Excess Evolution: no real challenge to environmental dominance

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also
Supporter
Aug 3, 2006
11,380
704
45
✟276,687.00
Faith
Messianic
Hi there,

So I have come full circle, with regard to how I understand Evolution. It could be, could it not, that Evolutional pressures, could create a situation, where a species is capable of surviving in more environments than it needs to? Like you have a caterpillar that is capable of chameleon-like camouflage/ or a giraffe able to develop horns or hoofs that quash predatorial advances? The point is, these creatures would be ready for change, above and beyond, the selection pressures that would come against them.

I have used animal examples, to avoid confusing the abundance of adaptability with a specific foreknowledge of what the environment requires - the point is: there are adaptations that pro-genesis could feed a creature, above and beyond what the environment requires. Evolution could evolve itself, were this the case: Evolution could develop an excess of adaptations and then apply selection pressures to those clusters of adaptations. If Evolution were actually possible, surely this is how Evolution would work?

I am not being facetious, just applying the same logic to the whole that Evolutionists believe applies to the part. There is a way to interpret this, as negative logic, but I wonder whether you are interested in the development itself, given that you cannot establish the negative without exposing Evolution to a harsher criticism than itself productivity can really justify. Basically I am asking you, that if you want to come up with an objection, that you imagine the subject working first and then weigh up whether you want to distinguish Evolution more, relative to the abundance we may imagine could here work - the emphasis on a working distinction being the guiding rule, as you may guess.

I don't know, I feel like the cat is out of the bag, with this one - there's no real argument that if Evolution works, it should work more and possibly on itself.
 

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Hi there,

So I have come full circle, with regard to how I understand Evolution. It could be, could it not, that Evolutional pressures, could create a situation, where a species is capable of surviving in more environments than it needs to? Like you have a caterpillar that is capable of chameleon-like camouflage/ or a giraffe able to develop horns or hoofs that quash predatorial advances? The point is, these creatures would be ready for change, above and beyond, the selection pressures that would come against them.

I have used animal examples, to avoid confusing the abundance of adaptability with a specific foreknowledge of what the environment requires - the point is: there are adaptations that pro-genesis could feed a creature, above and beyond what the environment requires. Evolution could evolve itself, were this the case: Evolution could develop an excess of adaptations and then apply selection pressures to those clusters of adaptations. If Evolution were actually possible, surely this is how Evolution would work?

I am not being facetious, just applying the same logic to the whole that Evolutionists believe applies to the part. There is a way to interpret this, as negative logic, but I wonder whether you are interested in the development itself, given that you cannot establish the negative without exposing Evolution to a harsher criticism than itself productivity can really justify. Basically I am asking you, that if you want to come up with an objection, that you imagine the subject working first and then weigh up whether you want to distinguish Evolution more, relative to the abundance we may imagine could here work - the emphasis on a working distinction being the guiding rule, as you may guess.

I don't know, I feel like the cat is out of the bag, with this one - there's no real argument that if Evolution works, it should work more and possibly on itself.
I am struggling to understand how the universe exists, and where did that singularity come from?

I also have an issue with the possibility that one species can become another species altogether.
 
Upvote 0

The IbanezerScrooge

I can't believe what I'm hearing...
Sep 1, 2015
2,449
4,167
50
Florida
✟239,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Gottservant, I really think that you should turn your attention somewhere else. Maybe try doing biblical commentary over in one of the many, many "Christians Only" forums. Perhaps you could give your interpretations of biblical "truths" and discuss them with like minded people. Evolution and science just doesn't seem to be your thing
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,271
7,628
51
✟312,681.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
It could be, could it not, that Evolutional pressures, could create a situation, where a species is capable of surviving in more environments than it needs to?
No, adaption to a marine habitat does not also cause adaption to a desert.
 
Upvote 0

The IbanezerScrooge

I can't believe what I'm hearing...
Sep 1, 2015
2,449
4,167
50
Florida
✟239,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I also have an issue with the possibility that one species can become another species altogether.

through genetic isolation allowing mutations in DNA of 2 populations to cause them to become so genetically different that when they come back together members of their respective groups can no longer produce viable offspring. For instance, I'm pretty sure that you would say that Horses, donkeys and Zebras were all related, that, in your belief system there was a single animal on the Ark that diverged into these 3 animals we see today. Yet, these 3 animals cannot produce any viable offspring. Horses and donkeys produce mules which cannot, themselves, reproduce with each other or any other horse They are sterile. This can also be caused by a morphological (physical) change resulting in physical differences so great that reproduction between them has become impractical. Think about a Great Dane and a Chihuahua. Genetically they probably can produce offspring, but it is practically impossible for them to mate because of the size difference. If we found fossils of these animals today we would classify them as different species.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Hi there,

So I have come full circle, with regard to how I understand Evolution. It could be, could it not, that Evolutional pressures, could create a situation, where a species is capable of surviving in more environments than it needs to? Like you have a caterpillar that is capable of chameleon-like camouflage/ or a giraffe able to develop horns or hoofs that quash predatorial advances? The point is, these creatures would be ready for change, above and beyond, the selection pressures that would come against them.

I have used animal examples, to avoid confusing the abundance of adaptability with a specific foreknowledge of what the environment requires - the point is: there are adaptations that pro-genesis could feed a creature, above and beyond what the environment requires. Evolution could evolve itself, were this the case: Evolution could develop an excess of adaptations and then apply selection pressures to those clusters of adaptations. If Evolution were actually possible, surely this is how Evolution would work?

I am not being facetious, just applying the same logic to the whole that Evolutionists believe applies to the part. There is a way to interpret this, as negative logic, but I wonder whether you are interested in the development itself, given that you cannot establish the negative without exposing Evolution to a harsher criticism than itself productivity can really justify. Basically I am asking you, that if you want to come up with an objection, that you imagine the subject working first and then weigh up whether you want to distinguish Evolution more, relative to the abundance we may imagine could here work - the emphasis on a working distinction being the guiding rule, as you may guess.

I don't know, I feel like the cat is out of the bag, with this one - there's no real argument that if Evolution works, it should work more and possibly on itself.
First you need to explain what alternative universe you think this is happening in.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I don't know, I feel like the cat is out of the bag, with this one - there's no real argument that if Evolution works, it should work more and possibly on itself.
In a sense, it does - the mechanisms of evolution in creatures have themselves evolved to make their survival more likely; so, for example, when bacteria are under stress, they use less efficient DNA repair mechanisms that will boost the number of active mutations.

I couldn't find the recent paper I read on this topic, but here's an earlier one: How Can Evolution Learn?
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,290
✟272,415.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Extremely low evidence in the fossil record for any one species, undergoing that genetic transition.

You're not going to get genetic evidence from fossils (at least, not for the vast majority of the history of life on earth). You do have very strong evidence of the development of new species in the fossil record though, mostly through general morphological changes.

My personal favourite example for this is trilobite evolutionary development, because they are one of the few early (Cambrian) animals that was widely and extensively fossilised and there are just so many of them, as they were around for ~275 million years.

Here's an amazing general backgrounder on their evolutionary development:
Development, Trait Evolution, and the Evolution of Development in Trilobites

There are more than 20,000 identified fossilied species, in 10 (or possibly nine, or possibly 11) orders. What really interesting is that so many of these fossils show mosaic features (that is, an intermix of morphological structures from both earlier species and later species), which designates them as clear intermediate species. This means that there are constant arguments between palentologists about whether a certain trilobite fossil belongs with species A, species B, or should be designated as new species C.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
You're not going to get genetic evidence from fossils (at least, not for the vast majority of the history of life on earth). You do have very strong evidence of the development of new species in the fossil record though, mostly through general morphological changes.

My personal favourite example for this is trilobite evolutionary development, because they are one of the few early (Cambrian) animals that was widely and extensively fossilised and there are just so many of them, as they were around for ~275 million years.

Here's an amazing general backgrounder on their evolutionary development:
Development, Trait Evolution, and the Evolution of Development in Trilobites

There are more than 20,000 identified fossilied species, in 10 (or possibly nine, or possibly 11) orders. What really interesting is that so many of these fossils show mosaic features (that is, an intermix of morphological structures from both earlier species and later species), which designates them as clear intermediate species. This means that there are constant arguments between palentologists about whether a certain trilobite fossil belongs with species A, species B, or should be designated as new species C.
From that article.

Despite these advances, we still know relatively little about how development constrained or contributed to trait evolution in trilobites, and almost nothing about the origin of novel traits in trilobites. A major (but removable) obstacle is the current lack of well-supported trilobite phylogenies that span higher taxonomic levels.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,290
✟272,415.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
From that article.

Despite these advances, we still know relatively little about how development constrained or contributed to trait evolution in trilobites, and almost nothing about the origin of novel traits in trilobites. A major (but removable) obstacle is the current lack of well-supported trilobite phylogenies that span higher taxonomic levels.

Exactly, further research is needed. But, your objection was "Extremely low evidence in the fossil record for any one species, undergoing that genetic transition." While you're never going to see that genetic transition in the fossil record (barring species fossilised in the last ~1.5 to 2 million years), there is a plethora of evidence in the fossil record for transitions (if you care to look).
 
Upvote 0

The IbanezerScrooge

I can't believe what I'm hearing...
Sep 1, 2015
2,449
4,167
50
Florida
✟239,630.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
From that article.

Despite these advances, we still know relatively little about how development constrained or contributed to trait evolution in trilobites, and almost nothing about the origin of novel traits in trilobites. A major (but removable) obstacle is the current lack of well-supported trilobite phylogenies that span higher taxonomic levels.

So, you only read the abstract. What is it about this cautious statement, a hallmark of scientific papers so as to leave open the possibility that something was missed or new data could change the conclusion (something creationists NEVER do), that throws into doubt the whole of evolutionary theory for you? If the scientists in this study had said, "with absolute certainty that this is the progression of morphological change through the fossil record and this is how they evolved without doubt" would you have been more inclined to accept the conclusion and you would now accept evolution?
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Exactly, further research is needed. But, your objection was "Extremely low evidence in the fossil record for any one species, undergoing that genetic transition." While you're never going to see that genetic transition in the fossil record (barring species fossilised in the last ~1.5 to 2 million years), there is a plethora of evidence in the fossil record for transitions (if you care to look).
Are you implying that the snapshots, at times, in the fossil record. Should undergo an interpretation, i.e., trilobites somehow become reptiles?

As far as I am aware, trilobites are extinct and were extinct, way before any reptile, smiled for the camera.

What is your interpretation of the trilobite data?
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So, you only read the abstract. What is it about this cautious statement, a hallmark of scientific papers so as to leave open the possibility that something was missed or new data could change the conclusion (something creationists NEVER do), that throws into doubt the whole of evolutionary theory for you? If the scientists in this study had said, "with absolute certainty that this is the progression of morphological change through the fossil record and this is how they evolved without doubt" would you have been more inclined to accept the conclusion and you would now accept evolution?
I am not saying that there has not been an evolution, of any particular species. That requires evidence to support that idea, and the fossil record is far too intermittent to support any idea on it's own.

I avoid an interpretation of any evidence.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,094
6,290
✟272,415.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Are you implying that the snapshots, at times, in the fossil record. Should undergo an interpretation, i.e., trilobites somehow become reptiles?

As far as I am aware, trilobites are extinct and were extinct, way before any reptile, smiled for the camera.

There's no evidence supporting a conclusion that trilobites became reptiles, because trilobites are arthropods and lizards are vertebrates. So, you'd need to look at the point where arthropods and vertebrates diverge to find their last common ancestor.

That's little like asking if looking at the fossil record, should you draw the conclusion that insects somehow became mammals.

What is your interpretation of the trilobite data?

The data supports conclusions that triolbites evolved from an earlier hard shelled arthropod like creatures, perhaps related to Parvancorina, Primicaris or Spriggina (given the paucity of fossils from ~525 to 545 million years ago, we may never know), and then existed for about 275-290 million years. Over this time, trilobites diversified into a tremendous range of orders, genra and species (more than 20,000 identified individual species and we're still adding more on a near daily basis) with varying features. Sizes ranged from sub 1 cm to more than 45 cm long, and bodyshapes were highly varied.

The evidence from the fossil record shows large numbers of trilobite species having descendant populations in particular locations in time and space. That very broadly supports evolution via natural selection.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Nature is a constant.
Karma is the driver of grace. We reflect, we exist, we are reborn.
Only a seeker of the multiverse may inspire this unifying of inseparability.
Wellbeing is the birth of complexity, and of us. The universe is electrified with morphic resonance. To engage with the story is to become one with it.

nature

Non-locality requires exploration. Nothing is impossible. This life is nothing short of an awakening reintegration of sublime health.

If you have never experienced this quantum shift through non-local interactions, it can be difficult to believe. Traveller, look within and unify yourself. Although you may not realize it, you are Vedic.

We are being called to explore the infinite itself as an interface between karma and curiosity.
Our conversations with other lifeforms have led to an evolving of pseudo-archetypal consciousness. We are in the midst of a divine awakening of truth that will enable us to access the grid itself. Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the grid via pulses.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Nature is a constant.
Karma is the driver of grace. We reflect, we exist, we are reborn.
Only a seeker of the multiverse may inspire this unifying of inseparability.
Wellbeing is the birth of complexity, and of us. The universe is electrified with morphic resonance. To engage with the story is to become one with it.

nature

Non-locality requires exploration. Nothing is impossible. This life is nothing short of an awakening reintegration of sublime health.

If you have never experienced this quantum shift through non-local interactions, it can be difficult to believe. Traveller, look within and unify yourself. Although you may not realize it, you are Vedic.

We are being called to explore the infinite itself as an interface between karma and curiosity.
Our conversations with other lifeforms have led to an evolving of pseudo-archetypal consciousness. We are in the midst of a divine awakening of truth that will enable us to access the grid itself. Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the grid via pulses.
If you spend too long on the mystical gibberish generator you risk Choprafication ;)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums