What i can't understand about evolution....

Hi all,
I have considered the theory evolution, and to me it just does not seem plausible, even practical. If we developed by a series of genetic malformations, this would obviously take rather a long time. But how come some developments, for example fins to legs, the circulatory system, internal organs, wings, surely the development of these would have to be instanaeous and perfect to give them any advantage at all, or to even work?Edited by Integral, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hello Integral, welcome to EvC! Did you look at the actual evidence, or did you get your info from creationist websites? If the case is the latter, please forget everything you read, and start anew, this time with the actual evidence. First of all, we didn't evolve from just genetic mutations, we also evolved because of natural selection, the driving force behind the change. Second, it DID take a very long time. No, fins to legs for example, we have a very complete picture of how this happened with gradual changes over a long period of time.

---

I hunt for the truth

Hello Integral, and welcome to the fray. Why is this a problem? The evidence shows that the earth is old, over 4.5 billion years old, and that life has existed for most of that time, for over 3.5 billion years. The evidence also shows a progression of life forms, from simple cells to the multicellular life we see around us today.In one sense all mutations are "malformations" because they are different from the previous version/s. The definition of something as a "malformation" is just a subjective interpretation, likely based on a biased or uninformed view. Every person (including you) carries hundreds of such "malformed" DNA sections, and usually there is no effect. This is because most mutations are neutral in our current environment.Some "malformations" change the DNA so much that the organism cannot develop properly and it dies. We call this death natural, and it is part of the natural selection of organism to fit their environment that is an ongoing process every minute of every day.Organisms that survive and breed we call "fit" and consider this fitness a natural product of their genetic inheritance and the mutations they were born with. This too is part of natural selection - those that are more naturally "fit" for the environment they currently inhabit, are better able to survive and breed, and thus they pass on more genes to the next generation. When we look at the fossil record we do not see any sudden formation/s of bits and parts, rather a gradual adaptation of existing features into new uses.For instance the transition from fin to leg, with organisms that "walk" on fins (as do some modern fish) to organisms like Tiktaalik roseae, that have all the basic structure of a fin, but organized to adapt it for lifting the torso and walking, and later fossils that develop this ability further and further.For instance we now know that feathers existed long before the first flying dinosaur, and that the wing of a bird has developed further since that time, including the gradual change from symmetrical feathers to modern asymmetric feathers and ones with special functions compared to other flight feathers.Nor do any such developments need to be "perfect" (another entirely subjective opinion), as all they need to do is offer the organism an opportunity to survive and breed, and if they happen to survive and breed better than other organisms, then their genes will be passed to the next generation in greater proportion. Any development only need to be "good enough" to survive and breed in their current environment. Unfortunately for you, nature is completely unimpressed by your opinion, nor is it restricted in any way by what you think.Perhaps you have not really considered the question completely.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Descent with modification, which is an awfully easy concept to grasp if one is not hampered by religious predispositions.”FTF

---

I can see Lower Slobovia from my house.

Hello Integral.Your question is a fairly common one about evolution.The idea is definitely that evolution has taken a very long time and that structures usually appear gradually. Also, partial versions of structures CAN often be useful. A creature with a "partial wing" for example, may not be able to fly but will likely be able to glide which will give him an advantage over other individuals that can not glide. It also seems true that structures can sometimes change function over time. Fins that were once good for swimming in water can evolve into legs that are good for walking on land.I'll provide you with some links that I believe address your point.Response regarding irreducible complexity, the idea that the removal of any part of some systems will cause them to be useless - CB200: Irreducible complexityResponse to the claim that "Complex organs and biological functions could not have evolved." - CB300: Evolution of complex organsResponse to the specific claim that some organs and structures would be useless, and a hinderance until all parts of it were in place - CB340: Evolution of complex organs and also EvoWiki on "Organs and organ systems would be useless until all parts are in place" and also EvoWiki on "New structures would be useless until fully developed"I hope this helps shed some light on the explanations for your question.

Hi integral, Not at all, in fact this was just released a few days ago,
We're Sorry - Scientific American

quote:

---

Scientist have been in the dark until now because all fossilized turtles previously discovered had complete shells. But this 220 million-year-old fossil is an ancestor of the modern turtle at a stage when its shell was still evolving.

​

The newly discovered species sported a shelled belly and a little extra bone on its spine, supporting the theory that turtles' shells formed over eons as their backbones and ribs grew. The main competing idea is that hard, bony plates in their skin (such as those in the skin of modern-day crocodiles) fused together.

​

The authors say that this turtle species probably lived in water and that their stomach shell kept them safe from predators below while they were swimming.

---

This article gives a clear example of how partially evolved turtles still found benefit from the evolving shell.As Deftil wrote, even half a wings, appendages, shells etc, can still be benefitial to the species to use in other functions.

---

"All great truths begin as blasphemies""I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Integral writes:

quote:

---

But how come some developments, for example fins to legs, the circulatory system, internal organs, wings, surely the development of these would have to be instanaeous and perfect to give them any advantage at all, or to even work?

---

I realize that you're new here, Integral, but this is a common claim that has long since been debunked: Standard Creationist Rebuttal CB921: In short, the idea that intermediate formations are worthless is quite clearly false. To take the eye example, if you cannot see anything at all, having just a single photo-sensitive spot that can detect the presence of light (not form or shape or anything like that...just the presence of light) can be an advantage.The direct answer to your question is that no, none of the things you listed "would have to be instantaneous and perfect to give them any advantage at all, [sic] or to even work." In fact, if we look at life as it currently exists right now, we can see transitional versions of all those things, fins that are only partially like limbs, circulatory systems that aren't complete, internal organs that change, wings that give gliding ability but not flight, all of them are in a middling position, giving a beneficial adaptation over others.By your logic, humans should be "perfect." If so, why are there any other life forms of any kind at all? Only the "perfect" should survive, right? Well, if we're not perfect, if there is no possible way to define "perfect," why would a wing that doesn't provide flight be somehow less than "perfect"? Who said flight was the goal?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

To add to what Rrhain and others have said, consider the nautilus' eye. It seems to work just fine without the lense.I really need to stress that you need to throw away the concept "fully developed". Why? Because it applies to every step of the way. Every tiny step in evolution IS fully developed. Everything from a light sensitive cell to a hawk's eye is "fully developed".

Hey Tazmanian Turtle Guy () The concept of "fully developed" also seems to imply that what you see today is the final goal, rather than just what happens to be living today and which will be replaced by different life forms in the future.Enjoy.

It is completely understandable to see creationists misunderstanding evolution to such a degree. According to their creation myth, god created the various creatures fully formed from dirt. In other words, god knew ahead of time what his creatures would look like. This is much like an artist painting a picture of what he wants it to look like. When the creo is presented with something like evolution, they unconsciously try to superimpose their creation myth onto evolution.The easy part is pulling your hair out of your head and the hard part is trying to explain to them what evolution is as oppose to their misconception of what evolution is. Why do you think my hair is getting thinner and thinner?Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

With all due respect: no, you have not.Instead, you have been fed a gross misrepresentation and -- to be honest and frank about it -- a pack of lies and deceptions which your "creationist" (in quotes because they also misrepresent believe in divine creation) and been told the lie that that is what evolution is. That this is the case is re-enforced by the rest of your post. The reason why that is is:
1. because you have never even learned what evolution is nor how it works, and
2. because the misrepresentation (AKA "lie") you have instead learned was devised to appear to be implausible.The distorted ignorance this imposes on you has a secondary effect of having you make public statements, such as your OP, which completely discredits you and your position among any who have any knowledge of the subject.Consider these three other things that appear implausible and how you would view them:

quote:

---

I have considered the automobile, and to me it just does not seem plausible, even practical. The very idea of transporting oneself down the road riding upon a series of explosions is just plain ridiculous. How could anyone possibly even survive such a "ride"?

---

quote:

---

I have considered the airplane, and to me it just does not seem plausible, even practical. The very idea of a huge chunk of metal being able to fly any distance, let alone across the ocean, is just plain ridiculous. It goes against the laws of nature, as anyone can see for themselves by tossing a steel ingot into the air.

---

quote:

---

I have considered the metal boat, and to me it just does not seem plausible, even practical. The very idea of a chunk of metal floating on the surface of the water instead of just plummetting to the bottom like a stone (which is even lighter than metal) is just plain ridiculous. It goes against the laws of nature, as anyone can see for themselves by dropping a ball bearing into a glass of water.

---

"Ridiculous claims!", you say? Of course they are. But this is almost exactly what you and your creationist leaders are doing when they misrepresent evolution as you have done (and as we all know you had learned from your handlers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H"creationist" teachers).
[in case you are too young and not geek enough, ^H is the back-space character used to delete preceding characters]Each of those "proofs" against those three things is easily disproven by a modicum of knowledge, including the practical knowledge that they do indeed work. Which is why everybody's response is to point out to you that very same fact about your own ignorant proclamation. Are you beginning to understand the reaction you're getting?We are trying to point you towards actual information, not the deceptions that "creationism" (formerly known as "creation science", but with every court decision it keeps trying to wrap itself into a different kind of sheep's clothing, the latest I heard of being "intelligent design", but now that's also been exposed as sectarian religious teachings so what's the new name of the deception?) has misled you with.Let's get one thing straight here. If you want to reject evolution, then fine, that's your choice. But you should at least reject it for good reasons, not for false reasons. And if you want to oppose evolution and present arguments against it, then fine. Just be truthful in your efforts! And, make your attacks against evolution itself and not against some phantom boogie-man that you only imagine. That last one may seem self-evident, and yet generations of creationists have persisted in attacking boogie-men and have refused to go anywhere near evolution itself. Why? Because they are only ever taught those boogie-men and never, ever, evolution itself!What is your goal here? To convince us of the error of our ways? How do you intend to do that with sheer nonsense? To disprove evolution? How do you intend to do that by avoiding evolution and only attacking figments of your imagination? Do you want to be effective in your war against evolution? Learn everything you can about evolution and forget that strawman misrepresentation that the "creationist" deceivers have taught you.Here's some scripture to guide you on your way:

quote:

---

Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."

​

(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)

---

Integral, you are ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself. Therefore, you are certain in every battle to be in peril. It is imperative that you act to cure your ignorance.Here's a thought that I must share with you. Creationists rarely last. They have no evidence to support their position, even though they are told by their leaders that they have mountains of evidence. AOL took down all their webpages, so mine are no longer up. I told the story of attending a massive creationist debate in Long Beach, CA, on 28 September 1985 with a creationist from work. Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research, the mightiest of the mighty in the creationist world, against Thwaites and Awbrey, two professors from San Diego State University who had themselves conducted a true "two-model" class in which they gave half the lectures and creationist speakers gave the other half -- they had to discontinue that class due to protests from campus Christian clubs.Anyway, as my co-worker and I were leaving that debate, he was almost in shock. He just kept muttering, "We have mountains of evidence. Why didn't they present any? They could have blown those evolutionists away. Why didn't they? We have mountains of evidence ... " He had been fed the same deception that you have, that they have vast amounts of evidence FOR creation, and yet they refused to present any of it. The obvious reason for their refusal is that they in fact do not have any such evidence. Why are they lying to him and to you about that? Because you would never dream to question them?Now here's the other side of the limited longevity of creationists that you do not want to hear. The dishonest ones will persist, because they can deny all the evidence. But the honest ones become ... evolutionists. Which is to say that they come to realize that evolution is right. Those honest creationists will learn what evolution really is and they will investigate creationist claims and they will learn that "creationism" has been lying to them all along. In several atheist testimonials that I have heard and read, a leitmotif to their loss of faith has been betrayal and having been lied to by their religious leaders. When you come to that point, consider this: your religious leader is only human, not divine, so when it turns out that they've been lying to you, why should you consider that as disproving God? Duh? What is religion? What is dogma? What is theology? Yeah! WTF is theology, anyway? It is fallible, human, interpretation of God. Duh? Is theology getting it right? Frak not! It's a fallible human attempt at figuring it out! When a theology gets it wrong (and whenever does it not Duh?!? Theology is a fallible human endevour!) then why immediately assume that that disproves God? Duh? "Creation science" is a fallible human theology which is not only fallible, but also completely and utterly falsified!Does the complete and utter falsehood of "creation science" "creationism" disprove God? Oh, they teach you that it does, but it doesn't. One of the things that you need to learn is that that is yet another lie that the "creationists" have taught to you.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

Great Post!

Ah! But will he listen?I am beginning to wonder if this is how it's like for the Enlightened as they gaze upon those still mired in Maya (Hindu concept of "illusion" -- refer to "The Indian Life" in Hermann Hesse's "The Glass Pearl Game", AKA "Magister Ludi" ("Master of the Game")).

OK, here's some straight skinny.Devolopment. That's when the zygote (I assume here that you are at least marginally familiar with basic biology) develops as an embryo into a fetus into an infant. OK? Do you follow so far?So, all that development is programmed into the genes. Right? Now, this is where I strongly deviate from Star Trek, because they definitely played very fast-and-loose with DNA. Most of the genome's effect on the development of the organism occurs during development, which is to say during gestation.So, what mutations will have any say in evolution? There are a lot of physical mutations that are readily apparant, but most of those are from external factors that affect development without affecting the genome (think thalidomide, if you are that mutation-savvy). The mutations that are evolutionarily interesting are those that affect the genome. Duh? They are four-fold, like:
1. base substitution -- usually neutral, but could cause change
2. insertion or deletion of bases -- causes "frame shift" which is usually destructive
3. insertion of a selection of DNA. Usually destructive.
4. duplication or deletion of a section of DNA. Consider the existence of multiple alleles, for example for skin color and eye color and hair color.For example, Mutation #4 combines with Mutation #1 to create new genes. You keep the old functionality at the same time that you allow for new functionalities. Prime example is the evolution of lysozyme into alpha-lactilbumin; from my former page on Gish's false "Bullfrog Protein" claim page (no longer on-line because AOL's web pages have gone off-line):

quote:

---

However, Gish insisted that the chicken-protein claim was correct and went into a convoluted apologetic about lysozyme and another protein that nobody could follow (but boy was the audience impressed by it!). Afterwards, Gish promised emphatically to send Schadewald written details about this claim, in front of creationist witnesses, no less. Despite three written reminders, Gish has never honored that promise.

​

The only ICR claim about lysozyme that Schadewald was familiar with had been Gary Parker's claim that chicken lysozyme is more similar to human lysozyme than is chimpanzee lysozyme. However, Awbrey and Thwaites have shown that this is not true, since human and chimpanzee lysozyme are identical and chicken lysozyme differs from both by 51 out of 130 amino acids. Their conclusion was that either Parker was totally ignorant of the facts or he thought that 51 is less than zero.

​

I personally suspect that Gish may have been repeating Parker's claim about alpha-lactalbumin, a protein involved in the production of lactose in mammals which apparently had evolved from lysozyme:

​

"By comparing lysozyme and lactalbumin, Dickerson was hoping to 'pin down with great precision' where human beings branched off the mammal line. The results are surprising. In this test, it turned out that humans are more closely related to the CHICKEN than to any living mammal tested!"
(_What is Creation Science?_, Morris & Parker, Revised, 1987, pg 58)

​

Here is what Dickerson had actually written:

​

"A simple-minded application of the 'clocks' ideas of Chapter 3 [i.e. assuming constant rates of change for proteins to estimate when they had diverged] to these lysozymes and alpha-lactalbumin leads to an apparent contradiction. If alpha-lactalbumin evolved from a mammalian lysozyme during the course of the development of mammals, then it and human lysozyme should be more similar than either is to hen lysozyme. Conversely, the assumption that rates of change have been constant in all three proteins since divergence leads to the conclusion that the alpha-lactalbumins separated from the lysozymes long before the first appearance of terrestrial vertebrates. Where is the fallacy?

​

"The fallacy, of course, is in the assumption of unchanging rates of accumulation of tolerable mutations. For one particular protein, performing much the same task in a wide spectrum of species, this may be a valid working hypothesis. But when circumstances arise in the environment such that a duplicated gene is being altered, the better to perform a NEW function, selection pressure is unusually severe and changes in sequence will be unusually rapid."
(_The Structure and Action of Proteins_, Richard Dickerson and Irving Geis, 1969, page 78)

​

So in comparing human alpha-lactalbumin and human lysozyme with chicken lysozyme, we can use Parker's reasoning to show that humans are more closely related to chickens than they are to humans! It's absurd little touches like this that makes creationism more fun than science! Dickerson clearly indicates that this was a simple-minded application of an idea that was meant to apply only for a protein whose function remained constant. The assumption that the rates at which all three proteins changed would remain constant is unwarranted and inconsistent with the ideas of evolution. Ironically, "creation scientists" traditionally attack any assumption of a constant rate, except of course for their own assumptions.

---

OK, Integral, think!Genome (AKA "the genotype") becomes the body (AKA "soma", AKA "phenotype") through development of the zygote into the embryo and fetus. All the mutations that have anything to do with evolution are purely in the genome.So, all we need for a new organism is a new genome, right? Vary an existing genome a bit and you could get a slightly varied phenome, right? Do you even know what I mean by "genome" and "phenome"? If not, then you desparately need to learn some extremely basic biology/genetics, right? I mean, basics so basic that they were basics back in the late 1960's.How do you create a new genotype that creates a viable phenotype? You start from an existing genotype and vary it a little. Now, some changes in the genotype create absolutely not apparent change in the phenotype and some changes create a large noticeable change. Whatever happens, there will be a range of diffent phenotypes created every generation and, assuming that there's some kind of optimal phenotype that will be selected-for, those closest to that optimal phenotype will be more likely to survive. Then those survivors will be the parents of the next generation, which will be different from their parents to a degree and those who are closest to the optimal will be more likely to survive to be the parents of the next generation. ETC. Duh?I have somewhere an article from a 1980 Science article describing Ellridge and Gould's initial "punc eq" presentation which depicts the subsequent generations are bell curves and that just seems to describe it so well. In that it's the successive medians of those bell curves that describes the "progress" of evolution. Duh?IOW, consider how life procreates. Not the X-rated specificates, but rather the population-level implications. In general, who survives to procreate? In general, what should happen each generation and how should that be selected against? That is how life works! Follow how life works and see what happens.My own private take on evolution is to look upon it as the side-effects of what happens on the population-level when procreation happens.Does evolution happen? Well, would you dare to claim that procreation does not happen? You wouldn't? I didn't think so. So if procreation happens, evolution must happen. And if evolution happens, then you really should consider dealing with it, right?Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.