Question for Evolutionists

[anyathesword]

You are so sure about your Theory of Evolution.

But is there anything about the Theory that makes you think twice or make you think, that doesn't make sense? What is it and why?

And what are the weakest parts of the Theory?

 

[Dizredux]

You are so sure about your Theory of Evolution.

But is there anything about the Theory that makes you think twice or make you think, that doesn't make sense? What is it and why?

And what are the weakest parts of the Theory?

Interesting questions.

I will give it a stab

Since Evolution is one of if not the most well supported theory in science, there is little that is in doubt in the overall sense but there are a lot of questions in some of the specific details.

Both of these questions, at least to me, relate a lot to genetics. Genetics is both the strongest and the weakest evidence for evolution. By strongest, the twin nested hierarchies along with other evidence, leaves little doubt about the overall strength of the TOE as it is currently understood. By weakest, our knowledge of genetics is in a very formative stage. I suspect epigenetics, for example, will change the evolutionary picture a lot in the coming decades.

Using epigenetics as an example, this is a fairly new field in genetics has made a lot of changes in discovering how evolution works and we are just barely scratching at the surface. Time was that we thought Lamarkian evolution had no part in evolution and was quite satisfactorily falsified. Now with epigenetics, we find that there are some processes that are somewhat Lamarkian in that that changes due to environmental experiences can be passed on (DNA is not changed here). They currently seem to be rare and not long lasting but they do happen. At first, I did not think epigenetics made sense but since I have done some reading on the subject, I find myself having to say "Mmm, that works!"

I have no doubt that other equally exciting fields will be discovered in the future which will change, perhaps greatly, how we look at the evolutionary process.

So the current TOE is likely the strongest theory in science as it may well be the most understood and most supported theory there currently is.

The weakest part is what we don't know yet. That is where so many changes will be made in the theory in the future and some of them will, I suspect be profound. That however is not a flaw, that is where the excitement and adventure is.

Before anyone brings up gravity. We know how evolution works, we don't know how gravity does which in some sense makes the TOE the stronger theory.

Dizredux

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You are so sure about your Theory of Evolution.

But is there anything about the Theory that makes you think twice or make you think, that doesn't make sense? What is it and why?

And what are the weakest parts of the Theory?

Convergent evolution always leaves me flummoxed. It seems just too improbable that both Europe, America, and Australia would evolve things that look nearly identical to each other.

The hydrodynamic form of cetaceans, ichthysaurs, and sharks, I can see why that's the only optimal form:

But these?!

 

[anyathesword]

Convergent evolution always leaves me flummoxed. It seems just too improbable that both Europe, America, and Australia would evolve things that look nearly identical to each other.

The hydrodynamic form of cetaceans, ichthysaurs, and sharks, I can see why that's the only optimal form:

But these?!

That's a good point! I like your pictures by the way. Now how could that happen?

 

[lifepsyop]

That's a good point! I like your pictures by the way. Now how could that happen?

Same answer as you'll get to practically everything else: Natural Selection did it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's a good point! I like your pictures by the way. Now how could that happen?

Only one optimal form exists in a given niche - dolphins and sharks look the same because they are both medium-sized predators in the sea, so their shape is optimised to do the same thing.

As well, there's probably some kind of selection bias: there are thousands of species in Australia and thousands in Europe; there is a good chance that some will just so happen to fall into the same niche and thereby optimise in the same way.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's a good point! I like your pictures by the way. Now how could that happen?

If similar or near identical environments exist, it stands to reason that the same basic traits would be advantageous in each, so even when they are separated by an ocean, animals will develop similar mechanisms and adaptations because those are the ones that increase the chances of surviving to reproduce. Think about it, if being the color of sand is advantageous in a desert (which it generally is), then it would stand to reason that you would find quite a few animals that were the color of sand in any given desert, even though those deserts are separated by distance.

 

[poikilotherm]

Convergent evolution always leaves me flummoxed. It seems just too improbable that both Europe, America, and Australia would evolve things that look nearly identical to each other.

The hydrodynamic form of cetaceans, ichthysaurs, and sharks, I can see why that's the only optimal form:

But these?!

If we take the example of dolphins and sharks, the similarities are superficial. They are fundamentally different in many of their basic life functions in that their breathing , swimming and reproductive systems are very differently as is their skeletal structure. The similarities are what you would expect of species that exist in the same medium and have similar diets; they bear all the hallmarks of similar natural selection pressures acting on very different species.

 

[Armoured]

And what are the weakest parts of the Theory?

Metamorphosis.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Metamorphosis.

No it's not, that is not a weakness or a strength.

 

[Armoured]

No it's not, that is not a weakness or a strength.

If you're aware of an plausible explanation that accounts for metamorphosis within evolutionary theory, be my guest...?

 

[PsychoSarah]

If you're aware of an plausible explanation that accounts for metamorphosis within evolutionary theory, be my guest...?

Oh absolutely, after all, metamorphosis is just like going through puberty at the extreme. Humans develop traits that they didn't have as children when they become capable of reproduction, such as breasts, facial hair, pubic hair, etc.

 

[Armoured]

Oh absolutely, after all, metamorphosis is just like going through puberty at the extreme. Humans develop traits that they didn't have as children when they become capable of reproduction, such as breasts, facial hair, pubic hair, etc.

Now explain caterpillars?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Now explain caterpillars?

In that kind of metamorphosis, creatures are put into a state similar to being in the womb. A human embryo hardly looks human and might not even have all the appendages of a human or even might have something extra, but those differences are removed over time with further development. A caterpillar before metamorphosis is kinda like that human embryo, not really a butterfly, but with enough time in a cocoon it will develop into one.

 

[Armoured]

In that kind of metamorphosis, creatures are put into a state similar to being in the womb. A human embryo hardly looks human and might not even have all the appendages of a human or even might have something extra, but those differences are removed over time with further development. A caterpillar before metamorphosis is kinda like that human embryo, not really a butterfly, but with enough time in a cocoon it will develop into one.

I understand what metamorphosis is. What isn't understood is how such a system evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now explain caterpillars?

It is a bit difficult since there is very little fossil evidence, but here you go:



How Did Insect Metamorphosis Evolve? - Scientific American

Complete metamorphosis likely evolved out of incomplete metamorphosis. The oldest fossilized insects developed much like modern ametabolous and hemimetabolous insects—their young looked like adults. Fossils dating to 280 million years ago, however, record the emergence of a different developmental process. Around this time, some insects began to hatch from their eggs not as minuscule adults, but as wormlike critters with plump bodies and many tiny legs. In Illinois, for example, paleontologists unearthed a young insect that looks like a cross between a caterpillar and a cricket, with long hairs coating its body. It lived in a tropical environment and likely rummaged through leaf litter for food.

 

[Armoured]

It is a bit difficult since there is very little fossil evidence, but here you go:



How Did Insect Metamorphosis Evolve? - Scientific American

Doesn't really explain HOW it would evolve, though, right? I'm loath to invoke anything that sounds like irreducible complexity, but under what circumstances can you imagine a creature starting to do anything that remotely resembles metamorphosis that confers an evolutionary advantage? This isn't just me talking, you understand? Most serious evolutionary biologists acknowledge that it's difficult to explain. No one's saying it can't be explained, lets be quite clear, but no one has managed to do so yet.

Re: the OP, as the TOE stands at the moment, metamorphosis is a weak point. That's not to say it won't be explained eventually, but it hasn't been explained yet.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Doesn't really explain HOW it would evolve, though, right? I'm loath to invoke anything that sounds like irreducible complexity, but under what circumstances can you imagine a creature starting to do anything that remotely resembles metamorphosis that confers an evolutionary advantage? This isn't just me talking, you understand? Most serious evolutionary biologists acknowledge that it's difficult to explain. No one's saying it can't be explained, lets be quite clear, but no one has managed to do so yet.

Re: the OP, as the TOE stands at the moment, metamorphosis is a weak point. That's not to say it won't be explained eventually, but it hasn't been explained yet.

There are explanations for it, just none that are clearly the most probable.

 

[Armoured]

There are explanations for it, just none that are clearly the most probable.

OK, fine. That still makes it a weak point.

 

[PsychoSarah]

OK, fine. That still makes it a weak point.

There are much worse weaknesses than that.