Evolution Chance Events?

[RazorX]

"Evolution, If you believe the current theory, then all the wonderful complexity of life is nothing but the accumulation of chance events-a bunch of genetic accidents strung together.  Yet when we look closely at animals, it appears as if many elements must have evolved simultaneously.  Take bats, which have echolocation-they navigate by sound.  To do that, many things must evolve.  Bats need a specialized apparatus to make sounds, they need specialized ears to hear echos, they need specialized brains to interpret the sounds, and they need specialized bodies to dive and swoop and catch insects.  If all these things don't evolve simultaneously, there's no advantage.  And to imagine all these things happen purely by chance is like imagining that a tornado can hit a junkyard and assemble the parts into a working 747 airplane.  It is very hard to believe." - a quote.

Heres another bone to chew on.

 

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Razor, that argument is older than you are and has been discreditied for just as long...

 

[Andrew]

Razor, that argument is older than you are and has been discreditied for just as long...

well let's see. Genesis was written thousands of years ago, so that wld make the discredition of evolution even longer.

 

[notto]

Today at 03:08 AM RazorX said this in Post #1 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=698427#post698427)

"Evolution, If you believe the current theory, then all the wonderful complexity of life is nothing but the accumulation of chance events-a bunch of genetic accidents strung together.  Yet when we look closely at animals, it appears as if many elements must have evolved simultaneously.  Take bats, which have echolocation-they navigate by sound.  To do that, many things must evolve.  Bats need a specialized apparatus to make sounds, they need specialized ears to hear echos, they need specialized brains to interpret the sounds, and they need specialized bodies to dive and swoop and catch insects.  If all these things don't evolve simultaneously, there's no advantage.  And to imagine all these things happen purely by chance is like imagining that a tornado can hit a junkyard and assemble the parts into a working 747 airplane.  It is very hard to believe." - a quote.

Heres another bone to chew on.

 

100 Blessings to who can name the fiction reference this quote comes from.

 

[RazorX]

Jurassic Park:Lost World .....

But still i would like to know your opinion on that quote

 

[notto]

Evolution does not rely on chance. Natural selection is not a random process. What aspect of bat biology is too complex to have evolved?

As a bat becomes more nocturnal (that's when its best food is out with the least amount of competition for the food), hearing becomes more important for catching food. Bats with better hearing get selected for. No echo location needed at this point. Bats make noise (as most animals do) and bats that can make a higher frequency noise that can be used in combination of hearing (higher frequence is more exact) get more bugs so they are selected for.

There is nothing that says these had to evolve simultaneously. A bat with no echo location could still find food, just not as much of it, and in competion they will not survive. As competition increases, the ability to find food is honed and become better and better.

This is a common theme of animal evolution, predators become better at hunting their food, prey becomes better at hiding from them (or producing more offspring).

There are no challenges or surprises to evolutionary theory related to bats.

If bats are designed, why do they have eyes or eye sockets at all?

 

[Glenn316]

Notto; If I read you correctly you believe that evolution is on going. If evolution is on going, then why do we not see examples of creatures everywhere with half evolved features?

 

[wblastyn]

platypus -- primitive mammal that lays eggs and has pelvic and pectoral girdle like a reptile -- these examples suggest that birds and mammals both evolved from reptilian ancestors.

From: http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/classes/bio100/Lectures/Lect13/lect13.html

 

[notto]

Today at 06:06 AM Glenn316 said this in Post #7 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=698678#post698678)

Notto; If I read you correctly you believe that evolution is on going. If evolution is on going, then why do we not see examples of creatures everywhere with half evolved features?

Because "half" evolved features is not what evolution predicts.

What type of features do you expect to see?

Some things that evolution does predict (that design might not) would be:
-Birds that can't fly (Ostriches, penguins)
-Cave animals that can't see (but have eyes and eye sockets)
-Apes (humans) with tails (this happens)
-Elephants without tusks (they are becoming tuskless due to selection of poachers affecting stock)
-Ongoing speciation of animals and plants
-Vestigal organs (organs that are used for something different than their original use in other animals or that have become "useless" over time as their use is selected against or neutrally selected for )
-New adaptations in a changing environment (colors change, food sources change)

Now, there are examples of underdeveloped features in critters that could show how they developed into more advanced features. Often in literature, these are referred to as "primitive" features such as "primitive eyes" .

Basically, animals who adapt to their environment and animals who adapt to fill in new niches when they open up. As animals become separated from the parent stock and become more isolated, their adaption takes them in different directions and they become different species because they do not exchange genes with the parent stock any longer. Evolution is on going.

There is no prediction for "half" evolved features, only existing features being slightly modified over time to adapt to the environment or a new mutation being selected for because it provides an advantage. Over time, this can lead to the development of new features (if a mutation provides it and it is selected for), enhancements of existing features (if a mutation provides it and it is selected for), or the supression of unneeded features (if a mutation provides it and it is selected for)

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Define "half evolved feature"

Would that be like the proto-wings found on many dinosaurs?
Would that be like the light sensitive spots found on many living organisms like flatworms, or the simple eyes found in many molluscs?
Would that be like the legs of the earliest tetrapods, which were not strong enough to work on dry land and could only be used for navigaing underwater through rocks and vegetation?
Would that be like the simple neural nets found in jellyfish?

 

[Ray Cho]

Yesterday at 10:08 PM RazorX said this in Post #1

Take bats, which have echolocation-they navigate by sound.  To do that, many things must evolve.  Bats need a specialized apparatus to make sounds, they need specialized ears to hear echos, they need specialized brains to interpret the sounds, and they need specialized bodies to dive and swoop and catch insects.  If all these things don't evolve simultaneously, there's no advantage.  
 

     It's rather ironic you chose the bat for your example of what might be called "irreducible complexity."  Richard Dawkins devotes an entire chapter (2) to the echolocation system of the bat in his book, The Blind Watchmaker (1996).  He presents a plausible explanation of how natural selection might have worked to produce such an incredibly well-adapted biologic system. 

     Now don't get me wrong: whatever the conclusions I draw from the scientific evidence for evolution, I COMPLETELY reject Dawkins' ultimate conclusion, that evolution eliminates any possibility of a Creator.  The determination of whether or not there is a God falls completely outside the bounds of legitimate science.  But if you would truly like to see whether there is a reasonable solution to the puzzle you presented to us, I would recommend his book to you.  There are many parts of it that I take issue with (particularly his philosophical and theological conclusions), but from a scientific standpoint, his defense of natural selection deserves serious consideration. 

 

[RazorX]

Thank you for your input everyone, i had just read through jurassic park and had found that quote (my first post) puzzling so i put it up to find out what you thought.
Thank you Ray Cho I will look into reading that book!