Adaptation or Evolution? On Platypuses, Tadpoles, and Flying Fishes

[Erasmus7]

Hi all,

I have a further Evolution-orientated query, this time involving another angle on the ease, or difficulty, of organisms and creatures evolving or adapting into wholly different species.

The Creationist view would say (unless I am mistaken) that creatures are created in separate species groups and that any adaptation occurs within these species groups. That is, the adaptive mechanism of respective organisms and animals is not so great that it can develop into a whole different species. In other words, the fin of a fish could never become a human-like arm, and so forth.

However, I have since been in discussion with evolutionists, who have brought up some interesting cases of single creatures that seem to have borrowed from different species, or at least show signs of evolving into other species.

I list them below:

1. The platypus is a mammal with a duck-like bill that lays eggs, and thought to be, according to one web site, ‘the most evolutionary distinct mammal that exists today’. Thus it ‘sports a patchwork of features from mammals, reptiles and birds. The platypus sports fur like a mammal, paddles its duck feet like a bird and lays eggs in the manner of a reptile.’
2. A tadpole begins as an aquatic creature with gills, then in the course of its lifetime the gills develop into lungs and it becomes amphibious (i.e., thus combining gills, as of fish, to lungs, as of mammal).
3. The transformation from a caterpillar to a butterfly also seems to be quite dramatic, and maybe stretches the bounds of within-species adaptation.
4. Another possible example I thought of is the flying fish – it might be tempting to see the ‘wings’ (if they are that) of the flying fish as part of an evolution to a bird-like form. Does anyone know as to the basic constitution of the ‘wings’ – Do the genetic characteristics resemble wings of a bird at all? Or perhaps just fins that have undergone a basic adaptation purely as genes of a fish?

There are no doubt more examples, but these are the ones that have so far come to my attention.

This, then, being my third evolution-creation post, in my ongoing attempt to sort out the evolution-creation debate in my mind once and for all. I would greatly appreciate input from one and all.

Thanks and kind regards,
Erasmus.

 

[Papias]

Hi all,

I have a further Evolution-orientated query,...

Sounds fun - I hope we can help by providing evidence and rational discussion. : )

Hi all,

this time involving another angle on the ease, or difficulty, of organisms and creatures evolving or adapting into wholly different species.

It sounds like you mean something above the species level, not just speciation, because Our earlier discussion included a whole list of examples of observed speciation - the cases where one species evolved into another species. Several of them are listed here in post #8. http://www.christianforums.com/thre...es-essential-questions.7962909/#post-70047012

and the lizard example in post #22 here: http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ential-questions.7962909/page-2#post-70063829 etc.

But I think you are asking about changed at a much higher level, such as the class or order level. Understand that biologists have organized life in a "nested hierarchy" - something that evolution produces automatically. The names for each level in the nested hierarchy are:

Domain, Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.
For instance, for humans, it is:

Eukaryota, Animalia, chordata, mammalia, primates (suborder haplorhini= dry nosed monkeys), hominidae, Homo sapiens (subspecies sapiens).

The same can be done for any other living thing on earth.

You had asked earlier about changes at the species level, and it sounds like now you are asking about changes at higher level, like, say, "family" (such as a monkey like species turning into humans) or "class" (such as a population of fish evolving into cows). Right?

The Creationist view would say (unless I am mistaken) that creatures are created in separate species groups and that any adaptation occurs within these species groups. That is, the adaptive mechanism of respective organisms and animals is not so great that it can develop into a whole different species. In other words, the fin of a fish could never become a human-like arm, and so forth.

Yes, but they won't say where they draw the line, and it's completely arbitary anyway. They used to say that speciation didn't happen, but there are so many clear cases now that they've pretty much given up on that.

There's plenty of examples of creatures having evolved through higher levels, so I'll provide some after looking at your cases.

who have brought up some interesting cases of single creatures that seem to have borrowed from different species, or at least show signs of evolving into other species.

First, understand that the transitional forms (what I think you are after) are often no longer living, so we often look to fossils or genetic evidence to understand them.

OK, the list:

....... some interesting cases of single creatures that seem to have borrowed from different species, or at least show signs of evolving into other species.

I list them below:

1. The platypus is a mammal with a duck-like bill that lays eggs, and thought to be, according to one web site, ‘the most evolutionary distinct mammal that exists today’. Thus it ‘sports a patchwork of features from mammals, reptiles and birds. The platypus sports fur like a mammal, paddles its duck feet like a bird and lays eggs in the manner of a reptile.’

The platypus is a great example, as it is similar to it's basal mammalian (synapsian) ancestor before more mammal evolution led to us. For instance, it lays eggs like a reptile because it preserves our lizard ancestors egg laying. The "bird" features are not bird features on close inspection (the webbed feet are like those of a beaver or otter), and a "duck bill" is common whenever a creature gets food out of the muck (such as a duck billed dinosaur).

.......

A tadpole begins as an aquatic creature with gills, then in the course of its lifetime the gills develop into lungs and it becomes amphibious (i.e., thus combining gills, as of fish, to lungs, as of mammal).

The transformation from a caterpillar to a butterfly also seems to be quite dramatic, and maybe stretches the bounds of within-species adaptation.

Yes, both of these are transformations within an individual's lifetime. They show one of many routes for how some of these changes can happen, where an animal evolves a two part life cycle, and then discards one or the other stage (including sometimes the stage that existed first), effecting a change.

....... Another possible example I thought of is the flying fish – it might be tempting to see the ‘wings’ (if they are that) of the flying fish as part of an evolution to a bird-like form. Does anyone know as to the basic constitution of the ‘wings’ – Do the genetic characteristics resemble wings of a bird at all? Or perhaps just fins that have undergone a basic adaptation purely as genes of a fish?

This one isn't the same. The fins bear no genetic relationship with wings, and only superficially look like (and function as) wings. This doesn't show fish evolving into birds.

......
There are no doubt more examples, but these are the ones that have so far come to my attention.

This, then, being my third evolution-creation post, in my ongoing attempt to sort out the evolution-creation debate in my mind once and for all. I would greatly appreciate input from one and all.

Thanks and kind regards,
Erasmus.

There is a huge amount more evidence of life evolving from simple forms to very different forms, from many different fields of science, showing many different transitions (fish to amphibian, amphibian to lizard, lizard to mammal, mammal to primate, monkey like to human, and other lines, like land mammal to whale, etc.)

The amount of evidence would literally fill many libraries, so I can't post it here. I can give you a link to an overall summary, and start you off with a short list of some transitional fossils (though much more evidence also comes from genetics and other fields). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Overview: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Oh, and if you are interested in the general compatibility of evolution with Christianity, this site is useful: http://biologos.org/

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Erasmus7]

Thanks Papias.

I have downloaded all pages of the 'talkorigins' document - altogether it looks like a short book in itself. It looks most enlightening, and will get to it as soon as I have finished 'Darwin's Doubt' by Stephen Meyer, which I bought off amazon the other day.

Incidentally, what is your opinion of Darwin's Doubt, and, for that matter, of Stephen Meyer?

Regards,
Erasmus

 

[Armoured]

Platypus is simple enough, it's line branches off from the rest of mammals back before mammals became placental or marsupial. It has a duck LIKE bill (the like is important, because structurally, they are perfectly distinct) because it uses its bill for the same sort of things a duck uses its for, and it has a beaver like tail because it uses it the same way a beaver does. Simple example of convergent evolution, producing similar phenotypes for similar environmental conditions. No more confusing than sharks and dolphins looking similar.

 

[Armoured]

Incidentally, what is your opinion of Darwin's Doubt, and, for that matter, of Stephen Meyer?

I saw the first movie by accident, and thought the angsty vampires were nowhere near as good as Anne Rice's, and the glittery bit was just silly

#teamguywhoalmosthitBellawithatruck

 

[Ken Behrens]

The basic theory is that God told the earth to create critters, and everything that might have a chance at existing popped out. The ones that could not survived died very quickly. We see what's left, and wonder how it got here. It's like trying to assemble the jigsaw puzzle, after the cat has been batting most of the pieces around the room, and you only have a few of them left to work with.

The evolutionist must thus explain how everything got here, and so he hypothesizes millions of years to work it out. The creationist only needs to explain why the platypus' 2nd cousin once removed isn't around, and that task is quite a bit easier, as one can imagine any number of factors.

 

[pat34lee]

Platypus is simple enough, it's line branches off from the rest of mammals back before mammals became placental or marsupial. It has a duck LIKE bill (the like is important, because structurally, they are perfectly distinct) because it uses its bill for the same sort of things a duck uses its for, and it has a beaver like tail because it uses it the same way a beaver does. Simple example of convergent evolution, producing similar phenotypes for similar environmental conditions. No more confusing than sharks and dolphins looking similar.

That is part of the discredited Lamarckian evolution theory.
Giraffes didn't get long necks by stretching for the high leaves.
You don't get a duck bill by doing duck things.
Acquired characteristics are not heritable.

 

[pat34lee]

Yes, but they won't say where they draw the line, and it's completely arbitary anyway. They used to say that speciation didn't happen, but there are so many clear cases now that they've pretty much given up on that.

About kinds: Since kinds started with one original pair
of animals, and their descendants became many breeds,
like dogs or cats, we would need to know what the original
kind was to determine which current breeds came from it.

Species, family, kingdom are all fairly arbitrary. There is nothing
in nature that comes tagged, so all classifications are man-made
and follow whatever rules someone invented for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

Speciation as a separate kind doesn't happen. Speciation as in
breeds of dogs is change within a kind.

 

[Armoured]

That is part of the discredited Lamarckian evolution theory.
Giraffes didn't get long necks by stretching for the high leaves.
You don't get a duck bill by doing duck things.
Acquired characteristics are not heritable.

You don't get a duck bill by doing duck things, but if you live in an environment where having a duck bill and doing duck things makes you more likely to survive than those without a duck bill, the tendency is to evolve one. No Lamarckianism required. Simple convergent evolution.

 

[Papias]

Thanks Papias.

I have downloaded all pages of the 'talkorigins' document - altogether it looks like a short book in itself. It looks most enlightening, and will get to it as soon as I have finished 'Darwin's Doubt' by Stephen Meyer, which I bought off amazon the other day.

Cool. Enjoy! The good thing about the talk origins stuff is that it is all supported by entire scientific societies comprising thousands of scientists, and is fully in agreement with the scientific consensus. Thus, when you read the talk origins stuff, it's like you a reading what thousands of scientists (many of the Christian) would say.

Incidentally, what is your opinion of Darwin's Doubt, and, for that matter, of Stephen Meyer?

I don't have a very high opinion of him because he lies repeatedly, both in his books and elsewhere. Also, he routinely talks about stuff outside his field that he clearly doesn't understand because he makes incompetent statements, such as suggesting that all the phyla arose during the cambrian, and misrepresenting the cambrian radiation as much more sudden than it was, among many other things. He's not a biologist, has no biology education, and yet talk about evolution as if he knew more than his plumber about it. It's like asking a car mechanic to tell you about quantum physics, and believing what he says.

Real scientists recognize his books as pseudoscience, and so he's a very bad source to go to if one wants to learn facts. From him one is more likely to come away believing one of his falsehoods. Here is a review of that book: http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/doubting-darwins-doubt

But I can't say that it's a huge amount worse than other creationist books, which very often are packs of lies. One wasn't too bad, but I have to think a bit to remember the name.

One has to be careful in reading books by a single author, because they reflect the biases of that author, which can range from minor to major. That's the advantage of the talk origins information.

If you'd like books on the pro-evolution side specifically by and for Christians, they are out there. A couple good ones are the language of life by Francis Collins and Darwins Cathedral by Ken Miller. - Both of whom actually are biologists.
In Christ-

Papias

... we would need to know what the original
kind was to determine which current breeds came from it.

... Speciation as in
breeds of dogs is change within a kind.

Actually, Lev. 19:19 tells us what a kind is. It's a subspecies.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[pat34lee]

You don't get a duck bill by doing duck things, but if you live in an environment where having a duck bill and doing duck things makes you more likely to survive than those without a duck bill, the tendency is to evolve one. No Lamarckianism required. Simple convergent evolution.

That relies on two major assumptions.
1. That there is a 'best' body type or feature for an environment.
Nature shows that there is great variety in every environment.

2. That unguided mutations, most of which are harmful, will give
any animal what it needs for anything, as this requires planning
and a goal. That changes evolution to ID, but is still wrong.

 

[loveofourlord]

That relies on two major assumptions.
1. That there is a 'best' body type or feature for an environment.
Nature shows that there is great variety in every environment.

2. That unguided mutations, most of which are harmful, will give
any animal what it needs for anything, as this requires planning
and a goal. That changes evolution to ID, but is still wrong.

nature is quiet adapt at having great variety, but it's also quiet adapt at having little variety where there is a optimal shape or such, look at ichiasaurus, dolphin, shark and such all simular shapes yet completly different branches of the tree of life, why? Because thats one of the more optimal forms for water, look at how many different eyes, different wings, and such. If you see many species having simular feature there is likly a good reason for it.

And if your going to add in types of bill shape, can add in the duckcroc.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

" Adaptation or Evolution? On Platypuses, Tadpoles, and Flying Fishes "
Neither.
YHWH'S WAYS are so much higher than man's ways ,
======================================

Here's an explanation for those who don't trust YHWH(GOD) >

HE just got walt D. to draw some funny things up and WALLA ! there they are !

 

[Armoured]

1. The platypus is a mammal with a duck-like bill that lays eggs, and thought to be, according to one web site, ‘the most evolutionary distinct mammal that exists today’. Thus it ‘sports a patchwork of features from mammals, reptiles and birds. The platypus sports fur like a mammal, paddles its duck feet like a bird and lays eggs in the manner of a reptile.’

That's really rather a mis-characterisation of Ornithorhynchus anatinus. It has certain features that resemble those of other animals, because those features perform the same function in the platypus as they do in those other cretures. There's really nothing "patchwork" about it, it's just convergent evolution, the same principle that makes sharks and dolphins look similar.

 

[Radrook]

Hi all,

I have a further Evolution-orientated query, this time involving another angle on the ease, or difficulty, of organisms and creatures evolving or adapting into wholly different species.

The Creationist view would say (unless I am mistaken) that creatures are created in separate species groups and that any adaptation occurs within these species groups. That is, the adaptive mechanism of respective organisms and animals is not so great that it can develop into a whole different species. In other words, the fin of a fish could never become a human-like arm, and so forth.

However, I have since been in discussion with evolutionists, who have brought up some interesting cases of single creatures that seem to have borrowed from different species, or at least show signs of evolving into other species.

I list them below:

1. The platypus is a mammal with a duck-like bill that lays eggs, and thought to be, according to one web site, ‘the most evolutionary distinct mammal that exists today’. Thus it ‘sports a patchwork of features from mammals, reptiles and birds. The platypus sports fur like a mammal, paddles its duck feet like a bird and lays eggs in the manner of a reptile.’
2. A tadpole begins as an aquatic creature with gills, then in the course of its lifetime the gills develop into lungs and it becomes amphibious (i.e., thus combining gills, as of fish, to lungs, as of mammal).
3. The transformation from a caterpillar to a butterfly also seems to be quite dramatic, and maybe stretches the bounds of within-species adaptation.
4. Another possible example I thought of is the flying fish – it might be tempting to see the ‘wings’ (if they are that) of the flying fish as part of an evolution to a bird-like form. Does anyone know as to the basic constitution of the ‘wings’ – Do the genetic characteristics resemble wings of a bird at all? Or perhaps just fins that have undergone a basic adaptation purely as genes of a fish?

There are no doubt more examples, but these are the ones that have so far come to my attention.

This, then, being my third evolution-creation post, in my ongoing attempt to sort out the evolution-creation debate in my mind once and for all. I would greatly appreciate input from one and all.

Thanks and kind regards,
Erasmus.

Creationists don't claim that the original kinds were species as you are claiming.

 

[loveofourlord]

Creationists don't claim that the original kinds were species as you are claiming.

creationists claim kinds are what ever is the most beneficial for them, it can go anywhere from kingdom to species level. it's a nonsensical label that has no real meaning just something they make up on the spot. And creationists can't even agree on what kind of animals different species are, I've seen some classifications of kinds, particularly when we get into dog/cat kind that would require levels of evolution that not even scientists think would happen.