Nope. It produces stuff that is good enough.
Please provide a list of species which are perfectly optimal for their environment. I doubt you can find a single example that couldn't be improved in some way.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But a naturalistic view assumes that the optimal is found by evolution.
Therefore we should find and see way more non optimal results in the fossil records and around today.
dolphins!
Huh? What are you trying to say?I can't see many that little non optimal results today. Just look at the human eyes (you should do that anyway).
What about them? If you're saying that they are perfect, you're ignoring a lot of actual reality which says otherwise : https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=genetic+diseases+in+dolphins
But the idea was not that they were/are perfect, but perfectly adapted to their environment...so which of the 10 or 20 articles your link leads to makes YOUR point...be specific please
Paul
Does it really matter? Pick any one and ask yourself if the species would do better or worse if they didn't suffer from the disease discussed in the paper. Seems pretty obvious that the claim that evolution is supposed to produce perfection isn't really grounded in reality.
Way too vague my friend, getting diseases has nothing to do with whether or not an organism is "perfectly adapted" (again an opinion based generality) to their environment.
How does one determine that an organism is 'perfectly adapted' to its environment?...the idea was not that they were/are perfect, but perfectly adapted to their environment...
Way too vague my friend, getting diseases has nothing to do with whether or not an organism is "perfectly adapted" (again an opinion based generality) to their environment. I read the first two and neither addressed the question at hand (so why would I waste my time reading the other 20 which apparently YOU yourself have not)
An imperfect organism (one that has propensities to that which eventually could end its bios life processes) can be perfectly adapted to THE ENVIRONMENT...take Nautilus for another example....not perfect, some even demonstrate slight deformation, but if placed in a different ENVIRONMENT would soon perish...now this is not the case for highly adaptive organisms, for these there can be a degree of variation in environments.
Again a Dolphin is a fine example...they can exist in fresh even chlorinated water (but not optimally) but they could never exist on land.
This is rather contradictory; what we already find in nature is the evidence, and scientific theories are built to explain the evidence. This means making the theory fit the observables. If the observable evidence contradicts the theory, you change the theory or find a new theory. That's how science works. It's not a sharpshooter fallacy because it is explanatory - it must explain why the 'bullet holes' appear where they do, and predict where others will and will not be found.Because the evidence doesn't show this. Evolution makes a theory out of what they already find in nature and then assume the conclusions or as you say build the target around the bulls eye. IE try to fit make the theory suit the observable end results.
Sometimes there is a hedging:The creatures that aren't good enough generally die without reproducing. The vast majority of the offspring of most creatures die without reproducing anyway; it's a cruel world out there.
Yes, diseases like sickle cell trait and thalassemia emphasise how dynamic fitness can be - the selective advantage varies according to the density of malarial mosquitos (e.g. geographically and seasonally). Mutations on recessive alleles are another complication... But these are the finer details of the whole picture.Three different outcomes from Survival of the Fittest. Maybe we should be referring to it as Survival of the Better Adapted depending on which Monkey Wrench nature decides to throw into the mix at any given point in time).
What do you mean by good enough. Is our DNA just good enough. Is a heart or liver just good enough. Are clouds just good enough. Good enough in these terms may be exceptional in any other terms.Nope. It produces stuff that is good enough.
Of course but they are optimal for where they are at. Otherwise they wouldn't survive. But thats not the point. The point is whether they are not optimal or they are there should be less optimal stages everywhere leading up to where they are at. But not the big jumps that evolution uses like a Dino to bird. There should be 100 stages in between that. Because no Dino is going to pop out a bird with the optimal features a bird has today. Its not just about the wings. there are 100s of smaller changes that need to happen to become a bird. But we dont see these in the fossil records. All we get is a couple of examples that have fully formed features.Please provide a list of species which are perfectly optimal for their environment. I doubt you can find a single example that couldn't be improved in some way.
Surely it's easy to demonstrate how dolphins could be better adapted for their environment?
What do you mean by good enough.
Is our DNA just good enough.
Of course but they are optimal for where they are at. Otherwise they wouldn't survive.
The point is whether they are not optimal or they are there should be less optimal stages everywhere leading up to where they are at.
But not the big jumps that evolution uses like a Dino to bird. There should be 100 stages in between that.
Because no Dino is going to pop out a bird with the optimal features a bird has today.
Its not just about the wings. there are 100s of smaller changes that need to happen to become a bird.
But we dont see these in the fossil records. All we get is a couple of examples that have fully formed features.
But Don't you think that evolution has had some contradictory things come up which would normally change the theory or even prove it wrong. yet somehow it either side steps these or comes up with a new explanation as to why it doesn't contradict the theory. Its like how people say religion works in some ways. There have been many fossil finds that have contradicted the theory and predictions. If a fossil is found out of place it is made into a new species. Even if it looks exactly the same as one in a completely different layer it is still made into another species. By doing this they can never by proven wrong. I remember reading something about what Dawkins said about what would prove evolution wrong. he said if we found a Cambrian rabbit type fossil. Well we have and still somehow he now claims it can be justified.This is rather contradictory; what we already find in nature is the evidence, and scientific theories are built to explain the evidence. This means making the theory fit the observables. If the observable evidence contradicts the theory, you change the theory or find a new theory. That's how science works. It's not a sharpshooter fallacy because it is explanatory - it must explain why the 'bullet holes' appear where they do, and predict where others will and will not be found
Yes natural selection. Natural selection weeds out the deformed and less optimal ones. But if they weed them out they should still be around in the fossil records. The fact is random mutations happen first and then natural selection comes in. So mutations will still throw up the wrong features that need to be dealt with. Even when it throws up a beneficial feature there is no reason why that creature with the beneficial feature doesn't then get a mutation that is non beneficial and that counteracts all the benefits. Mutations dont work alone. they works with other mutations and the evidence shows that epistasis will end up having a fitness cost.Oh, and the reason we don't see lots of deformed and useless creatures around? Natural Selection. Maybe if they'd called it 'Natural Elimination', you might find it easier to grasp. The creatures that aren't good enough generally die without reproducing. The vast majority of the offspring of most creatures die without reproducing anyway; it's a cruel world out there.
I find this a bit ambiguous. I know evolution likes to make out everything is not a great as we think. This was said with stuff like junk DNA and vestigial organs ect. But to me something that can reproduce is very complex and optimal whether its a micro organism or more complex life.Good enough to successfully pass their genes on to their offspring.
No well I was responding to when you said all life isn't optimal. I though our DNA is optimal and that is in all creatures.Sure. Why do yo ask?
What I mean is not every creature is going to be the same. But a worm is a worm and that has everything it needs to function as a worm. A fly is a fly and it has all it needs to function perfectly as a fly. So even though these things are not as optimal in their make up as a human in that we can do a lot more each is still optimal for what they have to do to live. If they live they are optimal.That's not what optimal means.
But how do you tell if that variation isn't just the normal variation within the same species. An example I have used is the skulls of Dmanisi. These skulls suggest that half a dozen species of humanoids are actually the same species. What was once though to be transitional features between species is now seen as the normal variation of the same species. In this case being Homo erectus. Evolution does this a lot. They find a fossil out of place and even though it may look exactly like another fossil in a different layer they make it a new species based just on observation and assumption. The assumption is that because it cant be the same species or a variation of the same species because it was found in the wrong layer. So the dirt it was found in becomes the main weight for evidence.Yep, there's all sorts of variation even in existing modern species. Looking back through the fossil and genetic record we find even more. The pattern of that variation is one of the major lines of evidence for the theory of evolution.
I just think if you get for example the whale. Now from the land animal Pakicetus to the whale. They show about 8 or so stages from a tint dog sized animal to a massive whale. If you just take the size factor into consideration and nothing else how many stages do you think it would take to get from one to the other. Considering that the mother cant have a much bigger baby because of the size of its womb there should be many stages, maybe 100. We are talking about 4 feet long to over 100 feet long. Even if you give a foot at a time its still growing pretty fast compared to say humans. But size is easy to evolve. When it comes to some of the complicated changes needed structurally and internally it would need 100s of stages. Thats unless a mutation is able to say make a totally new skin or fins in one go. So we should see all these stages somewhere for every single animals that has ever lived.Let's see your math showing exactly how many remains of intermediate species we should find. I'm not going to take your word that we are finding more or fewer examples than we should be.
Modern bird features for birds are optimal. But the creatures they say they evolved from being Dino's and more specific theropods dont have the optimal features of birds. In fact they have to do some internal gymnastics to get the bird type lungs and respiratory system, wings, muscles, tendons, ligaments, brain circuitry, nerve systems, circulation system including from cold blooded creatures to warm blooded ones. The evidence shows that they dont have or that any transitional has the bird like structures to show that they evolved into birds. Evolution pulls out a few similarities but that is no where near what is needed. there are similarities with all creatures if you look for them. We all need some things similar because we occupy the same place more or less.Modern bird features aren't optimal, so I have no idea what your point is. And a bird popping up fully formed is what creationism would predict, so it not happening isn't a failure for evolutionary theory.
Not really in fact there is evidence that modern birds were around with dinos.Yes, modern birds have various features that older extinct species don't have. That's more good evidence of evolution in action.
Well unless something like a wing or a fin could have formed in one go then it cant be fully formed. A wind for example would need many stages to get to a fully working wing that allows bird flight. Does a dino pop out a baby with complete wings or does it take many generations to get to that point with random mutations and natural selection. Though I can see how natural selection would choose a partly formed wing on its way to a wing. But wings are just the external features. what more difficult to believe is evolution building all the internal things needed in a step wise process. I mean how do you make a bird respiratory system bit by bit. You have to even restructure bones, lose the diaphragm, change the lung structure and mechanism. You cant do that a bit at a time. thats unless random mutations can pop out a complete set of bird lungs in one go. Now that would be a mighty mutation.[/quote][/QUOTE]What's a "fully formed feature"? Sounds like you're using it to mean "a feature identical to one found in modern species", but then all you're saying is that older species aren't the same as current ones. Which is basically just saying that different species are different. Did you mean to say anything more substantial?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?