bio-ecology/crash-course-biology/v/crash-course-biology-116

 

While he is watching that I am looking up other information

http://news.sciencemag.org/2006/02/mutant-chickens-grow-teeth

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1666805

[Matryoshka]

(and relatedly, what the word "theory" means....

 

 

I also like this fun flow chart on what a scientific theory is (and is not):

 

[Tanaqui]

Where'd you get that image? I'd love to bookmark it for later use.

[Matryoshka]

Where'd you get that image? I'd love to bookmark it for later use.

 

It's from this article about the new mathematical theory hypothesis that posits that the big bang didn't occur.  They mistakenly called this new idea a new theory rather than a hypothesis, apologized, and added the nifty flowchart to the bottom of the article.

[idnib]

. 

 

[Catherine]

I'm really not trying to be argumentative, but do you have a theory of why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics? Why do you think that happens?

 

There is established science on antibiotic resistance.  Bacteria acquire DNA, via infection by viruses or by other means, and this genetic material is able to insert itself into the bacterial genome and code for proteins that confer resistance. 

 

But this is not *why*, it is how.  Bacteria are infected by these viruses, so there is not a "why"-it is a random event.  Does this answer your question?

[idnib]

. 

 

[Catherine]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I already know the answer to the question; I'm wondering what Teannika thinks is the answer.

 

Ooops-I was dense!

[lewelma]

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

 

Wow.  Thanks!

 

My parents have been visiting, so I have not been checking the board.  I am always willing to discuss evolution, as long as we are actually discussing evolution.

 

But a single bump would be to no advantage whatsoever.

 

The problem you have is that you are trying to understand the detailed mechanics of evolution using the broad brush of a layperson's understanding.  To understand the mechanics of evolution at the level you are asking about requires population genetics, the mathematics behind the field.

 

To start with, traits that are passed down to offspring do NOT all have to confer reproductive advantage.  Sometimes they are just carried along because of technicalities like crossing over.  When DNA is mixed up in meiosis to create eggs/sperm (the process of crossing over), some kinks in the DNA lead to non-random sorting.  It ends up that some traits are more likely to stick to other traits and end up in the egg/sperm together.  So if one trait increases reproductive output in a major way, the 'connected' trait will be carried along to the offspring also, and multiply even if it is not beneficial.  You can think about male nipples in this way (although the mechanism is not exactly the same).  So your 'bump' could have been passed on before it actually conferred advantage simply because of its physical proximity to a fabulous gene on the DNA strand.

 

In addition, how traits spread in the population is very complicated because of 1) dominance/recessive/codominance aspects of genetics, 2) multiple genes coding for a single trait, and 3) single genes coding for multiple traits.  This is NOT straight forward and requires a LOT of math which you are simply not going to understand without years of study.  Fascinating stuff though.  One of my favorite classes in grad school.

 

Finally, you can have nonadaptive traits proliferate in a population through larger events like population bottlenecks and the founder effect where a limited number of individuals become responsible for all future generations even if they harbour maladaptive genes. 

 

So my point is that you need to be very careful  not to simplify the situation in your mind. It is important but counter-intuitive that a trait does not always have to confer advantage to pass to the next generation. It is complex and there are many factors at work.

 

Ruth in NZ

[Lady Florida.]

I don't understand sorry.

There's hard proof of evolution? It has been witnessed? Can you point me to it please, and not the theoretical side.

 

Gently: I don't think you are ever going to be able to understand evolution until you understand, and commit to memory, the definition of a scientific theory.

[fraidycat]

Gently: I don't think you are ever going to be able to understand evolution until you understand, and commit to memory, the definition of a scientific theory.

Oh, absolutely. This x 1000.

 

Before natural selection. Before population genetics. Before anything else. You MUST understand the difference between scientific theory and hypothesis.

 

On a side note, I really wish our language evolved AWAY from using such an ambiguous term when it comes to science.

[Tsuga]

I don't think the term "theory" is ambiguous in science.

 

It is used metaphorically as well as incorrectly in everyday speech. That is not a failure of science to define its terms, though. The flow chart may look complicated but it could be expressed in one complex sentence. The problem is that people get confused with one complex sentence. Hence, the flow chart.

[ktgrok]

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? This is where you are getting confused. There is NO why. Zero reason. It would be a random mutation that occured during reproduction and was there at birth. Not something that grew. 

 

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? They would just be passe don with all the other genes. Nothing special about that. 

 

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? Nearsightedness in humans, for starters. Or celiac disease. Lots of things. 

 

hope that helps

[ktgrok]

I'm not sure if I can! 😃

At the moment my head is about explode from the mere mention and attempted visualisation of chances upon chances upon chances.... I have to try really hard to focus on one thing at a time to even begin to look at this from an evolutionist's viewpoint.

 

 

Question: Do you think that the system might stop working one day? Is that a possibility?

 

what does that even mean? What system? Some animals die. some don't. That will keep happening. The ones that reproduce before dying pass on their genetic traits. Simple as that. What part of that do you think might stop working???

 

And yes, it was chance upon chance. But it's not like if one thing had been different, there would be nothing. Things would just be different, not non existant. 

[fraidycat]

I don't think the term "theory" is ambiguous in science.

 

It is used metaphorically as well as incorrectly in everyday speech. That is not a failure of science to define its terms, though. The flow chart may look complicated but it could be expressed in one complex sentence. The problem is that people get confused with one complex sentence. Hence, the flow chart.

I'm not talking about the flow chart. I'm specifically referencing the fact that "theory" has more than one meaning. The second definition at dictionary.com is, IME the most commonly used and known by most English speakers (in Canada and U.S., at least).

 

Therefore a second and contradictory meaning renders it an ambiguous term, IMO.

 

The second definition given:

 

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.

Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

[Tsuga]

Fair enough--I guess I would say, scientists are not at all ambiguous about the term theory as a technical term.

 

Maybe you're right--they need a new word. But laymen LOVE using scientific terms incorrectly to make themselves sound smart and I don't think there's a lot science can do to stop them. Heck, as you've pointed out, it's even in the dictionary.

[IdahoHomeschooler]

Ruth, I want to be you when I grow up! Have you ever given any thought to teaching a class on evolution to the WTM crowd? I would totally pay for that! You have such a great way of explaining things, that it actually makes me feel like I have a hope of understanding it all.