Now you've have to do some reading on other theories.
Down with the dogma.
Anyone who even reads this must know the fundamentals to the heading i speak about. I am trying to do an assignment where i am attempting to understand where WINGS on an animal would possibly originate from. Sure, i can understand the basics to natural selection, that certain favourable genetic characteristics in a species are inherited and the animal over generations evolves, but what about wings? I just simply can't get my head around them. Wings would have to develop over several generations before they provide any benefit. So the generations in between have to put up with a pair of useless lumps on their back which could actually hamper its movement? I don't know... If anyone wants to respond to what seems to be a boring topic, please, i don't mind if its sensible or stupid, factual or imaginative. I just find this puzzling...
There are a few theories on how they came about, but this is something scientists are still investigating.
Fascinating subject though.
I just simply can't get my head around them. Wings would have to develop over several generations before they provide any benefit. So the generations in between have to put up with a pair of useless lumps on their back which could actually hamper its movement?
Natural selection doesn't work that way. Biological structures do not spontaneously begin to appear on creatures because they will provide some sort of natural advantage many generations in the future.
Natural selection is reactive, not predictive, and can only act on structures that already exist.
Instead, new biological adaptations appear as a result existing structures being shaped, modified, and re-purposed due to current pressures in a species's environment. In addition, the development of a new adaptations is not necessarily linear. Often, several seperately evolving adaptations happen to provide the right synergy for a completely new adaptation to develop and provide a natural advantage.
Here's a link to an article that explains the basic idea, and here's one that goes into a bit more detail. And one more for good measure.
Hope that helps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_flight
Seems like wing can have other use then just flying as birds do...
Use like gliding and thermal insulation (feathers). This would not be as useless as it seems.
What do you think your teacher/professor would think if you came back with a well-researched, well-written report that concluded that wings could not evolve? I betcha he/she wouldn't pat you on the back for thinking outside the box, would he/she?
Wings, like eyes and lungs are very useful to the creatures that have them, but would be useless, and indeed a hinderance, to any others.
What do you think your teacher/professor would think if you came back with a well-researched, well-written report that concluded that wings could not evolve? I betcha he/she wouldn't pat you on the back for thinking outside the box, would he/she?
Actually simple light sensing organs could develop in simple organism to allow for the assistance in photosynthesis. From there they could evolve into the more complex eyes we have today. No big mystery.
Actually simple light sensing organs could develop in simple organism to allow for the assistance in photosynthesis. From there they could evolve into the more complex eyes we have today. No big mystery.
I've never been one to mince words, so here goes.
You've a better chance of assembling a working eyeball from parts found in your garbage can than of one accidentally forming through unguided process. Let me illustrate to you the absolute absurdity of the idea.
If even a single part of this astoundingly complex structure malfunctions, or if the center of the brain that processes the nerve impulses isn't tuned exactly work the information correctly, the organ is useless. I'm not good with math, so maybe you can tell me what the chances are of that happening on accident?
I've never been one to mince words, so here goes.
You've a better chance of assembling a working eyeball from parts found in your garbage can than of one accidentally forming through unguided process. Let me illustrate to you the absolute absurdity of the idea.
If even a single part of this astoundingly complex structure malfunctions, or if the center of the brain that processes the nerve impulses isn't tuned exactly work the information correctly, the organ is useless. I'm not good with math, so maybe you can tell me what the chances are of that happening on accident?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
"The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
"The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."
If you've an interest in continuing this discussion, please PM me. I'm afraid we've strayed from the thread's original intent. Plus, I can't decide where to begin addressing your post.
If you've an interest in continuing this discussion, please PM me. I'm afraid we've strayed from the thread's original intent. Plus, I can't decide where to begin addressing your post.
Probably better to start a new thread, instead. Least people who are intested in the subject of irreducible complexity can contribute.
A flying squirrel (which actually only glides), is basically a squirrel which has widened certain membranes to make it able to jump farther and more accurately. Every time the membrane is widened, the ability to glide becomes better and better.
A Bat has eventually gained such supreme control over its ability to glide that it has transitioned into flight.
(EDIT: For clarity, I am not suggesting that all of the above animals are related, just using them to show separate existing stages of the same evolutionary path.)
For a more fun example, try fish. Many fish have taken to leaping out of the water briefly to escape predators. Those with larger fins are able to escape predators better, and so the flying fish (which actually only glides) has evolved to take maximum benefit from this, the fish being able to escape better and better every time its fins developed. Certain species of freshwater hatchet fish have gotten so good at gliding and controlling their areal trajectory that it's now being debated whether or not what they do should be considered flying. The eventual evolution of fish which actually indisputably fly seems possible.
Anyone who even reads this must know the fundamentals to the heading i speak about. I am trying to do an assignment where i am attempting to understand where WINGS on an animal would possibly originate from. Sure, i can understand the basics to natural selection, that certain favourable genetic characteristics in a species are inherited and the animal over generations evolves, but what about wings? I just simply can't get my head around them. Wings would have to develop over several generations before they provide any benefit. So the generations in between have to put up with a pair of useless lumps on their back which could actually hamper its movement? I don't know... If anyone wants to respond to what seems to be a boring topic, please, i don't mind if its sensible or stupid, factual or imaginative. I just find this puzzling...
First of all, I'm just theorizing here. Also, I know there are more shades of grey than the black and white 'works' and 'does not work' I'm using down here. So don't shoot me for having to communicate something across the net ;)
Natural selection is reactive. First, some random mutation happens. If this is something that is a disadvantage to the organism, the organism has a lesser chance of surviving and will become extinct. If it's a mutation that is a benefit to the organism, it will reproduce and prosper.
Keep in mind, I am aware of the grey areas in between, and possible influences from the environment. But I don't think an extensive description of those will add to the point I'm trying to make, so I'm leaving those out for a moment.
Now what if the mutation is neither a disadvantage nor a benefit? Imagine the common house cat, evolving rudimentary flaps between the flanks and front legs (mutation is, of course, random). This specific cat still crawls, hunts, and reproduces like any other cat. Now in a later generation, a new mutation leads to flaps that are a tiny bit more evolved. Inevitably, this leads (over the course of thousands of years) to a cat that has flaps big enough to glide, and will use this as a silent attack option. The gliding ability has become a benefit, and has had the chance to develop because the rudimentary stages were never a disadvantage. This might, eventually, even lead to flying cats.
The simplest and most obvious is sexual selection. Grow colorful plumage on your forelimbs in order to woo your mate. Over time, like the peacock's tail, more and more armfeathers were chosen for. Now, ordinarily this would be disadvantageous, much like the peacock's tail. But those who had fancy armfeathers which didn't hamper them as much but still attracted mates were selected for. At this point, the arborealness comes in. Leaping from branch to branch is a pretty common thing for an arboreal creature to do. A creature with protowings would have additional surface area, thus lowering its terminal velocity. You can see animals like this in the present day - think of flying squirrels, for instance. So these guys either survived more falls out of trees or could leap further, and because they were more attractive to their mates, these protowings kept getting selected for. Over a very long period of time, you'd get closer and closer to flight.
Another possibility is to eliminate the middle-man and simply say they evolved initially to lower terminal velocity in the first palce. You grow skin flaps between your arms and your body, and they're covered with feathers because you already had feathers due to evolving insulation. So you're already most of the way there - again, those who survive more falls from trees/can jump further have a survival advantage, are chosen for and interbreed, and eventually you end up with things closer and closer to wings.
Another idea I've seen is that they evolved to help catch insects - basically you'd use your proto-wings to bat them out of the air/scoop them up/what have you so you could munch on them. This had the same secondary advantages, but also is strongly selected for because it helped them catch food. Eventually it became a boon in pursuing their food off of trees, allowing them to glide, ect. ect.
Heck, they could have evolved in a semi-aquatic species as an adaptation to help them swim underwater better and it only later became a boon in flying through the air.
Using them to jump higher is another possibility.
There's lots of ways they could have evolved in. Which one is correct, I don't know. And it may have been different for different flying animals - wings are a pretty common adaptation. There are insects (the originals, as far as we know), pterosaurs, dinosaurs/birds, and bats.
Use like gliding and thermal insulation (feathers). This would not be as useless as it seems.
Its very likely that feathers existed before wings did on birds, given many non-avian dinosaurs had them as well as you'd have to suppose that they gained and then lost wings.
say, in a few thousand years human civilisation has collapsed, and we are all living in little fishing villages by the sea, where we do a lot of swimming
now, as happens on a basis common enough to be known to medicine, one family have a son who is born with webbed fingers - it's not an unknown birth defect now
that child has an advantage, because he can swin faster and further. so, he is more likley to find a mate, as he can provide better for her. So, as his family are better fed, they have more children, and so the gene that causes webbed fingers spreads over several generations into the wider community
then, it happens again - a random mutation, say those wedded fingers being unusually long
then another
then another
eventually, you have a new speces. it's not evolved by any "design", but through simple random mutation giving an advantage
Evolution generally happens faster in smaller communites, or in life-forms with very short periods between generations - see how rats are evolving to become resistant to many of the poisons traditionally used in pest-control. or for an even less pleasant example, how the HIV virus mutates to make it resistant to current forms of combination therapy. both of these are short-term examples of evolution that happens fast enough, and frequently enough, for humanity to observe
Here is a hypothetical example of how an evolutionary change might happen, showing how it's reactive and not pro-active
say, in a few thousand years human civilisation has collapsed, and we are all living in little fishing villages by the sea, where we do a lot of swimming
now, as happens on a basis common enough to be known to medicine, one family have a son who is born with webbed fingers - it's not an unknown birth defect now
that child has an advantage, because he can swin faster and further. so, he is more likley to find a mate, as he can provide better for her. So, as his family are better fed, they have more children, and so the gene that causes webbed fingers spreads over several generations into the wider community
then, it happens again - a random mutation, say those wedded fingers being unusually long
then another
then another
eventually, you have a new speces. it's not evolved by any "design", but through simple random mutation giving an advantage
Evolution generally happens faster in smaller communites, or in life-forms with very short periods between generations - see how rats are evolving to become resistant to many of the poisons traditionally used in pest-control. or for an even less pleasant example, how the HIV virus mutates to make it resistant to current forms of combination therapy. both of these are short-term examples of evolution that happens fast enough, and frequently enough, for humanity to observe
To bad Stringtheory invalidates Religion and Evolution by defining time as the consequence of induced change in possibility that can only be created from outside a set of possibility...I could have realy enjoyed being hunted by japanes Whalers looking for scientific samples.
For those of faction A: God created the eye, For those of Faction B: A worm evolved a photsensitive gland that gave it the advantage to avoid predators, For Faction C: The eye does not have the same possibility bandwidth of existance as the rest of the quantum events that define components that make up the Human body Thus there is at level a point where event group A does not overlap Event group B - lifeform x does not have eyes if the rest of him is reduced to a Worm.
To bad Stringtheory invalidates Religion and Evolution...
This seems to be a popular interjection into these discussions, but it never has any substance. String Theory is technically a misnomer, as it's not classifiable as a scientific theory since currently it is not falsifiable, cannot be experimented with or observed, and does not aid our ability to predict anything at all. It's more of a hypothetical mathematical model, really...
Furthermore, while I can't say I'm some expert on string theory, I don't see how it in any way invalidates religion or evolution, and your brief explanation was convoluted beyond comprehension (as they always seem to be).
Therefore, while it may be cute to come into a thread and say "everybody's wrong!," it's somewhat annoying and technically still not correct, so let's please stop with this trend. :P
I've never been one to mince words, so here goes.
You've a better chance of assembling a working eyeball from parts found in your garbage can than of one accidentally forming through unguided process. Let me illustrate to you the absolute absurdity of the idea.
If even a single part of this astoundingly complex structure malfunctions, or if the center of the brain that processes the nerve impulses isn't tuned exactly work the information correctly, the organ is useless. I'm not good with math, so maybe you can tell me what the chances are of that happening on accident?
It makes me very sad that people would rather believe that an invisible man in thw sky made everything appear out of nowhere than admit they do not understand the process by which it actually occurs.
This alone proves to me that there is very little intelligence anywhere in our species, let alone its design.
Bats truly are fascinating and amazing creatures. The oldest known specimens show up in the Eocene (roughly 50 mya) and are very similar to modern bats. Bat wings appear to show up rather abruptly and the oldest known bats are good fliers. This (and the difficulty at telling exactly which group bats are most closely related too) could make it look like bats suddenly appeared with no evolutionary ancestors.
However, a closer look at the evidence shows this is not the case. To simply the article linked above, Sears et al were looking the embryonic development of bat wings. They noticed that in the early stages of development the wings of a bat were very similar to the hands of a mouse. Later in development, the bats digits (its "fingers") elongated to form the framework of the wings. They found this elongation occurred when the levels of a single protein changed in the developing embryo. They then took the next logical step and adjusted the level of the protein in a developing mouse and what occurred. . . a mouse with great elongated and webbed fingers - essentially a mouse with a primitive bat wing.
Now, the mouse couldn't fly with its new "wings" (it probably didn't have the right arrangement of muscles). However, these findings show it is not at all hard to evolve a “proto-wing” all that is needed then is for the proto-bat to find some adaptive use for these giant webbed hands. A common argument is they were first used for gliding (makes sense, many living animals used a thin flap of skin supported by a skeletal membrane to fly), although it has also been suggested they were used to reach out and catch insects (the most primitive bats are insectivores and modern bats occasionally exhibit this reach-hunting behavior).
To bad Stringtheory invalidates Religion and Evolution by defining time as the consequence of induced change in possibility that can only be created from outside a set of possibility...I could have realy enjoyed being hunted by japanes Whalers looking for scientific samples.
String theory is meaningless, as it isn't even a theory as it has produced no testable results in how many years?
Its mainly intellectual wankery.
And in any event, you don't understand string theory, so trying to use it as the basis for an argument is just plain old silly.
To bad Stringtheory invalidates Religion and Evolution by defining time as the consequence of induced change in possibility that can only be created from outside a set of possibility...I could have realy enjoyed being hunted by japanes Whalers looking for scientific samples.
For those of faction A: God created the eye, For those of Faction B: A worm evolved a photsensitive gland that gave it the advantage to avoid predators, For Faction C: The eye does not have the same possibility bandwidth of existance as the rest of the quantum events that define components that make up the Human body Thus there is at level a point where event group A does not overlap Event group B - lifeform x does not have eyes if the rest of him is reduced to a Worm.
Could you explain that in more detail and more slowly. I have a background in paleontology and evolution, but my knowledge of physics doesn't go much beyond the basics. I've tried looking up more info online but it all seems equally incomprehensible to me. I may be stupid to understand it though
.What the heck Strings theory, a theory that have nothing to do with Biology in any direct way, have to do with Evolution?
Well technically, if string theory were true, it would have to do with everything. Of course, as previously mentioned, String Theory is inappropriately named as a theory when it's nothing more than a hypothetical mathematical model.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
The documentary was very fascinating and cool. Now, I am aware that documentaries are not always accurate, that things have probably changed sense 2003, and I can't say I fully understand string theory (not being a physicist probably doesn't help).
However, I saw nothing at all in the program that would invalidate evolution (I didn't see anything which invalidated religion either).
Anyways, my original point was that your Teacher/Professor has set you up with a premise that isn't necessarily factual, only popular. I was thinking about the consequences for going against this template, and pointing out to your teacher/professor that the assumption is a bad one.
Yes, this is rather common in the education system. It's not exactly geared well towards free thought. However much like the clique system of high-school it largely diminishes once you get into the real world.
However moving on to the specific matter of the OP claiming that evolution is impossible is simply proof that you lack eyes since you can watch it occurring if you look in the right places.
Disproving what's real is a job for philosophy, not part of a biology class.
Really, this kind of crap is just as ignorant as people who say "I cannot understand how humans made the pyramids so therefore aliens did it". There is no shame in admitting you do not understand something, but there is in denying your ignorance and instead ascribing all that you do not understand to fantasies and magic.
What the heck Strings theory, a theory that have nothing to do with Biology in any direct way, have to do with Evolution?
Nothing, but since string theory is something that very few people know anything about and fewer understand it is a common McGuffin that some people throw out during any sort of scientific discussion to make it sound like they know what's really going and to try to cover of the fact they are just blowing smoke up your ass.
Nothing, but since string theory is something that very few people know anything about and fewer understand it is a common McGuffin that some people throw out during any sort of scientific discussion to make it sound like they know what's really going and to try to cover of the fact they are just blowing smoke up your ass.
String theory is the theory that the behaviour of extremely small particles and the four basic forms of energy can be explained using a certain mathematical model.
There are multiple varieties which differ in how many dimensions are used to explain these phenomena, but basically they are all the same sort of thing.
The thing that is important to remember about string theory in any kind of discussion like this is that it acts beneath all other laws. It explains nothing on the scale of large matter that chemistry and newtonian physics do not already cover. It simply explains why those laws work the way that they do.
In short it has nothing to do with any discussion not related to fundamental particles, basic energies or the nature of space-time. Anyone raising it in a discussion on any other topic is "blowing smoke up your ass" as Jayne puts it.
I forget which book series it was in, but some book had flying lizards with brightly-colored wings that filled the same ecological niche on that planet as birds on Earth... They flew around eating small insects.
Many lizards have crests or frills on or behind their head, usually for the purposes of display, either for mating or to show agression.
If a lizard has a frill on the sides of it's neck, it may develop the musculature to flare out the brightly colored frill in order to appear larger and thus more attractive or more threatening.
Because this turns out to be advantageous, the frill becomes larger. The lizard may adapt a method to move it with greater range of motion, in order to produce greater displays.
The larger frill migrates from the sides of their neck up higher onto their neck, and a little further back as it continues to increase in size. But it's still mainly for signalling purposes.
At this point, the lizards, who often catch insects by jumping up from the ground, have adapted to snapping their frills out to full extension when jumping in order to get a little extra height in the process. After a hundred generations, the lizards are now climbing the trunks of trees in order to be able to jump higher, and extending the frills as a sort of parachute on the way down.
With greater control over the movement of the frills the lizards have gained a limited ability to steer themselves when jumping - not true gliding yet, but getting there. And now their mating displays resemble those of some of the incredibly colorful birds found in the jungles of our real world.
The frills are now closer to sails.
Sooner or later, the sails at the back of the lizard's neck have come to be attached at their shoulderblades, and are capable of limited gliding. In another hundred generations, the lizards have become almost arboreal, actively hunting from the trees.
After a thousand years, you have dragon-winged lizards flying through the air on rainbow-colored wings.
And I'd suggest that we change the working title of String theory to "String Cheese Hypothesis", because debating it is about as useful to most of the discussions on here as processed imitation cheese foodstuffs are to a balanced diet. :D
Nothing, but since string theory is something that very few people know anything about and fewer understand it is a common McGuffin that some people throw out during any sort of scientific discussion to make it sound like they know what's really going and to try to cover of the fact they are just blowing smoke up your ass.
Yeah, it's a great way to sound intellectual, provided everyone who's ass you are trying to blow smoke up knows even less about it than you do (which, in the case of string theory, is a fairly safe gamble).:D
Yeah, it's a great way to sound intellectual, provided everyone who's ass you are trying to blow smoke up knows even less about it than you do (which, in the case of string theory, is a fairly safe gamble).:D
Not realy, given that the people who invoke it themselves tend not to understand it at all. Really, using it as an argument for something indicates you don't understand it.
Not realy, given that the people who invoke it themselves tend not to understand it at all. Really, using it as an argument for something indicates you don't understand it.
Yeah, that was my point, too.
Yeah, it's a great way to sound intellectual, provided everyone who's ass you are trying to blow smoke up knows even less about it than you do (which, in the case of string theory, is a fairly safe gamble).:D
My B-S meter starts flashing the same way when people trying to sell me some holistic remedy use the phrase 'quantum physics'.
Regarding wings: Remember that they've found dinosaur fossils that have had feathers (I believe there is now evidence that good old velociraptor had them). And also that feathers don't just provide flight, but also warmth and can be used for sexual displays (as a few people on this thread have mentioned).
Also, regarding eyes: Remember that eyes have evolved multiple times. The crustacean eye has very little to do with the mammalian eye, but both exist.
A good scientist will admit that they don't know everything. Irreducable complexity plays upon what others see as a weakness. Many examples of irreducable complexity can be broken down once more evidence is presented, be it molecular motors in bacteria or mousetraps. You can't just look at something and say: "That's way too complicated to have evolved." You have to delve in deeper.
Edit: A special note: To the poster who said that you'd have more luck assembling an eye out of garbage than it evolving naturally: Yes, over one generation this is true.
However, evolution never happens spontaneously. This is what most people don't understand. You have 500 million years of natural selections behind you.
Out of Strawberries, soap and laundry lint
Actually, I created wings
Out of Strawberries, soap and laundry lint
Nice work. Give yourself a cookie.