What mutations are needed for a particular trait (e.g. wings) to arise?

I would disagree a little. In the coin-tossing contest the rules guarantee a winner, and an opponent could argue that that invalidates the comparison (IMHO it only weakens it). In the case of the lottery it is pure statistics that is at work and that objection simply cannot apply.

In these discussions, we quite naturally focus on the "winners" and lose sight of the vast numbers of individuals who do not "win". The point of the coin-tossing example was that "extreme dumb luck" can happen naturally and is in no way way miraculous. We are impressed by the sequence of wins, but the chances surely reset at each cycle, so each win is just as likely as any of the others, and if there are many players, we should expect strings of wins to show up.

There are no right or wrong mutations, just beneficial and deleterious. And what was once beneficial may become deleterious, and vice versa. You almost seem to be describing a Lamarkian evolution. Evolution is backward looking, it cannot see what the next step is 'supposed' to be if an end result is 'supposed' to a bird. It is only based on passing along genetically what has let a current generation be successful, as screened out by natural selection.~clpMINI

---

I mean, this is America. Everybody loves seeing lesbians go at it, as long as they are both hot and not in a monogamous, legally sanctioned relationship.

It's not even really beneficial and deleterious. What we see is "just barely good enough to get by" and "nope, didn't make the cut."What we see if we look at living things is barely minimal design, the kid in shop class that gets the D- instead of the F. Almost nowhere do we find Good Design, Exceptional is even scarcer and Better than it has to be is almost non-existant.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Others have said this, but the path that evolution follows is far from random. It's all based on the capabilities of a given individual to survive.Here's a simple example that shows how quickly a positive trait can take over a localized group of creatures.Let's assume that we have a small group of 1000 critters, that live in a stable environment that only supports a population of 1000. Because it is a stable population each member of the group has on average 1 child that survives to procreate.These 1000 critters have some variation of course do to random mutations. Some have longer hair, some have darker coloring, whatever. Nothing major though.Now along comes some event that slightly changes the environement over a long term. Perhaps it's an ice age. Perhaps it's a switch in the ocean currents. Perhaps its a new predator. It doesn't matter what it is, just that it changes their living environement over a significant time.Suddenly our 1000 critters are not all equal. Let's say of the 1000 in the population now there are 50 that are slightly better suited to the new environment. Perhaps they had a slightly darker colouring and can hide from the new predator easier.What does this advantage mean? For the purpose of this example I am going to say that it means that the 50 'better suited' critters now give birth to 1.01 offspring on average that survive to procreate, and that those offspring themselves have the better trait also.Doesn't sound like much, does it?Let's run the math. Assuming that the environment can still only support 1000 critters due to food constraints, space, whatever, how long would it take for this new trait to completely dominate the population?Additional assumptions to simplify the math. Critters live 1 year and in that time they procreate once.(initial better population)*(increase rate ^{(number of gens)}) = (population of better individuals)50 * ( 1.01 ^x ) = 1000x = log(1000/50) / log(1.01)x = 301 or soSo after a mere 300 years, the new trait will completely dominate the population. There was no 'great plan' to make this change happen, it was just selection.Looking at wings, as per the topic, and using Archers outline of the changes required it's not that unreasonable, I believe, to see how it happened. The points he brings up are all concerned with selection.It's not at all like winning the lottery 1000 times in a row. It's like winning the lottery once and having 1000 kids that you teach how to win. So they change the rules of the lottery. 1 of those 1000 kids figures it out, has 1000 more kids and teaches them how to win the new lottery and so on.We are talking about millions and millions of iterations in evolutionary time. It really hard to visuallize these vast breadths of time and the changes that they can cause.

quote:

---

Suddenly our 1000 critters are not all equal. Let's say of the 1000 in the population now there are 50 that are slightly better suited to the new environment. Perhaps they had a slightly darker colouring and can hide from the new predator easier.

---

I see your point about selection but what you mention is not a mutation! There were alredy slightly darker critters in the population!

codegate: That's a very clear account.
skepticfaith: Are you expecting mutations in response to changes in selection pressure? As I understand it, evolution is not forward looking, or even sideways. One would expect that random mutations give rise to variations in a population that can then accommodate a new selection pressure or opportunity. When we add the antibiotic to the Petrie dish, it is the microbes who happen to be already resistant who survive. As another thought experiment, after a new tree with tough nuts grows in the neighbourhood, a bird who happens by chance to grow a stronger beak is in luck.

Well, 'to create a bird' is a biased way to say it. (And I know I've seen this exact same question worded this exact same way elsewhere.) You would have a series of mutations in small coelurosaurs that result in a Compsognathus or that lead to a Velociraptor, a series of mutations that lead to a Dromaeosaurus and mutations that result in an Archaeopteryx, and mutations that result in a Microraptor and so on.At what point do we say a group of coelurosaurs have become birds? They never really stop being coelurosaurs; in that sense, birds represent just a specialized kind of dinosaur. And whether this process represents an act of 'creation' is an open question. It's one a theistic evolutionist would be very interested in considering with you, I'm sure.As to whether a dinosaur-bird transition 'seems even remotely possible': a look at the fossil evidence makes it seem not only plausible but convincing to a great many unbiased observers. Of course. Mutations happen. This has been observed. The process has been described and demonstrated.With a lot of time, a lot of mutations can happen.It's a natural process. This is the second time in two sentences you've invoked the spectre of impossibility. You wield your incredulity like a shield.Not impossible at all. It happens as I described.If you lower that shield just a little bit, you can see better over the top. I supplied this in an earlier post. What's interesting is that coelurosaurs didn't need a whopping amount of changes.Features coelurosaurs already had going for them were:

1. hollow bones
2. small body
3. high (endothermic) metabolism
4. bipedal stance
5. flexible wrist
6. stereoscopic vision
7. feathers

The only mutations needed are those that put them into the air. The main change needed in this category would be the growth of plentiful arm feathers. Feathers already give you the required wing shape when they lie in layers. Someone is trying to construct an argument from incredulity here. Argument from incredulity is a fallacy. To say 'I don't believe it' proves nothing about the universe. It only testifies to an individual's belief.If I told you I find the law of gravity impossible to believe in, and if I heaped ridicule on such a 'magical' belief, would this shake youre belief in the law of gravity? No. Why should it? The law of gravity has been demonstrated.If I told you that instead of the law of gravity, everything is held into place on earth by the invisible benevolent paw of a giant Hello Kitty--a being whose existence I cannot prove, but take to be obvious--would you find that persuasive? Would you consider that a less 'magical' belief than the law of gravity, or more?This is why argument from incedulity is not evidence against a proposition. People believe and disbelieve any number of things. Science asks for evidence.This particular argument from incredulity depends on backward math. One can make anything seem 'impossible' by working the odds this way. It's an easy game to play.I could argue by the same method that Abraham Lincoln was never president of the United States. Why? Because the odds of him doing it were too long. Do you know how many little things have to happen for someone to get that office? How many accidents of fortune and fate? And with him coming from such a poor background and all...I could show you the odds of Lincoln getting to the White House were astronomical. And you might even agree. But would that prove to you that Lincoln was never president? Would you even consider it a valid argument?The truth is that the odds of any one person getting that office are astronomical. But the odds that somebody somewhere will get that office are 100%. The job exists and someone is going to fill it. All that matters in Abe's case is that we show he got the gig.Another example: you. The odds of any of us existing as individuals right now are far more astronomical than Abe's shot at the top job. Think how many sperm cells and egg cells go for naught every day. Do the math. Does that prove you were never born? Of course not. You're here.It would be silly for me to try to argue from the odds that you do not exist. The math might be impressive but that would not disprove the reality of you. People are born every day. On one day in the recent past, you were one of those people. It happens.Evolution is just the idea of birth extended across generations. The same thing applies. No one can say what 'the odds were' of coelurosaurs evolving along the lines they did. The fact that many evolved along non-avian lines does show there was nothing sure about evolving in the direction of birds. But mutations do happen. They happen every day. Living creatures, coelurosaurs included, are going to evolve in some direction. And the record indicates that some coelurosaurs evolved into birds. Whatever the odds of it happening might have been, only one thing matters in hindsight: it did.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typos.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Spelling.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Here is what I gather from the responses so far:To get from a non-flying creature to a bird hypothetically - ( I could have chosen flying insects too but I am sure there are absoultely no fossils that could even suggest insect evolution)The basal creature may have evolved feathers, very light bone structure, modified forelimb structure, the wishbone chest structure etc - this is assumed from looking at fossils of ancient reptilian looking birds which apparantly evolved from small dinasour.Now the chances of the first trait happening (whatever that was) is equivalent to winning the lottery... which means that the realm of possiblities is finite (not infinite) but quite large -the number which no one has quite figured out. (Technically it cannot be infinite because the probability 1/infinity gives 0).
Mutations happen at a certain rate (I guess this is quite high) for each creature. Most of the mutations are neutral and do not affect the population or creature substantially. Many of them are detrimental and the creature dies from disease.
However once this trait does appear and it is beneficial with no harmful side effects, subsequent generations should contain a higher proportion of creatures with this new trait until the entire population has this trait - feathers, modified limb or something.It is quite possible that this is all that happened or this population splits up with some staying essentially the same while others face a new challenge..This new challenge can be overcome with a new trait - which appears by chance again - about the odds of winning the lottery. the process is repeated and we have a creature that again looks a little different.So far the odds are not like the same person winning the lottery the same time (as I previously stated) because of the numerous failures (diseases, harmful, neutral mutations etc) over many,many generations, and also numerous sub-branches which were semi-successful at least.Repeat this a number of times - perhaps more population splitting and eventually we have many brances of bird like creatures. Fast forward to present and we see modern birds. There are fossils of other now extinct branches and perhaps some interemediate steps but fossil evidence is sketchy ...Doest this sound about right or are there some problems with above or things I left out?

You're leaving out everything you've been shown that doesn't support the argument from incredulity you are eager to make.You've been shown the invalidity of this argument. You have left that out. That makes the rest off the point. The odds of a thing happening don't really matter after the fact.Where you leave out the most is in your effort to cherry pick aspects of bird evolution to heighten the effect of implausibility. You picked up the word 'Lottery' from some examples you were shown (while missing their point) and now it's your favorite word.But you omit mention of factors that come into play when we discussing changes in organisms in nature. You omit any consideration, for example, of the time scales involved. More centuries, more opportunity for changes, more changes. Lower odds.And in your eagerness to use two of you rother favorite words--'chance' and 'random'--you overlook the word 'natural.' Natural selection, as the term implies, is a natural process. It acts in predictable ways and hardly involve astronomical odds.
___The important thing you are overlooking now is that evolutionary change does not involve a series of lightning strikes. This is far more characteristic of creationist theories than the theory of evolution.Some people, for example, are born with longer arms in proportion to their bodies than others. Some are born taller than others. There is nothing 'Lottery-like' about this. Being with arms that are longer or shorter than the average is just natural variation within a population.Let's say something in the environment gave a survival or reproductive advantage to, say, people possessing longer arms. Some generations later you'd see longer arms on most people. The average would move. If that environmental factor still continued to play a role, people with longer arms by the new average would still have a survival or reporductive advantage. A few generations later the average arm length of the population would again have lengthened.You tend to use the words 'chance' or 'random' to mean 'long odds! lightning strikes! magic!' But what are the odds a person will be born with arms that are longer or shorter than average? Pretty much 50% either way. No long odds. No lightning strikes.Now notice an important difference. Being born with arms that are longer or shorter than average is a matter of chance, even if chanes are 50/50. But the subsequent interaction of this feature with the environment is not. Natural selection is not random or chance. It is natural. It acts a certain way, unconsciously, like water flowing downhill. The direction of natural selection, like the direction of water, follows natural laws.This kind of thing comes into play when you talk about bird evolution. Some creatures will have longer feathers on their arms than others. The odds of having feathers that are longer would be around 50%. Nothing dramatic. Natural variation. But it the longer feathers confer a survival advantage--they are warmer--or a reproductive advantage--the opposite sex thinks the feathers look cool--the trend will be toward longer and longer feathers.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Concision, spelling.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

But it is a mutation. If the genome was 'pure' there would be no variation. It is these tiny little mutations that cause slight physical differences that drive everything. A little section of your DNA doesn't copy quite perfectly (mutates) and suddenly you have slightly longer hair then your counterparts.Typically, these changes have no effect on your effectiveness as a living creature. Because of this, in a given population you have all sorts of little 'neutral' mutations that cause variability with no meaningful effect.However, if an environemental change comes along, suddenly one or more of these mutations may become benificial as per my example. Also, some of them will become detrimental and that subset of the population would die off much faster then the others.

Woah, what?I'm married to an entomologist and believe me when I tell you, I don't know where you got that idea. There's a huge fossil record for insect evolution. They fossilize great because of their sclerized exoskeleton.What on Earth leads you to "be sure" that insect fossils don't show a very clear pattern of insect development?

Now I regret using the word lottery This whole lottery analogue is only applicable if you are aiming for a particular end goal (winning the lottery). This however is not how evolution works.Every living creature (I believe this to be correct - somebody please correct me if it isn't) has mutations. I've heard 200-500 mutations are present in every human.Going back to my little mythical population, every single one of the critters potentially won the lottery. The are all sitting there with the little mutations waiting for the environment shift that would make them the 'alpha' critter. Unfortunately, 950 of the 1000 in my example were given the wrong mutation.Evolution doesn't care where it's going - it has no idea. This is also why we can't easily point at hundreds of mutations and say "Hey look! Benefitial mutations!". Mutations are just copying errors that typically cause no meaningful effect in the current environment.It's not until there is a change in the living contidions when some of these mutations become 'better' then others.

Agreed, insects and other arthropods are very well-represented in the fossil record, and the fossils are consistent with evolutionary theory in that lineage as with all the others. The evolution of insect flight is a pretty neat topic.What makes you so "sure" there wouldn't be such fossils, skepticfaith?

quote:

---

The important thing you are overlooking now is that evolutionary change does not involve a series of lightning strikes. This is far more characteristic of creationist theories than the theory of evolution.

​

Some people, for example, are born with longer arms in proportion to their bodies than others. Some are born taller than others. There is nothing 'Lottery-like' about this. Being with arms that are longer or shorter than the average is just natural variation within a population.

---

I am not overlooking anything here - you just did not like the way I wrote it emphasising some of the weaknesses in the theory. The subject was a creature evolving towards being a bird.
Each novel trait arose because of a mutation and this beneficial trait - the chances of that appearing is the odds of winning a lottery. This is not after the fact - it is before. If you disagree with this then what are the chances of a beneficial mutation that introduces a novel trait?
I clearly stated that I was wrong about the same person winning the lottery analogy. And went on to describe the exact same evolutionary scenario that was presented to me. natural selection - i know it filters out the population - I have no problem with that..
However you object to my use of the word 'lotto' because each time the trait was to arise - that is approximately what the odds of it arising from a beneficial mutation is.
The whole longer arms thing means nothing because I am not arguing that with you - I know that -- by the way that is not a mutation at this point anyway.
Natural Selection acts AFTER the mutation occurred - I am talking about the odds of obtaining the beneficial mutation in the first place..So in a way it is a set of lightning strikes but over a long period of time (again something I understood) which means you don't mutliply the probablilities of each beneficial mutation down the line..In other ways - I concede that it is NOT impossible but you refuse to demonstrate what the chances of a benefeficial mutation that introduces a novel trait are (which is why I assume it to be odds of winning the lottery - and quite reasonable since there are some in this board who have debated if a beneficial mutation is even possible)