Name some.
Roger, I don’t think anyone here doubts that natural selection as you describe is not an important force in evolution, just that it is not the only factor.
Your awesome labour of love demonstrates that there are none so blind.
My point seems to have flown right over your head.
My point is that adaptations are lineage specific. This tells us that the source of variation is not directed to fit the needs of the organism. Rather, the source of variation is blind to the needs of the organism. This is where natural selection and neutral drift step in.
1 Like
There are all sorts of possible classifications of organisms, depending on the purpose. For example, you could classify by color, or size, or use (e.g., the biblical categories of flying, aquatic, big wild animals, domestic animals, and creepy crawlies). However, the recognition that organisms fall into nested hierarchies led to a more biology-based classification that works well. There are several characteristics that go along with being a mammal, for example. For most purposes, that is a rather more useful label than grouping animals by color. Empirically, a nested hierarchy is a good way to classify living things.
As one focuses on nested hierarchies, certain patterns turn up. For example, “worm” turns out to include lots of things that have important differences between them, and so Linnaeus’s “Vermes” is divided up across multiple phyla that better reflect the overall nested hierarchy. Nematodes and priapulids, for example, share some key biochemical and developmental similarities with insects, whereas earthworms are closer to snails and acorn worms are more similar to us in those features. Although there is general agreement that biological classification should reflect the nested hierarchy, there are ongoing arguments about exactly how we should match names and hierarchical groups (should any paraphyletic groups be named? should all monophyletic groups be named? how much can we change the meaning of an old name before it should just be replaced? etc.)
Nested hierarchies, as has already been pointed out, are a natural consequence of a biological evolutionary process, so the recognition of the pattern of nested hierarchies did provide some hints towards the development of an evolutionary model.
1 Like
“Ancestor” needs defined precisely. The flying/gliding dinosaurs that seem to have had more bat-like wings, as well as the feathered dinosaurs, are relatives of birds. Depending on how broadly you define “feather”, the ones with actual feathers all seem to be reasonably close relatives of birds.
This may be confusing pterosaurs with dinosaurs. Pterosaurs were not dinosaurs. Dinosaur workers claim that they are close relatives of dinosaurs, but pterosaur workers seem to be less certain. At any rate, pterosaurs lack feathers and are not close relatives of birds - they developed flight convergently.
1 Like
Why are you addressing this to me? I realize that pterosaurs are not closely related to dinosaurs at all. The American Museum of Natural History had a wonderful exhibition about them.
1 Like
@T_aquaticus . I have never claimed that genetic variation is based on the needs of the organism, only that natural selection is designed to improve the organism adaptation to its environment. Are we agreed on that?
Such as what? and is there any science to back up the understanding that evolution is not based on variation and natural selection as Darwin claimed?
I am not asking that e4veryone agree with me, but a meeting of the minds. Do people agree with the quote from the article? and, if not, how would they characterize natural selection?
P.S. I do not see any place for natural selection in Dawkins’ view of evolution.
The pterosaurs are “flying dinosaurs,” which did not have feathers although some of them did have protofeathers The best known of them were the “pterodactyls.” The avian dinosaurs did have feathers.
For more info see From Dinosaur to Bird, Scientific American, Jan 2017, pp. 48 - 55, SA Monsters of the Mesozoic Skies, October 2019, pp. 26 -33. Also see the Wikipedia entry on Pterosaurs.
It’s implicit? Can you cite anything where he he might be indicating otherwise?
Neutral drift just off the top of my head. And occasional genetic things like gene duplication, although those things of course then go through the environmental pressure to see if they enhance fotness
With a few weird exceptions, like paedomorphic salamanders that retain gills their whole life, and the plethodontids that absorb oxygen through their skin, but the point still stands, that the vast majority of tetrapods do have lungs.
Let’s just hpothesise for a minute.
You want to prove connections exist for your theory. Not only connections but some sort of sequential connection You look therefore for hereditary connections. You find what you are looking for. So you stop looking or theorising about what the connections might mean.
Someone else looks at the connections (like the boy in the King’s new clothes) and says
“Hey, they are just building blocks!”
Richard
Images in the clouds.
You see what looks like a dog in the clouds. You know it isn’t a dog, but it does look like one. You smile and move on.
But someone else claims “it is a portent. An omen, It was put there!”
You laugh.
Here I am telling you that you are seeing cloud formations. And you still laugh.
But Evolution validates it you cry!
It is a self-reinforcing paradox.
A validates B. B validates A
You only found it because you were looking for it.
Richard
How, precisely, does something else explain this better than evolution?
I could (if I had time) find a few dozen more of these in the sequences which I have downloaded.
Similarity does not necessarily mean ancestry if the same building blocks are used throughout creation. The changes and similarities will be due to function or structure. It does not guarantee that the feature is passed on, only that it is part of the make-up of the two creatures.
It is as much a mindset as a proof.
Richard
Richard,
Why do multiple lines of lines all point to supporting evolution? Why did faithful Christians explore this and come to the same conclusions?
You keep repeating mindset, abstraction, and being “blind” to other views. Your response is largely God did it that way. It is not explanative, predictive, or testable. The building system does not explain nested hierarchies and this has been explained multiple times.
Then you argue about scientists apparently being unable to abstract things. It seems you are more concerned about obtaining a gotcha moment for ToE rather than learning as your original post suggested.
Why do not you abstract your Scriptural hermeneutic?
2 Likes
I wouldn’t describe natural selection as being designed, even as an anthropomorphic analogy. Natural selection is an unavoidable consequence of imperfect replicators competing for limited resources. The comments about bats not having feathers was more of a throw away example, not the argument itself.
The pterosaurs were not dinosaurs at all!
I am not claiming I am right. I am just claiming that TOE has no right to claim certainty (because there are other explanations for what they have observed)
But do those connections actually exist or are they “manufactured” to fit the theory!
a verifies b and b verifies a. In any other field or discipline such an assertion would be laughed off.
Is a bed related to a table because they both have 4 legs a flat top and be made out of similar materials?
(Oh, sorry, that’s an analogy)
Richard
Do you know what a parable is?
Richard