Evolution is a story

[Shemjaza]

So, some capabilities that dealt with the old vanished environment should disappear. The function of the life form would keep its simplicity and efficiency.

This would be the last time I reiterate my point. If no new argument appear, then this would be it.

Evolution history shows a trend of change. So it is wrong.

But some of their old traits might still be useful, or might be re purposed into new traits that are useful.

So evolution predicts change, and the evidence shows change... so this means evolution is wrong?

Feel free to walk away claiming victory, but your points have been incoherent or soundly refuted.

 

[juvenissun]

But some of their old traits might still be useful, or might be re purposed into new traits that are useful.

New functions developed (evolved) to deal with new environmental pressure. When the pressure disappeared due to continuous environmental change, why should those function still exist? It would definitely become a burden to the life form.

Unfortunately I am not a biologist and I can not give you a real hard time by in-depth examples. As I asked you at the first place, if you are not a biologist, then you are not qualified to defend your position. At this level, it is much easier to ask question than to answer question. So, simply remember my question and try to learn once you have a chance.

I just wonder, there ARE some evolution biologists in this forum. How come all of them are so quiet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

New functions developed (evolved) to deal with new environmental pressure. When the pressure disappeared due to continuous environmental change, why should those function still exist? It would definitely become a burden to the life form.

Think of it as "momentum". If there is no reason for them to change they will tend to continue on. But without the guidance of natural selection they will vary. That can be seen with genes that are turned "off". They vary much more than active genes since a mutation in an active gene is usually, but not always, deleterious.

Unfortunately I am not a biologist and I can not give you a real hard time by in-depth examples. As I asked you at the first place, if you are not a biologist, then you are not qualified to defend your position. At this level, it is much easier to ask question than to answer question. So, simply remember my question and try to learn once you have a chance.

All that it takes for someone to defend evolution from those that do not understand it is a better understanding. You won't let yourself learn since it threatens your beliefs. It does not take a trained biologist to correct your errors. Yes, a trained biologist could do a better job of it. But one does not need a member of a pit crew from the Indianapolis 500 to change a flat tire.

I just wonder, there ARE some evolution biologists in this forum. How come all of them are so quiet.

Perhaps they got tired of the obstinate denials of certain creationists. Find one and ask politely and properly. That means one question at a time and no assumed answers buried in your questions.

 

[juvenissun]

Think of it as "momentum". If there is no reason for them to change they will tend to continue on. But without the guidance of natural selection they will vary. That can be seen with genes that are turned "off". They vary much more than active genes since a mutation in an active gene is usually, but not always, deleterious.

It has been said. If what you said is true, then nearly every animal should have quite a few vestigial organs that refused to go away. I just don't see this feature in the field of biology. I know there are (only) a few examples of suspected vestigial organs here and there. But they are all uncertain and are debatable. From the example of human appendix, I simply can not trust the current explanations on those few examples. That is why I like to listen to a biologist who knows what he is talking about on this matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has been said. If what you said is true, then nearly every animal should have quite a few vestigial organs that refused to go away.

That is a terribly poor interpretation of what I said.

I just don't see this feature in the field of biology. I know there are (only) a few examples of suspected vestigial organs here and there. But they are all uncertain and are debatable. From the example of human appendix, I simply can not trust the current explanations on those few examples. That is why I like to listen to a biologist who knows what he is talking about on this matter.

There are probably far more than you are aware of. Many organs that we have now could be said to be repurposed vestigial organs. Our lungs are repurposed swim bladders. Our ears are repurposed jaw bones. And how are they uncertain? Your inability to understand evolution does not make something uncertain.

 

[MissRowy]

Our appendix is a vestigial organ.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Our appendix is a vestigial organ.

With a developing secondary characteristic. Some creationists have wrongly implied or stated that vestigial means useless, and that was never the claim. It is a bit of a strawman on their part. Many organs have more than one function. If the primary function is no longer needed the secondary function may develop. In fish the swim bladder is a minor supplier of oxygen to the system. For very shallow water fish it was no longer needed in its original function so lungs arose from that. We still see lungfish today.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

New functions developed (evolved) to deal with new environmental pressure. When the pressure disappeared due to continuous environmental change, why should those function still exist?

Do you understand what the word "repurposed" means, especially in context of functionality of a thing?

Because it sounds like you don't.

It would definitely become a burden to the life form.

No. Just like goosebumps or appendix aren't burdens on your life.
Well... unless your appendix explodes off course.

Unfortunately I am not a biologist

I just wonder, there ARE some evolution biologists in this forum. How come all of them are so quiet.

Probably for the same reason that a geographer doesn't engage a flat-earther or an embryologist doesn't engage a stork theorist.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

...Unfortunately I am not a biologist ... I just wonder, there ARE some evolution biologists in this forum. How come all of them are so quiet.

Are there any Evolutionary Biologists reading this thread? What would you ask one if there was one reading this discussion?

 

[mark kennedy]

False.

Darwin was still a Christian at the point where he wrote The Origin of Species.

Darwin was never a Christian.

 

[Jimmy D]

Darwin was never a Christian.

Who knows and who cares?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Darwin was never a Christian.

False. From his Wiki page:
"Both families were largely Unitarian, though the Wedgwoods were adopting Anglicanism. Robert Darwin, himself quietly a freethinker, had baby Charles baptised in November 1809 in the Anglican St Chad's Church, Shrewsbury, but Charles and his siblings attended the Unitarian chapel with their mother."

 

[juvenissun]

Are there any Evolutionary Biologists reading this thread? What would you ask one if there was one reading this discussion?

A lot of details.

 

[Jimmy D]

A lot of details.

Don't be coy.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

A lot of details.

Give us one, please.

 

[Loudmouth]

It has been said. If what you said is true, then nearly every animal should have quite a few vestigial organs that refused to go away.

There probably are a lot of animal species with at least on vestigial organs. We already know that every animal genome is going to contain pseudogenes which are the molecular equivalent of vestigial organs.

An example of a vestial organ in another animal species is the dew claws on dogs. Some whales have a vestigial pelvis. All apes are going to have a vestigial tailbone. I am sure I can find more if you want. Darwin listed a few as well:

For instance, rudimentary mammae are very general in the males of mammals: I presume that the `bastard-wing' in birds may be safely considered as a digit in a rudimentary state: in very many snakes one lobe of the lungs is rudimentary; in other snakes there are rudiments of the pelvis and hind limbs. Some of the cases of rudimentary organs are extremely curious; for instance, the presence of teeth in foetal whales, which when grown up have not a tooth in their heads; and the presence of teeth, which never cut through the gums, in the upper jaws of our unborn calves. It has even been stated on good authority that rudiments of teeth can be detected in the beaks of certain embryonic birds. Nothing can be plainer than that wings are formed for flight, yet in how many insects do we see wings so reduced in size as to be utterly incapable of flight, and not rarely lying under wing-cases, firmly soldered together!
--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"​