Craig's Science topics: #1. Evolution of complex features

[Craig234]

I get that the way life has evolved, it includes a certain amount of variation that's random - how convenient.

And the theory is, what helps the species survive stays, what doesn't goes.

Voila, you have birds.

Here's what doesn't make sense to me.

Take a bird's wing. It's crucial to the bird's survival, and complex and carefully created - for aerodynamics, lightweight, with cool things like feathers. Seems like a great thing.

But how do you evolve from a non-winged creature to a winged one?

Once the wing is there, it's obvious why it's great for the bird's survival.

But let's look at the animal (a reptile with arms of some sort) before the wing. How in the hell do the many, many iterations of random evolution towards a wing happen?

It's not as if a 50% wing that is zero use to fly helps the species survive. Quite the opposite.

Hey, let's go from an 'arm' to this big flappy thing that's useless, and have these things called feathers that would be great on a wing to fly but are useless before that, evolve.

And the thing to remember is, we're so used to human design, like airplanes, we tend to think of this in terms of 'designed because it's a good design' - there was no 'design' of the wing. Random mutation.

Take any number of complex features. The ones that make sense are the ones where each evolutionary slight change was an improvement - so keep it.

The ones that don't make sense are the complex ones where the interim stages are not improvements (though non-flying birds seem to argue for SOME purpose to some useless flappy wings).

Wings make all kinds of sense if someone was saying "we want the ability to fly, to let's invent wings". But there was no one saying that. Just animals randomly mutating.

I know there's a fair amount out there on this topic, because it's a hot one for the 'intelligent design' debate, with some biologists trying to answer the issue.

But I don't yet have the answer so it makes sense.

 

[Craig234]

Edit: after posting this, I saw there's a thread raising the same issue in the followup discussion to another topic. No harm done to pick up the discussion though.

 

[agent00f]

The thing that people miss the most about evolution is just how long it takes for these more complex features/mechanisms. Consider it took billions of years for cells to evolve and then multi-cellulars, that's why there are tons of features even in those "simple" building blocks that we literally do not really understand yet.

To guess at this question without researching it first, it's rather conceivable that the first creatures developed wider feather-like hairs for warmth/protection or whatever, then those creature that had relatively strong arms were able to flap them with a running start to get to a slighter higher perch (like a chicken) which is advantageous, and many many years later some specimen came along which was able to flap a little higher, and you can see where this is going. They might've for example at the time been "competing" so to speak with creatures with flappy skin like those flying squirrel-like things, but feathers won the day far as flight goes.

To put this in perspective, this would've literally been one of millions of "experiments" in ongoing evolution, and it just so happens conditions were correct in some area for those slight advantages (or sometimes neutral characteristics, you win some lose some but manage to survive on) to develop into what we see today.

Generally when there's some "complex" feature like this that might at first seem puzzling, in absence of complete fossil evidence it's only the lack of creativity which inhibits some feasible solution.

 

[flexy]

Uhm....birds/wings might have evolved in types of animals/dinosaurs who had an advantage of being able to jump/glide away from predators. They couldn't fly *per se*, but maybe simply jumped down from trees (or away from predators)...so over millions of years they developed hollow bones and a very light stature along with other features that helped them to jump/glide longer. At some point, many more millions of years, they developed the ability to fly.

I don't think this being far-fetched at all and I think it's actually sufficient to explain how wings would've evolved, without any magic, without any "intention and design" to develop wings "to fly" at first.

It is also my understanding there ARE "in between" fossils of species who were about to develop wings/feathers (but who couldn't fly yet)...and wings are clearly "mutated" from fingers. I don't see this as a mystery at all!!

**

>>Hey, let's go from an 'arm' to this big flappy thing that's useless,<<

No such thing as "useless" in evolution. Even if there was a semi-feathered species millions back whose fur and arms/fingers were slowly mutating into wings, it would have given them an advantage...eg. by being lighter...by being able to jump/glide longer in the air. (As opposed to a much heavier species, say, with fur, which would simply "plop" down a tree especially if it's wet )

Take a chicken and throw it in the air. Chickens NORMALLY don't fly. The chicken will survive the fall and even make it to the next tree because it is light and its feathers would create resistance in the air etc. so it can easily land.

Not take a dog and throw it in the air... see the difference?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's not as if a 50% wing that is zero use to fly helps the species survive. Quite the opposite.

Fallacious conclusion. Argument from ignorance.

Hey, let's go from an 'arm' to this big flappy thing that's useless, and have these things called feathers that would be great on a wing to fly but are useless before that, evolve.

You do not know that intermediate wings were useless. This is a wholly unsupported claim.

 

[SMOGZINN]

And the theory is, what helps the species survive stays, what doesn't goes.

You got it wrong from the start. No wonder you don't understand.
It is not 'what helps stays, what doesn't goes', it is more 'what helps tends to become more common, what hurts tends to become less common, what does neither might do either.' There are also a lot of things that hurt a little but often goes with something else that helps a lot.

Also natural selection via environmental pressures is not the only process going on.

Hey, let's go from an 'arm' to this big flappy thing that's useless, and have these things called feathers that would be great on a wing to fly but are useless before that, evolve.

May I point out the penguin, ostrich, emu, flying fish, sugar glider squirrels, bats, and the entire insect kingdom. Wings have developed many different times in different ways from different features, and we are still seeing them develop. The Sugar Glider might become capable of full flight in another few million years.

 

[MrDudeMan]

The other massive hole in your logic is the fact that we have birds right now with wings that can't fly. Have you heard of chickens?

Your entire argument is based on a false premise. Things don't evolve and instantly become useful. They may or may not have adaptations and/or mutations that become useful in certain scenarios. The first wings were probably not feathered and probably not wings at all. They were probably arms and over 1,000+ generations things started to change based on environmental conditions. Evolution is an insanely slow process at the level to which you are referring and the opposite of which is, in my experience, the biggest fallacy that's believed among lay people.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Have you heard of chickens?

Just and FYI, chickens can fly. They are ground birds that prefer not to fly far, but they are able to.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Just and FYI, chickens can fly. They are ground birds that prefer not to fly far, but they are able to.

I have dozens of chickens and turkeys and I see them fly every day, but I don't think that's what we're discussing. Chickens perfectly illustrate the counter-point I was making with respect to the OP: they can't fly in the traditional sense of the word because they can only be airborne for short distances. The OP is asking about birds like sparrows or hawks that stay airborne and actually 'fly', which is one of the sole mechanisms those types of birds use to survive. Birds that can't full-on fly don't have that advantage, yet they are still alive, which, I believe, was precisely his question: how did/do birds live in the intermediate period when they were more vulnerable before long distance flight was/is achieved?

Wild turkeys are another great example of how birds have developed functional, but not fully-operational flying wings and/or body structures. Somehow turkeys and chickens evolved to not need long distance flight, yet they have managed to proliferate regardless. The evolutionary process dictating how their wings function is likely in the process of changing right now, but we're only able to perceive a very narrow window. Maybe in 10,000 years chickens will be slim, long-distance flyers.

 

[agent00f]

I have dozens of chickens and turkeys and I see them fly every day, but I don't think that's what we're discussing. Chickens perfectly illustrate the counter-point I was making with respect to the OP: they can't fly in the traditional sense of the word because they can only be airborne for short distances. The OP is asking about birds like sparrows or hawks that stay airborne and actually 'fly', which is one of the sole mechanisms those types of birds use to survive. Birds that can't full-on fly don't have that advantage, yet they are still alive, which, I believe, was precisely his question: how did/do birds live in the intermediate period when they were more vulnerable before long distance flight was/is achieved?

Wild turkeys are another great example of how birds have developed functional, but not fully-operational flying wings and/or body structures. Somehow turkeys and chickens evolved to not need long distance flight, yet they have managed to proliferate regardless. The evolutionary process dictating how their wings function is likely in the process of changing right now, but we're only able to perceive a very narrow window. Maybe in 10,000 years chickens will be slim, long-distance flyers.

Just to clarify, chickens won't be that, but some offshoot of their branch of the genetic tree might, though probably not in that timespan.

 

[Craig234]

Fallacious conclusion. Argument from ignorance.

Well, that's rude. Apparently you wrote something after that, but I have no idea what.

 

[Craig234]

You got it wrong from the start. No wonder you don't understand.
It is not 'what helps stays, what doesn't goes', it is more 'what helps tends to become more common, what hurts tends to become less common

Wait, you are trying to split a hair between "stays and goes", and "becomes more common and becomes less common", which mean basically the exact same thing?

There are also a lot of things that hurt a little but often goes with something else that helps a lot.

I'd like to hear how all the complex features that are not useful partially developed by themselves, 'help a lot' with something else. Perhaps there are a few exceptions.

Also natural selection via environmental pressures is not the only process going on.

So, what else is going on?

May I point out the penguin, ostrich, emu, flying fish, sugar glider squirrels, bats, and the entire insect kingdom. Wings have developed many different times in different ways from different features, and we are still seeing them develop. The Sugar Glider might become capable of full flight in another few million years.

Yes, you may. They're good for discussion, but more for my question than for an answer.

Take a rat and a bat, basically a rat with wings (I'm being flippant). Why was that such a useful feature to evolve during all the partial-wing, non-flying stages?

 

[Craig234]

The other massive hole in your logic is the fact that we have birds right now with wings that can't fly. Have you heard of chickens?

That's not a hole in my logic. That is a data point supporting my question. I didn't argue that chickens don't exist. I asked why they do, under the theory of evolution.

Your entire argument is based on a false premise.

Your entire post is based on the false premise that my post has a false premise.

Things don't evolve and instantly become useful. They may or may not have adaptations and/or mutations that become useful in certain scenarios. The first wings were probably not feathered and probably not wings at all. They were probably arms and over 1,000+ generations things started to change based on environmental conditions. Evolution is an insanely slow process at the level to which you are referring and the opposite of which is, in my experience, the biggest fallacy that's believed among lay people.

It's ironic that you are making my argument and not understanding that you are making my argument, in everything you said.

People don't have 24 fingers all over their body, they don't have eyeballs in their underarms, they don't have a leg coming aimed up out of their shoulder. The idea of evolution is that random mutations are selectively kept and increased or lost, for a reason. And the topic here is how complex features not useful in that long process of evolving are selected to keep.

 

[Craig234]

I have dozens of chickens and turkeys and I see them fly every day, but I don't think that's what we're discussing. Chickens perfectly illustrate the counter-point I was making with respect to the OP: they can't fly in the traditional sense of the word because they can only be airborne for short distances. The OP is asking about birds like sparrows or hawks that stay airborne and actually 'fly', which is one of the sole mechanisms those types of birds use to survive. Birds that can't full-on fly don't have that advantage, yet they are still alive, which, I believe, was precisely his question: how did/do birds live in the intermediate period when they were more vulnerable before long distance flight was/is achieved?

Wild turkeys are another great example of how birds have developed functional, but not fully-operational flying wings and/or body structures. Somehow turkeys and chickens evolved to not need long distance flight, yet they have managed to proliferate regardless. The evolutionary process dictating how their wings function is likely in the process of changing right now, but we're only able to perceive a very narrow window. Maybe in 10,000 years chickens will be slim, long-distance flyers.

You did fine going partly down the road of the topic, but stopped short.

The next step is, WHY did chickens develop the wings they have at all, and why are they going to be kept for the evolutionary process that would lead to 'full flight', when there is no one saying "hey, full flight would be a good idea, keep those wings and let them evolve".

Why hasn't natural selection said or won't it say, "these wings aren't that great, lose them like human beings' tails"? It's 'why are partially-developed complex features useless at first kept?'.

 

[Chaotic42]

Well, that's rude. Apparently you wrote something after that, but I have no idea what.

It's not rude, he's correctly defining what you wrote. You were incorrect and you were arguing using incorrect assumptions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[agent00f]

People don't have 24 fingers all over their body, they don't have eyeballs in their underarms, they don't have a leg coming aimed up out of their shoulder. The idea of evolution is that random mutations are selectively kept and increased or lost, for a reason. And the topic here is how complex features not useful in that long process of evolving are selected to keep.

In addition to argument from ignorance (which is true both in the technical and casual sense), this is begging the question.

If someone can't figure out these basic logic fallacies without spoonfeeding, it's quite possible that understanding things simply isn't for them.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Well, that's rude. Apparently you wrote something after that, but I have no idea what.

What I said is a fact. I'm sorry that makes you feel bad.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Well, that's rude. Apparently you wrote something after that, but I have no idea what.

An argument from ignorance does not mean "you are stupid so your argument is stupid" it means "you made the argument 'no one knows' so support that you, therefore, DO know" It's a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance".

 

[Craig234]

It's not rude

It is. There are ways to make a point and ways not to. And I'm not going to spend time on etiquette lessons to the anti-etiquette type.

 

[Craig234]

What I said is a fact. I'm sorry that makes you feel bad.

I don't. I said you were rude and that I didn't read further. I feel disappointed in you, since you seem interested.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I don't. I said you were rude and that I didn't read further. I feel disappointed in you, since you seem interested.

It's a fact that your conclusion is fallacious.

It's a fact that that fallacy is argument from ignorance.

If that's rude, that's your problem.

 

[Craig234]

It's a fact that your conclusion is fallacious.

It's a fact that that fallacy is argument from ignorance.

If that's rude, that's your problem.

Wrong - your problem, end of this discussion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

 

[Chaotic42]

I feel like I'm watching a modern politician being born. CT pointed out what was wrong with your argument, which isn't rude. In fact, it's helpful. He/she could have just said nothing and not provided you with the opportunity to learn about logical fallacies. It's unfortunate that you're interpreting it as rudeness.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I feel like I'm watching a modern politician being born. CT pointed out what was wrong with your argument, which isn't rude. In fact, it's helpful. He/she could have just said nothing and not provided you with the opportunity to learn about logical fallacies. It's unfortunate that you're interpreting it as rudeness.

CT's a dude, Your'e a dude, Craig's a dude: they're all dudes.

But Craig's not acknowledging that both you and I explained CT's point was not to insult him, but rather to explain the fallacy Craig was relying on, does show a lack of intellectual honesty on Craig's part.