evolution

by inbetween 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Matsimus
    Matsimus

    NewChapter, good post. I do disagree with the term random, since natural selection is a system that is not random, but very selective. I once read that evolution being random is a myth, but can't remember where :s Also, the WT uses the term random all the time to attack the credibility of the theory/fact.

  • NewChapter
    NewChapter

    Mat, excellent point. I think I was trying to use random to show the difference between design. But you are absolutely right, this process is not random, but it is not preordained either. What would be a good term to contrast that difference?

    And yet there is a random element when it comes to genetic mutation, but again, the process is definitely more orderly than that. Beaks won't randomly just get thicker to see if they work better---but they will get thicker because they DO work better. However one random beak mutation could start the process.

    UGH. I need more words.

    NC

  • simon17
    simon17

    Regarding your question on evolution and missing links.

    Most times if A+ is better than A, then A dies out and A+ takes over. Then when improvement A++ comes along, it takes over and A+ is slowly eliminated from the population. Also when populations are separated by some barrier into "islands" they diverge along different lines. So suppose population A is split into A1 and A2. Well as A1+++++++ and A2++++++++ evolve, and then you look back and compare the two results, there will be huge differences AND no middle ground between the two new divergent species.

  • MeanMrMustard
    MeanMrMustard

    @NewChapter:

    What would be a good term to contrast that difference?

    "natural algorithm" ?

    MeanMrMustard

  • Cadellin
    Cadellin

    When I started exploring ideas beyond the realm of the WT, evolution was one of the first. What struck me--and I suspect you, too, inbetween--is how grossly misinformed I'd been from basing my beliefs on what the WT wrote, such as little gems like the Creation book.

    As another poster has noted, it is absolutely necessary for you to start reading about the science of evolution. Coyne's book is absolutely fantastic. Another good one is Carl Zimmer's Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea, which is ideal for the lay person with little or no background in biology and might be easier for you, given that English is not your first language. Another good one is Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters

    Since you're interested in the idea of "missing links" (and be aware that the science community does not use that term since it is highly misleading; it's more favored by creationists and the popular media), you might read Carl Zimmer's At the Water's Edge, which is a detailed account of the evolution of whales. The number of so-called "missing links" or transitional species discovered in the cetacean family tree is startling and revealing about the general nature of how evolution works to produce morphological change.

    Happy learning!!!

  • cofty
    cofty

    inbetween - Everything is a transitional species (missing link is a pejorative term as I will explain below). Think about living things like a bush more than a tree. At the end of every twig is a species that still exists. All the 99% of species that existed previously were less well suited to changing environments and went extinct.

    If you did maths at school or college you may have been amazed (and stumped) by the power of Greek geometers to work out some amazing truths using mental gymnastics. To them all the shapes you could ever draw were mere representations of “essential” shapes that to them was actual reality. The “essential” triangle really did have angles adding up to 180, parallel lines of the “essential” rhombus really did extend for infinity without merging.

    According to Ernst Mayr biology has suffered from it’s own version of “essentialism in which tapirs and rabbits are treated as though they were triangles or dodecahedrons. It is as if there was a perfect “essential” Platonic rabbit hanging somewhere in conceptual space along with all the perfect forms of geometry. Variation among real rabbits is seen as a departure from the correct form of the essential rabbit to which all bunnies are tethered by invisible elastic.

    I find this a very helpful insight. It exposes a way of thinking that is as deeply ingrained as it is flawed and opposed to the evolutionary view of life. Descendants are in fact free to vary endlessly from ancestor forms and every variation in the real world is a potential ancestor to future variants. There is no permanent “rabbitness” no essence of rabbit or tapir or hippo hanging in the sky.

    Imagine going on a walk through evolutionary time to track the path from rabbit to leopard. Like an inspecting general you walk along a line of rabbits, daughter – mother – grandmother back and back through thousands of generations. Change would be so gradual as to be imperceptible like the movement of the hour hand of a watch but eventually we would reach ancestors that are less rabbit like and perhaps more shrew like. Then at some point we reach a hairpin and begin to move forward in time along a separate branch of the tree of life choosing left and right forks in the road until we arrive at our destination. At no point in our journey would we notice any changes from one generation to the next. We could choose any two species and do the same thing. This is no mere thought experiment it is exactly what evolution tells us has happened. It is also as far removed from “essentialism” as it would is possible to conceive.

    As for the fossil record we have an embarassment of riches of tranisitonal forms.

    Here are some suggestions for a reading list.

    Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters - Donald Prothero

    • ISBN-10: 0231139624
    • ISBN-13: 978-0231139625

    Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin

    • ISBN-10: 0141027584
    • ISBN-13: 978-0141027586

    The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins

    • ISBN-10: 059306173X
    • ISBN-13: 978-0593061732

    Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne

    • ISBN-10: 0199230854
    • ISBN-13: 978-0199230853

    Life Ascending - Nick Lane

    • ISBN-10: 1861978189
    • ISBN-13: 978-1861978189

    The Making of the Fittest - Sean B. Carroll

    • ISBN-10: 1847247245
    • ISBN-13: 978-1847247247
  • djeggnog
    djeggnog

    inbetweenevolution posted ~ 10 hours ago (2/29/2012)





    Since 6/29/2009

    since my awakening from the mind control of the WTS, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking.

    I would say, today I try to be open to anything, I´ll go whatever direction facts show. While I`m no scientist, I think I have a glue about the scientific method. I also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof.

    So far, it is a difficult question whether God exists or not, and probably in my lifetime I will not get a conclusive answer.

    However, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a God, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no God.

    Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution, I read other books of people, whose reasoning I can agree to, and they believe in evolution.

    Anyway, there a two points, which stand in the way of accepting the theory of evolution.

    1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today.

    Let me explain: According to my understanding of evolution, natural selection works together with mutations, so a change in an animal will survive, because it is better fit for a particular environment.

    This change must be gradual, perhaps affecting only one little area of the DNA. Lets call this animal of one kind A. The goal of evolution is animal of kind B. The one with the little change we call A+.

    So next must be many of A+ animals before the next advantageous change occurs, we call it A++.

    Then many of A++ must live in order for the next change and so on, until B occurs.

    My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ?

    There should have been much more of them, because of the nature of gradual change, which needs a big population of those animals. Even if they may be hidden in the fossil record, why are they not here today ?

    2) our brain

    We trust our brain to be able to discern this world and its natural laws, however, if it is only product of some natural selection process, how can we trust our brain in order to find out the truth ? On the other hand, by trusting our brain tobe able to find out all other things in nature, does it not imply, that it is from a higher source ?

    I would be very interested in your comments, I hope I made my points clear.

    English is not my first language, so I may not have succeeded in the endeavour for a precise language, sorry about that.

    inbetween

    3MozziesRe: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)





    Since 8/22/2010
    My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ?

    Here are some birds with wings that can't fly. Birds that can't fly sound like a the kind of A+ animal you're looking for...

    Maybe in a few thousand years some might lose their flightless wings and replace them with legs or who knows what. These new creatures along with new attributes (mutations) will become a different/new species?

    Kiwis
    Rheas
    Moa-nalos (extinct)
    Bermuda Island Flightless Duck
    Fuegian Steamer Duck
    Falkland Steamer Duck
    Chubut Steamer Duck
    Auckland Teal
    Campbell Teal
    Dromornis
    Genyornis
    Chendytes lawi
    Talpanas
    Cnemiornis
    New Caledonian Giant Megapode
    Junin Grebe
    Titicaca Grebe
    Atitlán Grebe
    Flightless Cormorant
    Penguins
    Giant Hoopoe (extinct)
    Apteribis
    Jamaican Ibis
    Réunion Sacred Ibis
    Cuban Flightless Crane
    Red Rail
    Rodrigues Rail
    Woodford's Rail (probably flightless)
    Bar-winged Rail (probably flightless)
    Weka
    New Caledonian Rail
    Lord Howe Woodhen
    Calayan Rail
    New Britain Rail
    Guam Rail
    Roviana Rail (flightless, or nearly so)
    Tahiti Rail
    Dieffenbach's Rail
    Chatham Rail
    Wake Island Rail
    Snoring Rail
    Inaccessible Island Rail
    Laysan Rail
    Hawaiian Rail
    Kosrae Crake
    Ascension Crake
    Red-eyed Crake
    Invisible Rail
    New Guinea Flightless Rail
    Lord Howe Swamphen (probably flightless)
    North Island Takahe
    Takahe
    Samoan Wood Rail
    Makira Wood Rail
    Tristan Moorhen †
    Gough Island Moorhen
    Tasmanian Nativehen
    Giant Coot (adults only; immatures can fly)
    Adzebills
    Great Auk
    Diving Puffin
    Terrestrial Caracara
    Kakapo
    Broad-billed Parrot
    Dodo
    Rodrigues Solitaire
    Viti Levu Giant Pigeon
    New Zealand Owlet-nightjar
    Cuban Giant Owl
    Cretan Owl (probably flightless)
    Andros Island Barn Owl
    Stephens Island Wren
    Long-legged Bunting

    Flat_AccentRe: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)





    Since 11/28/2011

    Hello Inbetween, glad you're open to new ideas. I'll try and answer these questions, but someone else can probably add to them.

    1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today.

    Firstly, it's inescapeable that there were missing links. Fossil records prove this beyond doubt. You can study the evolution of the Horse, or the evolution of sea dwelling mammals, or even our own ancestry to get a broader picture of this. For instance, inherent in dolphins are two very small bones at the base of the spine. They are too small to have a usage, and are not connected to the rest of the skeleton, but they are the remnants of the ancient anscestors of dolphins, who originally lived on land, but over time moved out to sea (which, I might add, are visible in the fossil record).

    You should also think about the term 'missing link'. If you go further forward in time, then probably every animal on the earth now would be a missing link to some new future species. But the process is so incredibly slow that we would barely notice this change. Therein lies the problem with the 'missing link' terminology. If scientists could find each and every stage of evolution in the fossil record, it would be impossible to put a defining mark between what constitutes a human, for example, and what constitutes an ape-like anscestor.

    Third, when two varying branches of an individual species co-exist, one will probably go extinct. This is because of things like food competition, and struggles over territory. It's also quite probable that the Neanderthal, which was a separate branch, not related to humans, may have died out because of interbreeding with our ancestors.

    2) our brain

    I'm not sure whether this is more of a philosophical question than an evolutionary one. Nevertheless, our brains are capable of learning, understanding, creating and storing information. Because of this we are able to create a necessity for answers to questions like 'Is there a God' and 'Why are we here'. It is our brains that give the universe purpose. But truth is objective. There are some things that we can find the answers to, and that's where science comes in.

    inbetweenRe: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)





    Since 6/29/2009
    inbetweenRe: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)





    Since 6/29/2009

    sorry, strange, I can`t see the answers only my original post ?

    leavingwtRe: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)




    Post 13974 of 13980
    Since 6/16/2008

    "Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution"

    In very recent years, many books have been written on this topic, including the two below.

    Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne

    http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/B002ZNJWJU

    The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

    http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787

    You may also find it helpful to review the Common Myths and Misconceptions about Evolution. Why? Almost everything WT has said on the topic is either a lie, distortion or gross ignorance.

    Here are some helpful resources:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php http://listverse.com/2008/02/19/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html
    Amelia AshtonRe: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)





    Since 11/2/2010

    Bumping for NewChapter

    MatsimusRe: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)





    Since 2/21/2012

    A couple of years ago I was still a believer of JW doctrine, with a big curiosity for what all the evolution crap was about, I read one of Richards Dawkins books called "the greatest show on earth". Not did I know that it would change my life forever. The book explains all the evidence for evolution without requiring you to be a professor in evolutionary biolgy. His statements were overwhelmingly logical to me, and everything felt like pieces being added to a big puzzle, while shredding my beliefs in jw doctrine where it was against evolution. As i read my comment now, it seems very easy, although it wasn't. I got terrified and read every WT literature about evolution, but it just did not add up in my mind. I highly reccomend that you read "the greatest show on earth".

    Btw, still having trouble with the posts? I read in another thead that this one has got a few technical issues :p

    NewChapterRe: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)





    Since 1/25/2011

    Finally. Firefox worked.

    Inbetween, I think that you are still looking at evolution in terms of creation. That could make some of the concepts hard to grasp. For instance you referenced the 'goal' of evolution. This suggests you think a course has been plotted, and now the process is meant to get to the destination. That is not how evolution works. Think of it more like a wind up car that will run in random circles, bumping into walls, and then readjusting its course until it can move in a new direction again.

    The term 'missing link' can also hang us up. Think in terms of 'transitional species', of which there are many. In other words, you won't find a link between ape and homo, but you will find many species that gradually change in between the two. And to make it a bit harder to grasp, those in between species don't all end at homo sapien, but branch off into many directions. Connecting straight lines does not work. Evolution is more like a tree with many branches, rather than a chain, so 'link' misleads us.

    We don't know what transitional species are living today, because we don't know where they are heading. We don't know if some group of lizards will one day access a unique niche, and then evolve to exploit it more thoroughly. Evolution is slow, slow, slow, and we've only been aware of it for such a short time, we don't expect to see grand changes playing out in front of our eyes. But we can see it on a microscopic level.

    We now have the advantage of genetics, which has enabled us to track the history of species and to find connections that were impossible to deduce from the fossil record. So knowledge is growing.

    Read. And while reading, allow your brain to process information in a different fashion. Try not to think of the process as orchestrated, but as more random and opportunistic. Darwin reasoned that finches on an island where the main food source was seeds had shorter thicker beaks because they adapted to the resources. Finches on an island where insects were the source, had long, thin beaks for the same reason. Originally they had all been one species, but through natural selection, those with the better adapted beaks out reproduced the others.

    Because there is always a variation in traits. Perhaps this original population had similiar beaks, but there was still variation. On the seed island, the finches with slightly shorter or thicker beaks were more successful reproductively than finches with slightly thinner beaks. Since they were reproducing faster and passing on their shorter beak traits, this variation could become more pronounced with each generation. Over time, short fat beaks rule, and eventually become so genetically separated from their original population, they speciate. They can no longer reproduce with the original population, or other species that grew from the original.

    Read.

    NC

    Amelia AshtonRe: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)





    Since 11/2/2010

    A while back some atheists paid for an advertisement on London's red buses. I remember thinking back then how brave but foolhardy they were. Now I agree with them but it isn't always easy.

    MatsimusRe: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)





    Since 2/21/2012

    NewChapter, good post. I do disagree with the term random, since natural selection is a system that is not random, but very selective. I once read that evolution being random is a myth, but can't remember where :s Also, the WT uses the term random all the time to attack the credibility of the theory/fact.

    NewChapterRe: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)





    Since 1/25/2011

    Mat, excellent point. I think I was trying to use random to show the difference between design. But you are absolutely right, this process is not random, but it is not preordained either. What would be a good term to contrast that difference?

    And yet there is a random element when it comes to genetic mutation, but again, the process is definitely more orderly than that. Beaks won't randomly just get thicker to see if they work better---but they will get thicker because they DO work better. However one random beak mutation could start the process.

    UGH. I need more words.

    NC

    simon17Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)





    Since 7/25/2009

    Regarding your question on evolution and missing links.

    Most times if A+ is better than A, then A dies out and A+ takes over. Then when improvement A++ comes along, it takes over and A+ is slowly eliminated from the population. Also when populations are separated by some barrier into "islands" they diverge along different lines. So suppose population A is split into A1 and A2. Well as A1+++++++ and A2++++++++ evolve, and then you look back and compare the two results, there will be huge differences AND no middle ground between the two new divergent species.

    MeanMrMustardRe: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)





    Since 9/9/2010

    @NewChapter:

    What would be a good term to contrast that difference?

    "natural algorithm" ?

    MeanMrMustard

    CadellinRe: evolution posted ~ 4 hours ago (2/29/2012)





    Since 3/28/2009

    When I started exploring ideas beyond the realm of the WT, evolution was one of the first. What struck me--and I suspect you, too, inbetween--is how grossly misinformed I'd been from basing my beliefs on what the WT wrote, such as little gems like the Creation book.

    As another poster has noted, it is absolutely necessary for you to start reading about the science of evolution. Coyne's book is absolutely fantastic. Another good one is Carl Zimmer's Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea, which is ideal for the lay person with little or no background in biology and might be easier for you, given that English is not your first language. Another good one is Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters

    Since you're interested in the idea of "missing links" (and be aware that the science community does not use that term since it is highly misleading; it's more favored by creationists and the popular media), you might read Carl Zimmer's At the Water's Edge, which is a detailed account of the evolution of whales. The number of so-called "missing links" or transitional species discovered in the cetacean family tree is startling and revealing about the general nature of how evolution works to produce morphological change.

    Happy learning!!!

    coftyRe: evolution posted ~ 2 hours ago (2/29/2012)





    Since 12/19/2009

    inbetween - Everything is a transitional species (missing link is a pejorative term as I will explain below). Think about living things like a bush more than a tree. At the end of every twig is a species that still exists. All the 99% of species that existed previously were less well suited to changing environments and went extinct.

    If you did maths at school or college you may have been amazed (and stumped) by the power of Greek geometers to work out some amazing truths using mental gymnastics. To them all the shapes you could ever draw were mere representations of “essential” shapes that to them was actual reality. The “essential” triangle really did have angles adding up to 180, parallel lines of the “essential” rhombus really did extend for infinity without merging.

    According to Ernst Mayr biology has suffered from it’s own version of “essentialism in which tapirs and rabbits are treated as though they were triangles or dodecahedrons. It is as if there was a perfect “essential” Platonic rabbit hanging somewhere in conceptual space along with all the perfect forms of geometry. Variation among real rabbits is seen as a departure from the correct form of the essential rabbit to which all bunnies are tethered by invisible elastic.

    I find this a very helpful insight. It exposes a way of thinking that is as deeply ingrained as it is flawed and opposed to the evolutionary view of life. Descendants are in fact free to vary endlessly from ancestor forms and every variation in the real world is a potential ancestor to future variants. There is no permanent “rabbitness” no essence of rabbit or tapir or hippo hanging in the sky.

    Imagine going on a walk through evolutionary time to track the path from rabbit to leopard. Like an inspecting general you walk along a line of rabbits, daughter – mother – grandmother back and back through thousands of generations. Change would be so gradual as to be imperceptible like the movement of the hour hand of a watch but eventually we would reach ancestors that are less rabbit like and perhaps more shrew like. Then at some point we reach a hairpin and begin to move forward in time along a separate branch of the tree of life choosing left and right forks in the road until we arrive at our destination. At no point in our journey would we notice any changes from one generation to the next. We could choose any two species and do the same thing. This is no mere thought experiment it is exactly what evolution tells us has happened. It is also as far removed from “essentialism” as it would is possible to conceive.

    As for the fossil record we have an embarassment of riches of tranisitonal forms.

    Here are some suggestions for a reading list.

    Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters - Donald Prothero

    • ISBN-10: 0231139624
    • ISBN-13: 978-0231139625

    Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin

    • ISBN-10: 0141027584
    • ISBN-13: 978-0141027586

    The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins

    • ISBN-10: 059306173X
    • ISBN-13: 978-0593061732

    Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne

    • ISBN-10: 0199230854
    • ISBN-13: 978-0199230853

    Life Ascending - Nick Lane

    • ISBN-10: 1861978189
    • ISBN-13: 978-1861978189

    The Making of the Fittest - Sean B. Carroll

    • ISBN-10: 1847247245
    • ISBN-13: 978-1847247247

    • cofty
      cofty

      Are just practicing how to copy and paste?

    • djeggnog
      djeggnog

      inbetweenevolution posted ~ 10 hours ago (2/29/2012)





      Since 6/29/2009

      since my awakening from the mind control of the WTS, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking.

      I would say, today I try to be open to anything, I´ll go whatever direction facts show. While I`m no scientist, I think I have a glue about the scientific method. I also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof.

      So far, it is a difficult question whether God exists or not, and probably in my lifetime I will not get a conclusive answer.

      However, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a God, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no God.

      Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution, I read other books of people, whose reasoning I can agree to, and they believe in evolution.

      Anyway, there a two points, which stand in the way of accepting the theory of evolution.

      1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today.

      Let me explain: According to my understanding of evolution, natural selection works together with mutations, so a change in an animal will survive, because it is better fit for a particular environment.

      This change must be gradual, perhaps affecting only one little area of the DNA. Lets call this animal of one kind A. The goal of evolution is animal of kind B. The one with the little change we call A+.

      So next must be many of A+ animals before the next advantageous change occurs, we call it A++.

      Then many of A++ must live in order for the next change and so on, until B occurs.

      My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ?

      There should have been much more of them, because of the nature of gradual change, which needs a big population of those animals. Even if they may be hidden in the fossil record, why are they not here today ?

      2) our brain

      We trust our brain to be able to discern this world and its natural laws, however, if it is only product of some natural selection process, how can we trust our brain in order to find out the truth ? On the other hand, by trusting our brain tobe able to find out all other things in nature, does it not imply, that it is from a higher source ?

      I would be very interested in your comments, I hope I made my points clear.

      English is not my first language, so I may not have succeeded in the endeavour for a precise language, sorry about that.

      inbetween

      3MozziesRe: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)





      Since 8/22/2010
      My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ?

      Here are some birds with wings that can't fly. Birds that can't fly sound like a the kind of A+ animal you're looking for...

      Maybe in a few thousand years some might lose their flightless wings and replace them with legs or who knows what. These new creatures along with new attributes (mutations) will become a different/new species?

      Kiwis
      Rheas
      Moa-nalos (extinct)
      Bermuda Island Flightless Duck
      Fuegian Steamer Duck
      Falkland Steamer Duck
      Chubut Steamer Duck
      Auckland Teal
      Campbell Teal
      Dromornis
      Genyornis
      Chendytes lawi
      Talpanas
      Cnemiornis
      New Caledonian Giant Megapode
      Junin Grebe
      Titicaca Grebe
      Atitlán Grebe
      Flightless Cormorant
      Penguins
      Giant Hoopoe (extinct)
      Apteribis
      Jamaican Ibis
      Réunion Sacred Ibis
      Cuban Flightless Crane
      Red Rail
      Rodrigues Rail
      Woodford's Rail (probably flightless)
      Bar-winged Rail (probably flightless)
      Weka
      New Caledonian Rail
      Lord Howe Woodhen
      Calayan Rail
      New Britain Rail
      Guam Rail
      Roviana Rail (flightless, or nearly so)
      Tahiti Rail
      Dieffenbach's Rail
      Chatham Rail
      Wake Island Rail
      Snoring Rail
      Inaccessible Island Rail
      Laysan Rail
      Hawaiian Rail
      Kosrae Crake
      Ascension Crake
      Red-eyed Crake
      Invisible Rail
      New Guinea Flightless Rail
      Lord Howe Swamphen (probably flightless)
      North Island Takahe
      Takahe
      Samoan Wood Rail
      Makira Wood Rail
      Tristan Moorhen †
      Gough Island Moorhen
      Tasmanian Nativehen
      Giant Coot (adults only; immatures can fly)
      Adzebills
      Great Auk
      Diving Puffin
      Terrestrial Caracara
      Kakapo
      Broad-billed Parrot
      Dodo
      Rodrigues Solitaire
      Viti Levu Giant Pigeon
      New Zealand Owlet-nightjar
      Cuban Giant Owl
      Cretan Owl (probably flightless)
      Andros Island Barn Owl
      Stephens Island Wren
      Long-legged Bunting

      Flat_AccentRe: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)





      Since 11/28/2011

      Hello Inbetween, glad you're open to new ideas. I'll try and answer these questions, but someone else can probably add to them.

      1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today.

      Firstly, it's inescapeable that there were missing links. Fossil records prove this beyond doubt. You can study the evolution of the Horse, or the evolution of sea dwelling mammals, or even our own ancestry to get a broader picture of this. For instance, inherent in dolphins are two very small bones at the base of the spine. They are too small to have a usage, and are not connected to the rest of the skeleton, but they are the remnants of the ancient anscestors of dolphins, who originally lived on land, but over time moved out to sea (which, I might add, are visible in the fossil record).

      You should also think about the term 'missing link'. If you go further forward in time, then probably every animal on the earth now would be a missing link to some new future species. But the process is so incredibly slow that we would barely notice this change. Therein lies the problem with the 'missing link' terminology. If scientists could find each and every stage of evolution in the fossil record, it would be impossible to put a defining mark between what constitutes a human, for example, and what constitutes an ape-like anscestor.

      Third, when two varying branches of an individual species co-exist, one will probably go extinct. This is because of things like food competition, and struggles over territory. It's also quite probable that the Neanderthal, which was a separate branch, not related to humans, may have died out because of interbreeding with our ancestors.

      2) our brain

      I'm not sure whether this is more of a philosophical question than an evolutionary one. Nevertheless, our brains are capable of learning, understanding, creating and storing information. Because of this we are able to create a necessity for answers to questions like 'Is there a God' and 'Why are we here'. It is our brains that give the universe purpose. But truth is objective. There are some things that we can find the answers to, and that's where science comes in.

      inbetweenRe: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)





      Since 6/29/2009
      inbetweenRe: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)





      Since 6/29/2009

      sorry, strange, I can`t see the answers only my original post ?

      leavingwtRe: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)




      Post 13974 of 13980
      Since 6/16/2008

      "Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution"

      In very recent years, many books have been written on this topic, including the two below.

      Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne

      http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/B002ZNJWJU

      The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

      http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787

      You may also find it helpful to review the Common Myths and Misconceptions about Evolution. Why? Almost everything WT has said on the topic is either a lie, distortion or gross ignorance.

      Here are some helpful resources:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php http://listverse.com/2008/02/19/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html
      Amelia AshtonRe: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)





      Since 11/2/2010

      Bumping for NewChapter

      MatsimusRe: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)





      Since 2/21/2012

      A couple of years ago I was still a believer of JW doctrine, with a big curiosity for what all the evolution crap was about, I read one of Richards Dawkins books called "the greatest show on earth". Not did I know that it would change my life forever. The book explains all the evidence for evolution without requiring you to be a professor in evolutionary biolgy. His statements were overwhelmingly logical to me, and everything felt like pieces being added to a big puzzle, while shredding my beliefs in jw doctrine where it was against evolution. As i read my comment now, it seems very easy, although it wasn't. I got terrified and read every WT literature about evolution, but it just did not add up in my mind. I highly reccomend that you read "the greatest show on earth".

      Btw, still having trouble with the posts? I read in another thead that this one has got a few technical issues :p

      NewChapterRe: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)





      Since 1/25/2011

      Finally. Firefox worked.

      Inbetween, I think that you are still looking at evolution in terms of creation. That could make some of the concepts hard to grasp. For instance you referenced the 'goal' of evolution. This suggests you think a course has been plotted, and now the process is meant to get to the destination. That is not how evolution works. Think of it more like a wind up car that will run in random circles, bumping into walls, and then readjusting its course until it can move in a new direction again.

      The term 'missing link' can also hang us up. Think in terms of 'transitional species', of which there are many. In other words, you won't find a link between ape and homo, but you will find many species that gradually change in between the two. And to make it a bit harder to grasp, those in between species don't all end at homo sapien, but branch off into many directions. Connecting straight lines does not work. Evolution is more like a tree with many branches, rather than a chain, so 'link' misleads us.

      We don't know what transitional species are living today, because we don't know where they are heading. We don't know if some group of lizards will one day access a unique niche, and then evolve to exploit it more thoroughly. Evolution is slow, slow, slow, and we've only been aware of it for such a short time, we don't expect to see grand changes playing out in front of our eyes. But we can see it on a microscopic level.

      We now have the advantage of genetics, which has enabled us to track the history of species and to find connections that were impossible to deduce from the fossil record. So knowledge is growing.

      Read. And while reading, allow your brain to process information in a different fashion. Try not to think of the process as orchestrated, but as more random and opportunistic. Darwin reasoned that finches on an island where the main food source was seeds had shorter thicker beaks because they adapted to the resources. Finches on an island where insects were the source, had long, thin beaks for the same reason. Originally they had all been one species, but through natural selection, those with the better adapted beaks out reproduced the others.

      Because there is always a variation in traits. Perhaps this original population had similiar beaks, but there was still variation. On the seed island, the finches with slightly shorter or thicker beaks were more successful reproductively than finches with slightly thinner beaks. Since they were reproducing faster and passing on their shorter beak traits, this variation could become more pronounced with each generation. Over time, short fat beaks rule, and eventually become so genetically separated from their original population, they speciate. They can no longer reproduce with the original population, or other species that grew from the original.

      Read.

      NC

      Amelia AshtonRe: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)





      Since 11/2/2010

      A while back some atheists paid for an advertisement on London's red buses. I remember thinking back then how brave but foolhardy they were. Now I agree with them but it isn't always easy.

      MatsimusRe: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)





      Since 2/21/2012

      NewChapter, good post. I do disagree with the term random, since natural selection is a system that is not random, but very selective. I once read that evolution being random is a myth, but can't remember where :s Also, the WT uses the term random all the time to attack the credibility of the theory/fact.

      NewChapterRe: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)





      Since 1/25/2011

      Mat, excellent point. I think I was trying to use random to show the difference between design. But you are absolutely right, this process is not random, but it is not preordained either. What would be a good term to contrast that difference?

      And yet there is a random element when it comes to genetic mutation, but again, the process is definitely more orderly than that. Beaks won't randomly just get thicker to see if they work better---but they will get thicker because they DO work better. However one random beak mutation could start the process.

      UGH. I need more words.

      NC

      simon17Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)





      Since 7/25/2009

      Regarding your question on evolution and missing links.

      Most times if A+ is better than A, then A dies out and A+ takes over. Then when improvement A++ comes along, it takes over and A+ is slowly eliminated from the population. Also when populations are separated by some barrier into "islands" they diverge along different lines. So suppose population A is split into A1 and A2. Well as A1+++++++ and A2++++++++ evolve, and then you look back and compare the two results, there will be huge differences AND no middle ground between the two new divergent species.

      MeanMrMustardRe: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)





      Since 9/9/2010

      @NewChapter:

      What would be a good term to contrast that difference?

      "natural algorithm" ?

      MeanMrMustard

      CadellinRe: evolution posted ~ 4 hours ago (2/29/2012)





      Since 3/28/2009

      When I started exploring ideas beyond the realm of the WT, evolution was one of the first. What struck me--and I suspect you, too, inbetween--is how grossly misinformed I'd been from basing my beliefs on what the WT wrote, such as little gems like the Creation book.

      As another poster has noted, it is absolutely necessary for you to start reading about the science of evolution. Coyne's book is absolutely fantastic. Another good one is Carl Zimmer's Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea, which is ideal for the lay person with little or no background in biology and might be easier for you, given that English is not your first language. Another good one is Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters

      Since you're interested in the idea of "missing links" (and be aware that the science community does not use that term since it is highly misleading; it's more favored by creationists and the popular media), you might read Carl Zimmer's At the Water's Edge, which is a detailed account of the evolution of whales. The number of so-called "missing links" or transitional species discovered in the cetacean family tree is startling and revealing about the general nature of how evolution works to produce morphological change.

      Happy learning!!!

      coftyRe: evolution posted ~ 2 hours ago (2/29/2012)





      Since 12/19/2009

      inbetween - Everything is a transitional species (missing link is a pejorative term as I will explain below). Think about living things like a bush more than a tree. At the end of every twig is a species that still exists. All the 99% of species that existed previously were less well suited to changing environments and went extinct.

      If you did maths at school or college you may have been amazed (and stumped) by the power of Greek geometers to work out some amazing truths using mental gymnastics. To them all the shapes you could ever draw were mere representations of “essential” shapes that to them was actual reality. The “essential” triangle really did have angles adding up to 180, parallel lines of the “essential” rhombus really did extend for infinity without merging.

      According to Ernst Mayr biology has suffered from it’s own version of “essentialism in which tapirs and rabbits are treated as though they were triangles or dodecahedrons. It is as if there was a perfect “essential” Platonic rabbit hanging somewhere in conceptual space along with all the perfect forms of geometry. Variation among real rabbits is seen as a departure from the correct form of the essential rabbit to which all bunnies are tethered by invisible elastic.

      I find this a very helpful insight. It exposes a way of thinking that is as deeply ingrained as it is flawed and opposed to the evolutionary view of life. Descendants are in fact free to vary endlessly from ancestor forms and every variation in the real world is a potential ancestor to future variants. There is no permanent “rabbitness” no essence of rabbit or tapir or hippo hanging in the sky.

      Imagine going on a walk through evolutionary time to track the path from rabbit to leopard. Like an inspecting general you walk along a line of rabbits, daughter – mother – grandmother back and back through thousands of generations. Change would be so gradual as to be imperceptible like the movement of the hour hand of a watch but eventually we would reach ancestors that are less rabbit like and perhaps more shrew like. Then at some point we reach a hairpin and begin to move forward in time along a separate branch of the tree of life choosing left and right forks in the road until we arrive at our destination. At no point in our journey would we notice any changes from one generation to the next. We could choose any two species and do the same thing. This is no mere thought experiment it is exactly what evolution tells us has happened. It is also as far removed from “essentialism” as it would is possible to conceive.

      As for the fossil record we have an embarassment of riches of tranisitonal forms.

      Here are some suggestions for a reading list.

      Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters - Donald Prothero

      • ISBN-10: 0231139624
      • ISBN-13: 978-0231139625

      Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin

      • ISBN-10: 0141027584
      • ISBN-13: 978-0141027586

      The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins

      • ISBN-10: 059306173X
      • ISBN-13: 978-0593061732

      Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne

      • ISBN-10: 0199230854
      • ISBN-13: 978-0199230853

      Life Ascending - Nick Lane

      • ISBN-10: 1861978189
      • ISBN-13: 978-1861978189

      The Making of the Fittest - Sean B. Carroll

      • ISBN-10: 1847247245
      • ISBN-13: 978-1847247247

      • djeggnog
        djeggnog

        inbetweenevolution posted ~ 10 hours ago (2/29/2012)





        Since 6/29/2009

        since my awakening from the mind control of the WTS, it has been an exciting also frigthening journey of exploration and free thinking.

        I would say, today I try to be open to anything, I´ll go whatever direction facts show. While I`m no scientist, I think I have a glue about the scientific method. I also agree with the statemant, that some extraordinary claim needs extraordinary proof.

        So far, it is a difficult question whether God exists or not, and probably in my lifetime I will not get a conclusive answer.

        However, my concerns are about evolution, since even a confirmation of evolution does not necessarily exclude the existence of a God, it just proivdes an alternative explanation, in case there is no God.

        Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution, I read other books of people, whose reasoning I can agree to, and they believe in evolution.

        Anyway, there a two points, which stand in the way of accepting the theory of evolution.

        1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today.

        Let me explain: According to my understanding of evolution, natural selection works together with mutations, so a change in an animal will survive, because it is better fit for a particular environment.

        This change must be gradual, perhaps affecting only one little area of the DNA. Lets call this animal of one kind A. The goal of evolution is animal of kind B. The one with the little change we call A+.

        So next must be many of A+ animals before the next advantageous change occurs, we call it A++.

        Then many of A++ must live in order for the next change and so on, until B occurs.

        My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ?

        There should have been much more of them, because of the nature of gradual change, which needs a big population of those animals. Even if they may be hidden in the fossil record, why are they not here today ?

        2) our brain

        We trust our brain to be able to discern this world and its natural laws, however, if it is only product of some natural selection process, how can we trust our brain in order to find out the truth ? On the other hand, by trusting our brain tobe able to find out all other things in nature, does it not imply, that it is from a higher source ?

        I would be very interested in your comments, I hope I made my points clear.

        English is not my first language, so I may not have succeeded in the endeavour for a precise language, sorry about that.

        inbetween

        3MozziesRe: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)





        Since 8/22/2010
        My question: today we have animals of kind A and B all over the place, but where are the A+, A++ and so on ?

        Here are some birds with wings that can't fly. Birds that can't fly sound like a the kind of A+ animal you're looking for...

        Maybe in a few thousand years some might lose their flightless wings and replace them with legs or who knows what. These new creatures along with new attributes (mutations) will become a different/new species?

        Kiwis
        Rheas
        Moa-nalos (extinct)
        Bermuda Island Flightless Duck
        Fuegian Steamer Duck
        Falkland Steamer Duck
        Chubut Steamer Duck
        Auckland Teal
        Campbell Teal
        Dromornis
        Genyornis
        Chendytes lawi
        Talpanas
        Cnemiornis
        New Caledonian Giant Megapode
        Junin Grebe
        Titicaca Grebe
        Atitlán Grebe
        Flightless Cormorant
        Penguins
        Giant Hoopoe (extinct)
        Apteribis
        Jamaican Ibis
        Réunion Sacred Ibis
        Cuban Flightless Crane
        Red Rail
        Rodrigues Rail
        Woodford's Rail (probably flightless)
        Bar-winged Rail (probably flightless)
        Weka
        New Caledonian Rail
        Lord Howe Woodhen
        Calayan Rail
        New Britain Rail
        Guam Rail
        Roviana Rail (flightless, or nearly so)
        Tahiti Rail
        Dieffenbach's Rail
        Chatham Rail
        Wake Island Rail
        Snoring Rail
        Inaccessible Island Rail
        Laysan Rail
        Hawaiian Rail
        Kosrae Crake
        Ascension Crake
        Red-eyed Crake
        Invisible Rail
        New Guinea Flightless Rail
        Lord Howe Swamphen (probably flightless)
        North Island Takahe
        Takahe
        Samoan Wood Rail
        Makira Wood Rail
        Tristan Moorhen †
        Gough Island Moorhen
        Tasmanian Nativehen
        Giant Coot (adults only; immatures can fly)
        Adzebills
        Great Auk
        Diving Puffin
        Terrestrial Caracara
        Kakapo
        Broad-billed Parrot
        Dodo
        Rodrigues Solitaire
        Viti Levu Giant Pigeon
        New Zealand Owlet-nightjar
        Cuban Giant Owl
        Cretan Owl (probably flightless)
        Andros Island Barn Owl
        Stephens Island Wren
        Long-legged Bunting

        Flat_AccentRe: evolution posted ~ 9 hours ago (2/29/2012)





        Since 11/28/2011

        Hello Inbetween, glad you're open to new ideas. I'll try and answer these questions, but someone else can probably add to them.

        1) missing link: I do not have to go into the fossil report, what puzzles me is, that there are no missing links alive today.

        Firstly, it's inescapeable that there were missing links. Fossil records prove this beyond doubt. You can study the evolution of the Horse, or the evolution of sea dwelling mammals, or even our own ancestry to get a broader picture of this. For instance, inherent in dolphins are two very small bones at the base of the spine. They are too small to have a usage, and are not connected to the rest of the skeleton, but they are the remnants of the ancient anscestors of dolphins, who originally lived on land, but over time moved out to sea (which, I might add, are visible in the fossil record).

        You should also think about the term 'missing link'. If you go further forward in time, then probably every animal on the earth now would be a missing link to some new future species. But the process is so incredibly slow that we would barely notice this change. Therein lies the problem with the 'missing link' terminology. If scientists could find each and every stage of evolution in the fossil record, it would be impossible to put a defining mark between what constitutes a human, for example, and what constitutes an ape-like anscestor.

        Third, when two varying branches of an individual species co-exist, one will probably go extinct. This is because of things like food competition, and struggles over territory. It's also quite probable that the Neanderthal, which was a separate branch, not related to humans, may have died out because of interbreeding with our ancestors.

        2) our brain

        I'm not sure whether this is more of a philosophical question than an evolutionary one. Nevertheless, our brains are capable of learning, understanding, creating and storing information. Because of this we are able to create a necessity for answers to questions like 'Is there a God' and 'Why are we here'. It is our brains that give the universe purpose. But truth is objective. There are some things that we can find the answers to, and that's where science comes in.

        inbetweenRe: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)





        Since 6/29/2009
        inbetweenRe: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)





        Since 6/29/2009

        sorry, strange, I can`t see the answers only my original post ?

        leavingwtRe: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)




        Post 13974 of 13980
        Since 6/16/2008

        "Even though I did not really read a book yet about evolution"

        In very recent years, many books have been written on this topic, including the two below.

        Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne

        http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/B002ZNJWJU

        The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

        http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787

        You may also find it helpful to review the Common Myths and Misconceptions about Evolution. Why? Almost everything WT has said on the topic is either a lie, distortion or gross ignorance.

        Here are some helpful resources:

        http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php http://listverse.com/2008/02/19/top-15-misconceptions-about-evolution/ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html
        Amelia AshtonRe: evolution posted ~ 8 hours ago (2/29/2012)





        Since 11/2/2010

        Bumping for NewChapter

        MatsimusRe: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)





        Since 2/21/2012

        A couple of years ago I was still a believer of JW doctrine, with a big curiosity for what all the evolution crap was about, I read one of Richards Dawkins books called "the greatest show on earth". Not did I know that it would change my life forever. The book explains all the evidence for evolution without requiring you to be a professor in evolutionary biolgy. His statements were overwhelmingly logical to me, and everything felt like pieces being added to a big puzzle, while shredding my beliefs in jw doctrine where it was against evolution. As i read my comment now, it seems very easy, although it wasn't. I got terrified and read every WT literature about evolution, but it just did not add up in my mind. I highly reccomend that you read "the greatest show on earth".

        Btw, still having trouble with the posts? I read in another thead that this one has got a few technical issues :p

        NewChapterRe: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)





        Since 1/25/2011

        Finally. Firefox worked.

        Inbetween, I think that you are still looking at evolution in terms of creation. That could make some of the concepts hard to grasp. For instance you referenced the 'goal' of evolution. This suggests you think a course has been plotted, and now the process is meant to get to the destination. That is not how evolution works. Think of it more like a wind up car that will run in random circles, bumping into walls, and then readjusting its course until it can move in a new direction again.

        The term 'missing link' can also hang us up. Think in terms of 'transitional species', of which there are many. In other words, you won't find a link between ape and homo, but you will find many species that gradually change in between the two. And to make it a bit harder to grasp, those in between species don't all end at homo sapien, but branch off into many directions. Connecting straight lines does not work. Evolution is more like a tree with many branches, rather than a chain, so 'link' misleads us.

        We don't know what transitional species are living today, because we don't know where they are heading. We don't know if some group of lizards will one day access a unique niche, and then evolve to exploit it more thoroughly. Evolution is slow, slow, slow, and we've only been aware of it for such a short time, we don't expect to see grand changes playing out in front of our eyes. But we can see it on a microscopic level.

        We now have the advantage of genetics, which has enabled us to track the history of species and to find connections that were impossible to deduce from the fossil record. So knowledge is growing.

        Read. And while reading, allow your brain to process information in a different fashion. Try not to think of the process as orchestrated, but as more random and opportunistic. Darwin reasoned that finches on an island where the main food source was seeds had shorter thicker beaks because they adapted to the resources. Finches on an island where insects were the source, had long, thin beaks for the same reason. Originally they had all been one species, but through natural selection, those with the better adapted beaks out reproduced the others.

        Because there is always a variation in traits. Perhaps this original population had similiar beaks, but there was still variation. On the seed island, the finches with slightly shorter or thicker beaks were more successful reproductively than finches with slightly thinner beaks. Since they were reproducing faster and passing on their shorter beak traits, this variation could become more pronounced with each generation. Over time, short fat beaks rule, and eventually become so genetically separated from their original population, they speciate. They can no longer reproduce with the original population, or other species that grew from the original.

        Read.

        NC

        Amelia AshtonRe: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)





        Since 11/2/2010

        A while back some atheists paid for an advertisement on London's red buses. I remember thinking back then how brave but foolhardy they were. Now I agree with them but it isn't always easy.

        MatsimusRe: evolution posted ~ 6 hours ago (2/29/2012)





        Since 2/21/2012

        NewChapter, good post. I do disagree with the term random, since natural selection is a system that is not random, but very selective. I once read that evolution being random is a myth, but can't remember where :s Also, the WT uses the term random all the time to attack the credibility of the theory/fact.

        NewChapterRe: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)





        Since 1/25/2011

        Mat, excellent point. I think I was trying to use random to show the difference between design. But you are absolutely right, this process is not random, but it is not preordained either. What would be a good term to contrast that difference?

        And yet there is a random element when it comes to genetic mutation, but again, the process is definitely more orderly than that. Beaks won't randomly just get thicker to see if they work better---but they will get thicker because they DO work better. However one random beak mutation could start the process.

        UGH. I need more words.

        NC

        simon17Re: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)





        Since 7/25/2009

        Regarding your question on evolution and missing links.

        Most times if A+ is better than A, then A dies out and A+ takes over. Then when improvement A++ comes along, it takes over and A+ is slowly eliminated from the population. Also when populations are separated by some barrier into "islands" they diverge along different lines. So suppose population A is split into A1 and A2. Well as A1+++++++ and A2++++++++ evolve, and then you look back and compare the two results, there will be huge differences AND no middle ground between the two new divergent species.

        MeanMrMustardRe: evolution posted ~ 5 hours ago (2/29/2012)





        Since 9/9/2010

        @NewChapter:

        What would be a good term to contrast that difference?

        "natural algorithm" ?

        MeanMrMustard

        CadellinRe: evolution posted ~ 4 hours ago (2/29/2012)





        Since 3/28/2009

        When I started exploring ideas beyond the realm of the WT, evolution was one of the first. What struck me--and I suspect you, too, inbetween--is how grossly misinformed I'd been from basing my beliefs on what the WT wrote, such as little gems like the Creation book.

        As another poster has noted, it is absolutely necessary for you to start reading about the science of evolution. Coyne's book is absolutely fantastic. Another good one is Carl Zimmer's Evolution: the Triumph of an Idea, which is ideal for the lay person with little or no background in biology and might be easier for you, given that English is not your first language. Another good one is Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters

        Since you're interested in the idea of "missing links" (and be aware that the science community does not use that term since it is highly misleading; it's more favored by creationists and the popular media), you might read Carl Zimmer's At the Water's Edge, which is a detailed account of the evolution of whales. The number of so-called "missing links" or transitional species discovered in the cetacean family tree is startling and revealing about the general nature of how evolution works to produce morphological change.

        Happy learning!!!

        coftyRe: evolution posted ~ 2 hours ago (2/29/2012)





        Since 12/19/2009

        inbetween - Everything is a transitional species (missing link is a pejorative term as I will explain below). Think about living things like a bush more than a tree. At the end of every twig is a species that still exists. All the 99% of species that existed previously were less well suited to changing environments and went extinct.

        If you did maths at school or college you may have been amazed (and stumped) by the power of Greek geometers to work out some amazing truths using mental gymnastics. To them all the shapes you could ever draw were mere representations of “essential” shapes that to them was actual reality. The “essential” triangle really did have angles adding up to 180, parallel lines of the “essential” rhombus really did extend for infinity without merging.

        According to Ernst Mayr biology has suffered from it’s own version of “essentialism in which tapirs and rabbits are treated as though they were triangles or dodecahedrons. It is as if there was a perfect “essential” Platonic rabbit hanging somewhere in conceptual space along with all the perfect forms of geometry. Variation among real rabbits is seen as a departure from the correct form of the essential rabbit to which all bunnies are tethered by invisible elastic.

        I find this a very helpful insight. It exposes a way of thinking that is as deeply ingrained as it is flawed and opposed to the evolutionary view of life. Descendants are in fact free to vary endlessly from ancestor forms and every variation in the real world is a potential ancestor to future variants. There is no permanent “rabbitness” no essence of rabbit or tapir or hippo hanging in the sky.

        Imagine going on a walk through evolutionary time to track the path from rabbit to leopard. Like an inspecting general you walk along a line of rabbits, daughter – mother – grandmother back and back through thousands of generations. Change would be so gradual as to be imperceptible like the movement of the hour hand of a watch but eventually we would reach ancestors that are less rabbit like and perhaps more shrew like. Then at some point we reach a hairpin and begin to move forward in time along a separate branch of the tree of life choosing left and right forks in the road until we arrive at our destination. At no point in our journey would we notice any changes from one generation to the next. We could choose any two species and do the same thing. This is no mere thought experiment it is exactly what evolution tells us has happened. It is also as far removed from “essentialism” as it would is possible to conceive.

        As for the fossil record we have an embarassment of riches of tranisitonal forms.

        Here are some suggestions for a reading list.

        Evolution - What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters - Donald Prothero

        • ISBN-10: 0231139624
        • ISBN-13: 978-0231139625

        Your Inner Fish - Neil Shubin

        • ISBN-10: 0141027584
        • ISBN-13: 978-0141027586

        The Greatest Show on Earth - Richard Dawkins

        • ISBN-10: 059306173X
        • ISBN-13: 978-0593061732

        Why Evolution is True - Jerry Coyne

        • ISBN-10: 0199230854
        • ISBN-13: 978-0199230853

        Life Ascending - Nick Lane

        • ISBN-10: 1861978189
        • ISBN-13: 978-1861978189

        The Making of the Fittest - Sean B. Carroll

        • ISBN-10: 1847247245
        • ISBN-13: 978-1847247247

        Share this

        Google+
        Pinterest
        Reddit