Arguments against evolution

[buffalo]

Yes. There is DNA for salivary glands in all land tetrapods that I am aware of.

rossum

DNA contains the potential for these adaptations - agreed?

 

[vz71]

Saliva is not harmful, even though it does help in digesting food - the lining of the mouth and the teeth are already resistant to saliva. As the saliva moves towards poison the mouth can also move in parallel to resist.

I fail to see the benefit of venemous saliva.
In order for the mutation to propogate, there needs to be a demonstratable advantage of one animal with venemous saliva over its brother, that does not have it.

 

[wanstronian]

I love it when people drag out the “your to ignorant to debate with” argument.

Do you? Even when (as in this case) it’s clearly true? Or just when you think it’s being done for ulteriorreasons?

OK, so correct the post. How exactly did the snake evolve the ability to poison its prey?

Rossum has done a far better job of correcting Ed’s misconceptions than I could. Although I suspect that good old personal incredulity will prevent you from accepting it.

 

[rossum]

I fail to see the benefit of venemous saliva.
In order for the mutation to propogate, there needs to be a demonstratable advantage of one animal with venemous saliva over its brother, that does not have it.

If an animal with venomous saliva manages to bite, but not kill, prey then the prey is more likely to die quickly from the wound due to the venom. If an animal with venomous saliva manages to bite, but not kill, a predator, then the predator will take more damage from the bite due to the venom and be more likely to avoid the venomous animal in future. Are you more careful around wasps and bees than you are around moths and flies? Wasps and bees can sting, though in that case it is modified ovipositors rather than modified salivary glands.

Some lizards have venomous saliva without snake-style fangs. As was shown in the link I provided, some shrews also have toxic saliva, again without hollow fangs.

rossum

 

[rossum]

DNA contains the potential for these adaptations - agreed?

It is DNA and it is subject to mutations like all DNA. Most of the mutations will be neutral. The majority of the rest will be deleterious and a very few will be beneficial.

What do you mean by “potential”?

rossum

 

[reggieM]

Here’s a recent report on snake fang-venom evolution:

thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/how-fangs-developed-in-venomous-snakes_10078179.html

The fossil record should show the development of fangs, from small to large, then solid to hollow.

“The snake venom system is one of the most advanced bioweapon systems in the natural world. There is not a comparable structure as advanced, as sophisticated, as for example a rattlesnake fang and venom gland,” Live Science quoted lead researcher Freek Vonk as telling Nature magazine.

 

[rossum]

Here’s a recent report on snake fang-venom evolution:

thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/how-fangs-developed-in-venomous-snakes_10078179.html

The fossil record should show the development of fangs, from small to large, then solid to hollow.

“The snake venom system is one of the most advanced bioweapon systems in the natural world. There is not a comparable structure as advanced, as sophisticated, as for example a rattlesnake fang and venom gland,” Live Science quoted lead researcher Freek Vonk as telling Nature magazine.

The fossil record shows what it shows. It shows a lot more than was in a news report of a scientific paper. Far better to go and read Vonk et al’s actual paper: Evolutionary origin and development of snake fangs which has far more information in it. You will have an uphill struggle trying to use a paper with that title to try to show that snake fangs did not evolve.

rossum

 

[jackfrost10]

OK, just a little common sense here:
When I see an animal that is perfectly suited and adapted to its environment, I have a tendency to believe it was specifically produced for the purpose. It certainly does not stand the scrutiny of any other purpose.

If you have a key that matches the keyhole and fits the lock, it is a fairly good possibility it was, in fact, built for that purpose.
Except in the case of animals and their respective environments and abilities you end up with a key that has a nearly impossibly large variation to it and a lock that matches this variation perfectly but also keeps changing…

Again your are looking at this from a warped perspective. I have no doubt you are a good engineer but it seems you lack even a fundamental understanding of evoltuon… If i may this video directly addresses your point, its only 7 Min’s long and will save me a lot of typing.

If you don’t have the patience then skip to 3 mins, however i get the impression you would benefit from watching all 7.

As an engineer i am amazed you have not came across evolution within your field?

 

[jackfrost10]

True, but shouldn’t we see some kind of species change somewhere?
I mean, the theory specifies that these changes have been going on for quite some time.

We have observed speciation countless times…

talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[ipwnuathalo]

I’m watching, enjoying as usual. A few pages back (busy couple of days) I was taken to task for not accepting the biological judgement of biologists. I posted about an engineering matter, I don’t see any biologists dealing with the engineering issues and certainly they aren’t accepting my judgement on the subject. Street runs both ways.

I chose one, narrow area of life processes, flight, and I made an assertion:

Powered flight requires such tightly designed complex systems, it simply cannot be iterated to. Period.

The responses have ranged from “you don’t understand evolution” to “bacteria can develop IC systems in populations of 10^9 individuals in 10^8 generations”.

I’ll write a short, general response:

I’m not interested in internet score keeping. All that is important to me is my own experience of the issue. I remain an expert on the engineering issues of powered flight, and I can’t change the fact that it cannot be iterated to, even if I want to. All of the responses I’ve received are general, non-specific responses to peripheral issues in my post. If there is someone out there who genuinely thinks they have some data that speaks to the evolution of powered flight, I’d love to hear it. Telling me “it’s happened 4 times, it can’t be hard” just convinces me that the point has not been taken seriously, and probably not comprehended.

So, to quickly reiterate:

Specific, fully developed surface (e.g. no two insect wings are the same)
Matched power system (specific insertion point of specific type and size muscle)
Specific stability system (guidance/flight control/stability/recovery rate and hysteresis)
Specific behavior of motion (wings describe a path, requiring programmed control)

Lack any of these (not only the component, but also the precise matched behavior that controls that component) and the system does not function.

When I say “you cannot iterate to this” that’s my assertion that the path is not a possible reality, probabililty notwithstanding. In order to refute it, I think someone would have to suggest a path.

Also, on the issue of gliding, someone pointed out that gliding was a complex activity. I’ll be glad to consider that. A flying squirrel describes, bascially, a low aspect ratio rectangle when splayed. We know this shape. We know how it acts. From my standpoint, the issue is “can this shape be aerodynamically useful without any controls at all?”. Yes, it can. A low aspect ratio rectangular lifter with a drag inducer (tail) at back, balanced in range, glides reliably without a control system. This path is not impossible. It is not irreducably complex. It is functional without new, complex programmed behaviors.

 

[tjm190]

Powered flight requires such tightly designed complex systems, it simply cannot be iterated to. Period.

You would accept however, that a wing not suitable for flight may be suited for brief gliding would you not?

And if we are each making a claim to our field, I hereby forbid the use of the word ‘probability’, ‘chance’, or ‘odds’ unless a thorough calculation is shown to back up said statement.

This is silly of course, since arguments made to authority are all but worthless- you get fallacy on every side.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Powered flight requires such tightly designed complex systems, it simply cannot be iterated to. Period.

Granted. But this is not in itself a telling argument against evolution of flight. Each component could provide some sort of a selective advantage other than flight, with powered flight still being impossible, until the very last component is added, enabling it.

If there is someone out there who genuinely thinks they have some data that speaks to the evolution of powered flight, I’d love to hear it.

I’m not a biologist, so I don’t have an expert opinion here. Whether evolution of flight is possible is of course a different question than whether it actually happened.

So, to quickly reiterate:

Specific, fully developed surface (e.g. no two insect wings are the same)
Matched power system (specific insertion point of specific type and size muscle)
Specific stability system (guidance/flight control/stability/recovery rate and hysteresis)
Specific behavior of motion (wings describe a path, requiring programmed control)

Lack any of these (not only the component, but also the precise matched behavior that controls that component) and the system does not function.

The system does not function for prolonged flight. It does not mean nothing functions at all.

When I say “you cannot iterate to this” that’s my assertion that the path is not a possible reality, probabililty notwithstanding. In order to refute it, I think someone would have to suggest a path.

Your assertion is basically an argument to ignorance. It’s not difficult to see, however, how a system non-functioning for flight may nevertheless give an organism better leaping ability and thus a selective advantage. Incremental improvements in this system may occur until prolonged flight is possible.

 

[rossum]

So, to quickly reiterate:

Specific, fully developed surface (e.g. no two insect wings are the same)

You are not being consistent here. If no two wings are the same then there is a wide range of possible wing shapes that evolution can make use of. Evolution does not have a single possible solution available, it has many different possible solutions and hence an increased probability of finding one of them as it searches.

Matched power system (specific insertion point of specific type and size muscle)

This is probably the most difficult part of the evolution of powered flight. The 2003 paper by Wair Wing-Assisted Incline Running and the Evolution of Flight is an interesting new approach to this problem.

Specific stability system (guidance/flight control/stability/recovery rate and hysteresis)

Much of this is already available to a glider. A gliding squirrel wants to be able to steer its glide so it lands on a tree trunk, not on the ground. The whole point of being able to glide is to be able to avoid having to go down to the ground. The squirrel also needs attitude control to change from the horizontal glide position to the vertical landing position - gliding head-first into trees is generally not sensible.

Specific behavior of motion (wings describe a path, requiring programmed control)

Again, see the Wair paper I referenced above.

Lack any of these (not only the component, but also the precise matched behavior that controls that component) and the system does not function.

The control does not have to be “precise”, it merely has to be “good enough to provide an advantage”. Once there is more aerial competition then evolution can refine the controls to attain more precision such as we see today.

When I say “you cannot iterate to this” that’s my assertion that the path is not a possible reality, probabililty notwithstanding. In order to refute it, I think someone would have to suggest a path.

Paths have been suggested: The Evolution of Vertebrate Flight.

rossum

 

[jackfrost10]

Powered flight requires such tightly designed complex systems, it simply cannot be iterated to. Period.

Maybe you should research the evolution of the plane. We didn’t start with A380’s you know.

You are presenting and objection that does not exist. The evolution of flight is not a problem. Your argument that it cannot be iterated because you say so, is not very scientific.

scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&source=hp&q=evolution%20of%20flight&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

 

[edwest2]

I’m watching, enjoying as usual. A few pages back (busy couple of days) I was taken to task for not accepting the biological judgement of biologists. I posted about an engineering matter, I don’t see any biologists dealing with the engineering issues and certainly they aren’t accepting my judgement on the subject. Street runs both ways.

I chose one, narrow area of life processes, flight, and I made an assertion:

Powered flight requires such tightly designed complex systems, it simply cannot be iterated to. Period.

The responses have ranged from “you don’t understand evolution” to “bacteria can develop IC systems in populations of 10^9 individuals in 10^8 generations”.

I’ll write a short, general response:

I’m not interested in internet score keeping. All that is important to me is my own experience of the issue. I remain an expert on the engineering issues of powered flight, and I can’t change the fact that it cannot be iterated to, even if I want to. All of the responses I’ve received are general, non-specific responses to peripheral issues in my post. If there is someone out there who genuinely thinks they have some data that speaks to the evolution of powered flight, I’d love to hear it. Telling me “it’s happened 4 times, it can’t be hard” just convinces me that the point has not been taken seriously, and probably not comprehended.

So, to quickly reiterate:

Specific, fully developed surface (e.g. no two insect wings are the same)
Matched power system (specific insertion point of specific type and size muscle)
Specific stability system (guidance/flight control/stability/recovery rate and hysteresis)
Specific behavior of motion (wings describe a path, requiring programmed control)

Lack any of these (not only the component, but also the precise matched behavior that controls that component) and the system does not function.

When I say “you cannot iterate to this” that’s my assertion that the path is not a possible reality, probabililty notwithstanding. In order to refute it, I think someone would have to suggest a path.

Also, on the issue of gliding, someone pointed out that gliding was a complex activity. I’ll be glad to consider that. A flying squirrel describes, bascially, a low aspect ratio rectangle when splayed. We know this shape. We know how it acts. From my standpoint, the issue is “can this shape be aerodynamically useful without any controls at all?”. Yes, it can. A low aspect ratio rectangular lifter with a drag inducer (tail) at back, balanced in range, glides reliably without a control system. This path is not impossible. It is not irreducably complex. It is functional without new, complex programmed behaviors.

Due to my continuing studies of aerodynamics and flight, I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. What is being missed here is that not only does the organism need the necessary and precise equipment, it also needs precise knowledge as to effective use. I should mention that spiders do not guess at web design, they have the information. I am thoroughly unconvinced that a simple, gradual accumulation of bits of data leads to any useful function. There are missing parts to what amounts to an elaborate story. It is always implied that simple went to complex and possible “pathways” are indicated but I find it unconvincing.

I encourage you to keep posting. I don’t think evolutionists can explain insects trapped in amber, supposeedly millions of years old, that have both wings and legs and, no doubt, the knowledge to use them effectively. Fundamental things like deciding what is food and what is not is a critical factor. I would likely die in the Australian Outback but an Aborigine would be fine. The evolutionist has no real explanation for information. It is only assumed it keeps getting more complex but there is no credible reason for (a) it moving in any particular direction, and (b) it being guided in any way.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ipwnuathalo]

There’s a reason I’m sticking to an area of biophysics I know somethign about.

Above, a couple of people are suggesting that non-functinoing wings had some evolutionary fucntion that gave organisms possessing them a competitive advantage. Wonderful. Someone, please take the next step and tell me what good limp bee wings do on a ground-dwelling or plant-dwelling insect. Thanks.

Also, someone above said I wasn’t consistent by mentioning that no two insect wings are the same. The point is that every is matched to the rest of the animal for size, aspect ratio, stiffness, center of pressure…and bee wings don’t work on any other insect. Every insect that flies has a precisely-matched set of unique equipment, and you can’t mix-and-match pieces. This comes up again and again in these discussions.

Edwest is correct, but I mentioned that multiple times. Just flapping is a very complex curve described by a wing that requires precise firings to the muscles in the correct sequence and timing. There’s no error possible in the motion. You don’t get to be off in this motion and have a functioning system.

 

[Nec5]

There’s a reason I’m sticking to an area of biophysics I know somethign about.

Above, a couple of people are suggesting that non-functinoing wings had some evolutionary fucntion that gave organisms possessing them a competitive advantage. Wonderful. Someone, please take the next step and tell me what good limp bee wings do on a ground-dwelling or plant-dwelling insect. Thanks.

Wouldn’t the argument by evolutionists be that the wings started out as weak gliding limbs and progressed from there? In essence, they weren’t wings at first but gliders or some type of appendage that happened to allow for increased movement when falling/jumping? That’s just a guess for further discussion based on evolutionary reasoning; I’m not going to be able to back that argument up with evidence or further reasoning. I’m not sold on the whole chemicals->life->evolution->man process.

 

[tjm190]

There’s a reason I’m sticking to an area of biophysics I know somethign about.

Above, a couple of people are suggesting that non-functinoing wings had some evolutionary fucntion that gave organisms possessing them a competitive advantage. Wonderful. Someone, please take the next step and tell me what good limp bee wings do on a ground-dwelling or plant-dwelling insect. Thanks.

Also, someone above said I wasn’t consistent by mentioning that no two insect wings are the same. The point is that every is matched to the rest of the animal for size, aspect ratio, stiffness, center of pressure…and bee wings don’t work on any other insect. Every insect that flies has a precisely-matched set of unique equipment, and you can’t mix-and-match pieces. This comes up again and again in these discussions.

Edwest is correct, but I mentioned that multiple times. Just flapping is a very complex curve described by a wing that requires precise firings to the muscles in the correct sequence and timing. There’s no error possible in the motion. You don’t get to be off in this motion and have a functioning system.

Again, wings without complete function could serve for either brief flight or even simple gliding.

 

[ipwnuathalo]

Here’s where we get to see whether the argument from authority matters.

Again, wings without complete function could serve for either brief flight or even simple gliding.

Nope. That’s a different, and only barely related type of structure. There are dozens of easy objections to this. The bee wing is completely the wrong design direction for gliding. It has no part, none, in common with a gliding structure. Neither the wing surface, nor its mount, nor the articulators, nor the software is the same type of structure or software as a gliding surface. It’s exactly as likely that an eye would mutate into a powered bee wing as a gliding structure. It’s quite the equivalent of comparing a leg and a horn because both stick out of an animal. The above is the type of argument a person who does possess any information about the structure in question makes. And, as it turns out, that is what every argument in these discussions is. IF a path is suggested to us, along with an argument by sneer, and we are expected to accept that barely defined path. My contribution to this discussion is to say “I have considered this argument, at length, relying upon my professional knowledge, and I reject it as not even remotely possible”.

 

[jackfrost10]

Here’s where we get to see whether the argument from authority matters.

Nope. That’s a different, and only barely related type of structure. There are dozens of easy objections to this. The bee wing is completely the wrong design direction for gliding. It has no part, none, in common with a gliding structure. Neither the wing surface, nor its mount, nor the articulators, nor the software is the same type of structure or software as a gliding surface. It’s exactly as likely that an eye would mutate into a powered bee wing as a gliding structure. It’s quite the equivalent of comparing a leg and a horn because both stick out of an animal. The above is the type of argument a person who does possess any information about the structure in question makes. And, as it turns out, that is what every argument in these discussions is. IF a path is suggested to us, along with an argument by sneer, and we are expected to accept that barely defined path. My contribution to this discussion is to say “I have considered this argument, at length, relying upon my professional knowledge, and I reject it as not even remotely possible”.

Why don’t you go and read some papers on the subject? I’m sorry to be the one that has to break this to you, but when it comes to biology your professional knowledge is meaningless.

“Norberg, R. Å. (Department of Zoology, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden.) Evolution of flight in insects. Zool. Scripta 1 (6): 247–250, 1972.–Two hypotheses on the origin of flight in insects are discussed. 1. Gliding hypothesis. If wings and flight originated in ca. 1 cm large, or larger, insects, a leaping type seems to be a more probable candidate than a non-leaping one, since the former type has, with certainty, a high frequency of voluntary air excursions, during which any extensions come into play. Furthermore, it may attain the equilibrium gliding speed by jumping, and need not, if arboreal, lose any height on a steep initial fall to gain speed. 2. Floating hypothesis. The hypothesis presented here is a modified version of that put forward by Wigglesworth in 1963. It is suggested that wings may have originated in very small insects as thin dorsolateral, fringed extensions (like the wings of the smallest flying insects) acting as viscous drag producers, enabling the insects to float in the air with a very slow sinking speed and to be dispersed passively over long distances by thermal convection currents. Mov-ability of the wings would have increased practicability on the ground, and selection pressure for this could have brought about preadaptation for active flapping flight. Monophyly versus convergence of insect wings of conventional type (aerofoil function) is discussed briefly.”

www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119685338/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0