Evolution?

[PeteZaHut]

I don’t have much knowledge about evolution, but from what I do know, it doesn’t make any sense to me. It is not really a religious belief. Evolution just doesn’t make any sense to me.

I understand that natural selection is when the weaker individuals die off and the stronger survive. But, nothing is changing there.

I believe evolution says that all life came from the ocean. If something has been living in the ocean, it will not be able to survive on land. According to evolution, at one point, an organism in the ocean had a child that went on to the land. I thought evolution happened by chance? If it were by chance, then only one organism would have made it on to the land. How did it reproduce?

 

[Rolltide]

Ok, here are some examples of how “natural selection” happens.

There’s a famous story about moths in England that a lot of people use to explain the situation. In England, there is a specific species of white moth that camoflages itself by hiding on the bark of birch trees (which is white). Occasionally, through mutation, a few moths will be born not white, but black (just like on rare occasions, humans are born albino). Unfortunately for the poor black moths, when they try to camoflage themselves on the trees, they stick out like a sore thumb and get eaten. The white moths are more “fit” for survival because of their traits, and therefore survive.

Now, along came the nineteenth century, and something interesting happened. Near the city of Birmingham, the Industrial Revolution caused the creation of a large number of coal-burning factories. In that day and age, there was no environmental protection, and so thick black smoke blanketed the forest around the city. This turned the bark of the birch trees black. So, guess what happened? All of the white moths died because their camoflage no longer worked, and the only ones that survived were the black moths. They were the only ones left alive to reproduce, and so they, in turn, had offspring that were black. Lo and behold, a new variety of black moth is created. This is “survival of the fittest”. Occasionally, an environmental change will cause certain new traits to become more desirable. If enough of them build up, you get a completely new species. Also note that just because the moths near Birmingham turned black, it doesn’t mean that the white moths in other parts of England went extinct. They now exist side-by-side.

Now, as far as how animals from the ocean started to live on land, even today, there are some fish that have primitive lungs that gulp air. Mudskippers can live outside of the water for up to 3 hours and crawl across the forest from one lake to another. Amphibians like frogs can live in the water OR on land for long periods of time. We see in each of these evolutionary traits that may have led from one to another.

 

[PeteZaHut]

Ok, here are some examples of how “natural selection” happens.

There’s a famous story about moths in England that a lot of people use to explain the situation. In England, there is a specific species of white moth that camoflages itself by hiding on the bark of birch trees (which is white). Occasionally, through mutation, a few moths will be born not white, but black (just like on rare occasions, humans are born albino). Unfortunately for the poor black moths, when they try to camoflage themselves on the trees, they stick out like a sore thumb and get eaten. The white moths are more “fit” for survival because of their traits, and therefore survive.

Now, along came the nineteenth century, and something interesting happened. Near the city of Birmingham, the Industrial Revolution caused the creation of a large number of coal-burning factories. In that day and age, there was no environmental protection, and so thick black smoke blanketed the forest around the city. This turned the bark of the birch trees black. So, guess what happened? All of the white moths died because their camoflage no longer worked, and the only ones that survived were the black moths. They were the only ones left alive to reproduce, and so they, in turn, had offspring that were black. Lo and behold, a new variety of black moth is created. This is “survival of the fittest”. Occasionally, an environmental change will cause certain new traits to become more desirable. If enough of them build up, you get a completely new species. Also note that just because the moths near Birmingham turned black, it doesn’t mean that the white moths in other parts of England went extinct. They now exist side-by-side.

Now, as far as how animals from the ocean started to live on land, even today, there are some fish that have primitive lungs that gulp air. Mudskippers can live outside of the water for up to 3 hours and crawl across the forest from one lake to another. Amphibians like frogs can live in the water OR on land for long periods of time. We see in each of these evolutionary traits that may have led from one to another.

But with the moths, nothing was evolving. Both black moths and white moths always existed. Neither of them changed or evolved from one another.

 

[Caesar517]

But with the moths, nothing was evolving. Both black moths and white moths always existed. Neither of them changed or evolved from one another.

The black color went from being an irregular mutation to a dominant trait, all because it was favorable in the new enviornment. That’s an excellent example of evolution through natural selection.

 

[Rolltide]

But with the moths, nothing was evolving. Both black moths and white moths always existed. Neither of them changed or evolved from one another.

Ok, let’s say another change now hits the black moth population. Let’s say that a different type of flower gets introduced to the region that favors moths with a longer tongue, and a long-tongue variety becomes prominent. At what point does the moth transform into another species? What if 15 more substantial changes occur?

What if you have a population of deer, and climate changes causes the trees to start growing taller, favoring deer with long necks? As time goes on, necks grow larger and larger. As smaller plants die off, the forest turns into a savannah with a few very large trees. Those deer with spotted markings begin to survive better than those without them. At what point does the deer become a giraffe?

 

[reggieM]

What if you have a population of deer, and climate changes causes the trees to start growing taller, favoring deer with long necks? As time goes on, necks grow larger and larger. As smaller plants die off, the forest turns into a savannah with a few very large trees. Those deer with spotted markings begin to survive better than those without them. At what point does the deer become a giraffe?

The deer could eat grasses and leaves growing low on the ground (as giraffes do today for their primary food). Additionally, a baby-deer would have to eat something, so it would be assumed that these evolved baby-deer would be born with necks long enough to reach the trees (but they’re born with shorter necks than the adults have).

I will agree with the OP - Darwinian evolution does not make sense.

 

[reggieM]

There are several reasons why the deer-to-giraffe story (some would call it a fairy-tale) does not work in real life, but the more common sense ideas strike me as the most convincing:

---

During droughts, water is much more important than food. Animals can survive long periods of time without food, but not without water. A bigger, taller giraffe would require much more water than a smaller, shorter giraffe. Therefore, it is actually more likely that the taller giraffes would die from dehydration. In reality, a creature’s ability to survive droughts and other harsh environmental conditions is determined by a number of other factors besides height and size.

Also, female giraffes can be as much as two feet shorter than male giraffes. In addition, young giraffes are much shorter than fully mature ones. If giraffe survival depended on being able to reach higher and higher leaves during a drought, then giraffes would have died out a long time ago with the death of the females and young giraffes.

Also, giraffes live with shorter tree browsers such as gazelles, impalas, elands and gerenuks. All of these animals have successfully survived periods of drought with much shorter necks.

 

[Rolltide]

The deer could eat grasses and leaves growing low on the ground (as giraffes do today for their primary food). Additionally, a baby-deer would have to eat something, so it would be assumed that these evolved baby-deer would be born with necks long enough to reach the trees (but they’re born with shorter necks than the adults have).

Do baby birds go out and hunt worms, or does their mom bring them food? The baby deer is going to be fed milk initially. The mother would supplement its food until it was tall enough to eat the leaves of the trees (whether that be through milk or ripping branches off of trees and dropping them for the baby. This argument can be refuted, although I agree that both babies and adults would still eat grass.

 

[Rolltide]

Also, giraffes live with shorter tree browsers such as gazelles, impalas, elands and gerenuks. All of these animals have successfully survived periods of drought with much shorter necks.

This could potentially be because giraffes supplement their food by eating the leaves of tall trees. Therefore, they wouldn’t be grazing grass as much and stripping the food supply, allowing the rest of the ecosystem just enough to survive the drought.

 

[Rolltide]

During droughts, water is much more important than food. Animals can survive long periods of time without food, but not without water. A bigger, taller giraffe would require much more water than a smaller, shorter giraffe. Therefore, it is actually more likely that the taller giraffes would die from dehydration. In reality, a creature’s ability to survive droughts and other harsh environmental conditions is determined by a number of other factors besides height and size.

A larger animal can store a much larger amount of fat and then chemically extract the water, often making them MORE apt to survive. The camel, for example, can live for more than two weeks without taking a drink, which is LONG after many other smaller animals would have died. The giraffe also has large fat stores, and so can go for longer periods (although not nearly as long as a camel) during a drought than a smaller animal. Your premise does not hold true for a lot of large animals.

 

[Rolltide]

What is also interesting about this particular example is that the giraffe’s ONLY relative (and this has been demonstrated genetically) is the okapi:



As an aside, the okapi is a really cool animal anyway! lol

 

[Rolltide]

Also interesting about the giraffe is that just like the horse, it is a species for which we have a pretty complete fossil record, including ALL of the transitional fossils.

From Wikipedia (Yes, I know, I’m quoting Wikipedia, which is less than perfect, but in this case, the article’s facts are basically correct)
:
Giraffids evolved from a 3 metre (10 ft) tall antelope-like mammal which roamed Europe and Asia 30-50 million years ago.[4] The earliest giraffid was the Climacoceras, which still resembled deer, having large antler-like ossicones. It first appeared in the early Miocene period. As the lineage went on the genuses Palaeotragus and Samotherium appeared in the early to mid-Miocene. One species of Palaeotragus developed more giraffe-like ossicones. They both were tall at the shoulder but still had short necks. For there the genus Giraffa evolved in the Pliocene period and Okapia evolved in the Pleistocene. The modern long-necked giraffe, Giraffa camelopardalis, appeared 1 million years ago.

 

[steveandersen]

I don’t have much knowledge about evolution, but from what I do know, it doesn’t make any sense to me. It is not really a religious belief. Evolution just doesn’t make any sense to me.

Perhaps it hasn’t been presented to you in a clear manner.
You say that you don’t have much information. What do you think “evolution” is and what part of that doesn’t make sense?

I understand that natural selection is when the weaker individuals die off and the stronger survive.

not necessarily “stronger” but “fitter”

But, nothing is changing there.

How so?
You just admitted that some traits may be preferred
Since these traits have a genetic basis doesn’t this mean that the gene pool is changing?

I believe evolution says that all life came from the ocean. If something has been living in the ocean, it will not be able to survive on land.

You don’t go straight form the ocean to the air in one leap.

Lungfish can survive for a while on land quite nicely. If you understand that “fitter” traits survive and if you could picture a situation where something like a lungfish had to spend longer periods out of the water over many many generations then Boom … you have evolution.

According to evolution, at one point, an organism in the ocean had a child that went on to the land.

That is certainly NOT what evolution says.
No wonder it doesn’t make sense to you.

I thought evolution happened by chance?

it is not a truly random process

If it were by chance, then only one organism would have made it on to the land. How did it reproduce?

Evolution happens to populations not to individuals.
As you said, a species of one will not be around for a while.

 

[reggieM]

Also interesting about the giraffe is that just like the horse, it is a species for which we have a pretty complete fossil record, including ALL of the transitional fossils.

Here’s one scientist that disagrees with that:

weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf

 

[Rolltide]

Here’s one scientist that disagrees with that:

weloennig.de/Giraffe.pdf

I would love to respond to the article but I can’t get it to open. Can you give me a summary of his or her argument? Now, I’m not an expert in paleontology, but I’m guessing that this opinion is in the minority, and probably only extends to certain giraffe ancestors, not the entire theory. I could probably check on this if you want. My office is just two floors above the archeology department, and across campus from the Museum of Natural History, which has an outstanding paleontology department.

 

[reggieM]

I would love to respond to the article but I can’t get it to open. Can you give me a summary of his or her argument? Now, I’m not an expert in paleontology, but I’m guessing that this opinion is in the minority, and probably only extends to certain giraffe ancestors, not the entire theory. I could probably check on this if you want. My office is just two floors above the archeology department, and across campus from the Museum of Natural History, which has an outstanding paleontology department.

The article is about 120 pages long and appears to be quite a serious critique of the current theory on the evolution of the giraffe.

The note on the author is:
*For the last 29 years the author has been working on mutation genetics at the University of Bonn and the Max-Planck-Institute für Züchtungsforschung in Cologne (Bonn 7 years, Cologne 22 years). The author obtained his PhD in genetics at the University of Bonn.

Summary: In the following article the assertions of three supporters of the synthetic theory regarding the evolution of the long-necked giraffe will be discussed: the statements of Ulrich Kutschera, Richard Dawkins and Kathleen Hunt.

1. Ulrich Kutschera made the following statement regarding the origin of the giraffe, on November 29, 2005 in 3SAT [a German TV channel]: “…the evolution of the long-necked giraffe can be reconstructed through fossils.“ According to today’s best giraffe researchers, all fossil links that could show us the gradual evolution of the long-necked giraffe from the short-necked giraffe are missing, apart from the insufficiently answered question of causes. Some paleontologists postulate a “neck elongation macromutation“ to explain the origin of the long-necked giraffe.

1. Richard Dawkins likewise considers – in a striking exception to his usual theoretical framework – the origin of the long-necked giraffe through a macromutation. This exception would naturally be fully unnecessary, if the gradual evolution of the long-necked giraffe could really be reconstructed through fossils, especially since he much prefers the gradualist view. Dawkins draws the okapi, in relation to the Giraffa, nearly twice as large as it really is. In this way, the problem of its evolution (the gap between the two forms) appears only half as large. One may well ask if this technique is useful in the search for truth. [RM Note: The article includes comparative photos of Dawkins’ drawings vs an accurate drawing from a textbook – and Dawkins’ exaggeration is quite obvious.]

1. Kathleen Hunt however, in her often-cited work Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, leaves no doubt that the origin of the giraffe is clearly and completely solved by the synthetic theory (gradual evolution through mutations, recombination and selection). When one looks at her reasoning more closely, however, one encounters numerous holes and problems and the fossil evidence for the gradual evolution of the long-necked giraffe is — as expected — completely lacking. A detailed analysis of her work shows, therefore, that the strong impression that one receives on a first reading concerning the continuous evolution of the giraffe stands in stark contrast to the current paleological facts.

The data so far obtained show that there are many suggestive but untestable hypotheses and that we really know nothing about the evolution of the long-necked giraffes. Moreover, a close examination of the evidence reveals several deep problems for any of the current hypotheses explaining the origin of theses species exclusively by mutations and selection.

p.s. It may be a “minority opinion”, but history shows that the minority view can sometimes be the correct one.

 

[steveandersen]

The article is about 120 pages long and appears to be quite a serious critique of the current theory on the evolution of the giraffe.

It appears that this may be a critique of a particular path of evolution not a rejection of evolution

except of course that last sentence* “explaining the origin of theses species exclusively by mutations and selection.”*
kind of strange for a geneticist to say

What if anything did he offer as an alternative?

The note on the author is:
*For the last 29 years the author has been working on mutation genetics at the University of Bonn and the Max-Planck-Institute für Züchtungsforschung in Cologne (Bonn 7 years, Cologne 22 years). The author obtained his PhD in genetics at the University of Bonn.

not paleontology?

p.s. It may be a “minority opinion”, but history shows that the minority view can sometimes be the correct one.

Some times the lone voice crying in the wilderness is right

Most times they aren’t

BUT since the OP was questioning all evolution as a process and not just one particular pathway, I’m not sure how this applies to the topic

 

[reggieM]

It appears that this may be a critique of a particular path of evolution not a rejection of evolution
except of course that last sentence* “explaining the origin of theses species exclusively by mutations and selection.”*
kind of strange for a geneticist to say

It’s a critique of this particular path of evolution - a path which is often held up as an example supporting evolutionary theory (as was done on this thread itself). But the article itself doesn’t seem to be a “rejection of evolution”. Personally, I think scientists say strange things quite often, especially on the topic of evolution where I notice strange conjectures and “just so” stories presented as “science”.

What if anything did he offer as an alternative?

His alternative is that evolutionists should not claim that their current ideas regarding the evolution of the giraffe are true.
As he said:

"The data so far obtained show that there are many suggestive but untestable hypotheses and that we really know nothing about the evolution of the long-necked giraffes. Moreover, a close examination of the evidence reveals several deep problems for any of the current hypotheses explaining the origin of theses species exclusively by mutations and selection. "

not paleontology?

I find this interesting. No, he is not both a geneticist and a palentologist. His critique was addressed to Dawkins, who is not a palentologist either (perhaps you’ll discount Dawkins’ writings on this topic for that fact?). Additionally, Ulrich Kutschera is not a palentologist, nor is Kathleen Hunt – who is a zoologist writing for TalkOrigins and she states: “The history of vertebrate evolution is a pet side interest of mine.” So apparently, one of the most prominent pro-evolution websites doesn’t hesitate to use “experts” who approach the topic as a “pet side interest”. Can you see why I find much of what is said by Darwinian-defenders to be highly questionable? The fact that you posed the “not paleontology” issue is very much a part of it.

BUT since the OP was questioning all evolution as a process and not just one particular pathway, I’m not sure how this applies to the topic

If the OP felt (as I do) that the standard evolutionary claims about the evolution of the giraffe cannot be trusted – then this would certainly contribute to some doubt regarding “all evolution as a process”.

 

[PhilVaz]

Here is a scholarly PDF on the evolution of the Giraffe. I quote the abstract for those who don’t like PDF:

"The origin, phylogeny, and evolution of modern giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) is obscure. We review here the literature and conclude that the proximate ancestors of modern giraffes probably evolved in southern central Europe about 8 million years ago (Mya). These ancestors appear to have arisen from the gelocid ancestral assemblage of 20–25 Mya via the family Palaeomerycidae. From the palaeomerycids arose the Antilocaprinae (Pronghorns) via the subfamily Dromomerycinae, and two subfamilies of giraffids, the Climacoceratidae and Canthumerycidae. The terminal genus of the Climacoceratid line was the now extinct massive giraffid Sivatherium sp.

"The Canthumerycids gave rise to the okapi and giraffes via the intermediate forms of Giraffokeryx, Palaeotragus sp. (of which the okapi is the extant form), Samotherium sp. and Bohlinia sp. all of which are extinct. Stimulated by climate change, progeny of Bohlinia entered China and north India, evolved into typical Giraffa species and became extinct there about 4 Mya. Similarly, following their preferred habitat, African Giraffa entered Africa via Ethiopia about 7 Mya. Here, seemingly unaffected by the climate changes occurring to the east and causing extinction of its Asian counterparts, Giraffa radiated into several sequential and coeval species culminating with the evolution of G. camelopardalis in East Africa from where it dispersed to its modern range. Fossils of G. camelopardalis appear about 1 Mya in East Africa.

“The underlying stimulus for Giraffa evolution seems to have been the vegetation change that began about 8 Mya, from the prevalent forest (C3) biome to a savannah/woodland/shrub (C4) biome. Giraffa’s success as a genus is attributed to its great height and unique coat markings. Its height is a consequence of elongation of all seven cervical vertebrae and of the lower more than the upper limb bones. Advantages conferred by its height include protection from predation, increased vigilance, and in males sexual dominance and access to nutrients. Its coat colourings are highly hereditable and provide protection from predation by camouflage, especially in the young. As giraffe are unable to sweat and pant, the patches may also act as thermal windows and may have an important thermoregulatory function.”

(“On the origin, evolution and phylogeny of giraffes – Giraffa camelopardalis” by G. MITCHELL, FRSSAf & J.D. SKINNER FRSSAf in Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa, Vol. 58 [2003], pages 51-73)

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/GiraffeHead.jpg

You can’t tell me the above ugly creature was created from scratch.

Thank you very much, evolution proved once again.

Phil P

 

[reggieM]

We review here the literature and conclude that the proximate ancestors of modern giraffes **probably evolved **…

I love that bit of scientific certainty.
In fact, there’s an entire website that simply tracks the usage of the term “probably evolved”. It’s quite informative (and I find it entertaining). It’s aligned with the evolutionary “just so” stories site – that’s another one that never suffers from lack of material.