“Common sense” question for an evolutionist

[Polymath257]

My own answer.. “outright impossible.”
Why? I can’t see a human mother birthing a child that...
a) can fly, or
b) possesses the minute beginnings of characteristics for flight.

Anyone happen to find agreement with this basic reasoning?

The problem is that to get to a flying descendant, a *population* of humans would first, over many generations, decrease in size (no flight for creatures our size: we'd need too long of a wingspan).

THEN, that population would probably have to either become arborial or live on cliffs.

THEN, perhaps the mutations towads flight could be selected for.

So, the misunderstandings in the OP:

1. Evolution happens in populations, not individuals.
2. Evolution doens't happen in a single generation.
3. Flight for creatures our current size isn't practical because of physical considerations.
$. Evolution happens in an environment and is directed towards survival in that environment (adaptation is the first step).

 

[Jumi]

Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“Human beings have the capability to someday fly."

I think this shows a rather complete ignorance of what evolutionary theory is about.

What would you say... is this statement worthy of any consideration?

As worthy as any speculation that we can't get an answer to in our lifetimes.

Is the human species capable of giving rise to a flying descendant, or is this idea outright impossible?

In a short period of time unlikely through natural selection. It would need to be something that first survives with a thin bone structure. So there would need to be multiple steps.

As to artificial manipulation... who knows what the future holds in store, genetics is still a young science with many things illegal, including curing children of heritary diseases that they wouldn't have to live a life of pain and lack of energy. Humans are at this moment seen as "sacred", with all the good and evil that comes from that.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Human beings as we know the species today? Impossible. Human beings being mutated into bird like creatures through genetic engineering? Possible but unlikely given the size of the human brain.

The odds of this happening are so low that I would say "not worthy of any consideration" outside of fiction.

Is the following statement logical or is it illogical…?

“Human beings have the capability to someday fly."

What would you say... is this statement worthy of any consideration? Is the human species capable of giving rise to a flying descendant, or is this idea outright impossible?

The problem is that to get to a flying descendant, a *population* of humans would first, over many generations, decrease in size (no flight for creatures our size: we'd need too long of a wingspan).

THEN, that population would probably have to either become arborial or live on cliffs.

THEN, perhaps the mutations towads flight could be selected for.

So, the misunderstandings in the OP:

1. Evolution happens in populations, not individuals.
2. Evolution doens't happen in a single generation.
3. Flight for creatures our current size isn't practical because of physical considerations.
$. Evolution happens in an environment and is directed towards survival in that environment (adaptation is the first step).

That's interesting, so massive Dinosaurs can easily shrink & grow wings and take off through accidental mutations..., but it's clearly impossible for humans? c'mon It's not so hard, you just need a few artistic impressions of a few transitions, and it's 'undeniable'!

 

[Polymath257]

That's interesting, so massive Dinosaurs can easily shrink & grow wings and take off through accidental mutations..., but it's clearly impossible for humans? c'mon It's not so hard, you just need a few artistic impressions of a few transitions, and it's 'undeniable'!

No, the *massive* dinosaurs did not shrink and grow wings. The *smaller* dinosaurs (turkey sized and smaller) were the ones that grew wings. Not all (not even most) dinosaurs were large.

 

[columbus]

That's interesting, so massive Dinosaurs can easily shrink & grow wings and take off through accidental mutations..., but it's clearly impossible for humans? c'mon It's not so hard, you just need a few artistic impressions of a few transitions, and it's 'undeniable'!

No, a cataclysmic event killed off the vast majority of dinosaurs and the small, tenacious, survivors developed new strategies or died off as well.

It happened, but not easily. And not quickly, from a human perspective. It took longer than the human species has even existed, much less been sapient.
Tom

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, the *massive* dinosaurs did not shrink and grow wings. The *smaller* dinosaurs (turkey sized and smaller) were the ones that grew wings. Not all (not even most) dinosaurs were large.

No, a cataclysmic event killed off the vast majority of dinosaurs and the small, tenacious, survivors developed new strategies or died off as well.

It happened, but not easily. And not quickly, from a human perspective. It took longer than the human species has even existed, much less been sapient.
Tom

ahh, so this is all cobblers then?

Dinosaurs 'shrank' regularly to become birds
Dinosaurs 'shrank' to become birds
bbc.co.uk/nature/28563682

WASHINGTON – Scientists have mapped how a group of fearsome, massive dinosaurs evolved and shrank to the likes of robins and hummingbirds.

The first theropods were large, weighing around 600 pounds. They roamed about 220 million to 230 million years ago. Then about 200 million years ago, when some of the creatures weighed about 360 pounds, the shrinking became faster and more prolonged, the study said. In just 25 million years, the beasts were slimmed down to barely 100 pounds. By 167 million years ago, 6-pound paravians, more direct ancestor of birds, were around.

 

[columbus]

ahh, so this is all cobblers then?

No, only that life can evolve quite a bit, over the course of 50 million years or so.

Ever seen anything about the midget sorts of creatures that evolved on small islands, without the space or resources of the mainland? It's interesting. And didn't require anything like 50 million years.
Tom

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, only that life can evolve quite a bit, over the course of 50 million years or so.

Ever seen anything about the midget sorts of creatures that evolved on small islands, without the space or resources of the mainland? It's interesting. And didn't require anything like 50 million years.
Tom

no?

a cataclysmic event killed off the vast majority of dinosaurs and the small, tenacious, survivors developed new strategies.

or

WASHINGTON – Scientists have mapped how a group of fearsome, massive dinosaurs evolved and shrank to the likes of robins and hummingbirds.


which is it?

 

[columbus]

no?



or

WASHINGTON – Scientists have mapped how a group of fearsome, massive dinosaurs evolved and shrank to the likes of robins and hummingbirds.


which is it?

They are not mutually exclusive descriptions. Both are part of a long and complex chain of events.
Tom

 

[Guy Threepwood]

They are not mutually exclusive descriptions. Both are part of a long and complex chain of events.
Tom

all right,,,,

so now you are saying that massive Dinosaurs can shrink & grow wings ? - you just disagreed with this a couple of posts ago...

 

[Jumi]

I think common creationists haven't any interest in evolution theory, that's why they can't look at the theory but rely on what they believe is common sense.

 

[Jumi]

That's interesting, so massive Dinosaurs can easily shrink & grow wings and take off through accidental mutations..., but it's clearly impossible for humans? c'mon It's not so hard, you just need a few artistic impressions of a few transitions, and it's 'undeniable'!

I'm a bit surprised at this, don't they teach what evolution theory is about in school?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm a bit surprised at this, don't they teach what evolution theory is about in school?

yes, with lots of artistic impressions..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think common creationists haven't any interest in evolution theory, that's why they can't look at the theory but rely on what they believe is common sense.

Common sense told creationists that the universe began in a creation event, not static/eternal as atheist academics preferred

credit where it's due!

 

[columbus]

all right,,,,

so now you are saying that massive Dinosaurs can shrink & grow wings ? - you just disagreed with this description a couple of posts ago...

I didn't really disagree with it, I was pointing out that the process was neither easy nor quick.
Who knows what would now be roaming the Earth were it not for the cataclysmic asteroid strike that was later than what you what you are talking about.
Tom

 

[Crossboard]

The problem is that to get to a flying descendant, a *population* of humans would first, over many generations, decrease in size (no flight for creatures our size: we'd need too long of a wingspan).

THEN, that population would probably have to either become arborial or live on cliffs.

THEN, perhaps the mutations towads flight could be selected for.

So, the misunderstandings in the OP:

1. Evolution happens in populations, not individuals.
2. Evolution doens't happen in a single generation.
3. Flight for creatures our current size isn't practical because of physical considerations.
$. Evolution happens in an environment and is directed towards survival in that environment (adaptation is the first step).

Re: 1 - If evolution occurs at all, it must begin with an individual, right? Or if not, how large of a population simultaneously gives birth to offspring, each of which possess the very same minuscule modification?

Re: #2 - Obviously complete transformations don’t occur in one generation. But single generations must produce change, correct?

Re: #4 - Does an ear of corn fall under this “survival” statement?

 

[Polymath257]

Re: 1 - If evolution occurs at all, it must begin with an individual, right? Or if not, how large of a population simultaneously gives birth to offspring, each of which possess the very same minuscule modification?

No, a mutation occurs in an individual. Evolution happens in a population. It is a statistical changing of the average type of a population over many generations. The mutation has to spread in the population. It has to have survival advantage. A single dramatic mutation (a deformity) is very *unlikely* to be the basis of large scale evolution.

Re: #2 - Obviously complete transformations don’t occur in one generation. But single generations must produce change, correct?

But the change may be well below anything easily measurable. So, a change in the average of .01% per generation, taken over 10,000 generations will produce an overall change of around 273%. Very, very minor changes (say, a small amount of extra 'webbing' between fingers) can, if cumulative over many generations, produce very large overall effects.

Re: #4 - Does an ear of corn fall under this “survival” statement?

Yes, of course. The evolution of corn happened in an environment where humans were selecting those ears that provided more kernels and made sure they were the ones that produced the next generation.

 

[Crossboard]

No, a mutation occurs in an individual. Evolution happens in a population. It is a statistical changing of the average type of a population over many generations. The mutation has to spread in the population. It has to have survival advantage. A single dramatic mutation (a deformity) is very *unlikely* to be the basis of large scale evolution.



But the change may be well below anything easily measurable. So, a change in the average of .01% per generation, taken over 10,000 generations will produce an overall change of around 273%. Very, very minor changes (say, a small amount of extra 'webbing' between fingers) can, if cumulative over many generations, produce very large overall effects.



Yes, of course. The evolution of corn happened in an environment where humans were selecting those ears that provided more kernels and made sure they were the ones that produced the next generation.

Thank you! Just to clarify my “corn” statement... I was not talking about human beings developing a variety of corn. I’m talking about long before that. I’m thinking of that point in time when corn did not exist period.

Evolution tells us that some “simpler” plant must have given rise to corn, right? My question remains, did this simpler plant have such a need to survive, that corn became the solution?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Re: 1 - If evolution occurs at all, it must begin with an individual, right? Or if not, how large of a population simultaneously gives birth to offspring, each of which possess the very same minuscule modification?

Re: #2 - Obviously complete transformations don’t occur in one generation. But single generations must produce change, correct?

Re: #4 - Does an ear of corn fall under this “survival” statement?

Yes, survival of the fittest goes entirely without saying, arrival of the fittest is a much trickier question- which is why it is invariably glossed over to skip to the easy part

The chances of aquiring a new significantly advantageous design by sheer fluke mutation... not good

 

[Valjean]

That's interesting, so massive Dinosaurs can easily shrink & grow wings and take off through accidental mutations..., but it's clearly impossible for humans? c'mon It's not so hard, you just need a few artistic impressions of a few transitions, and it's 'undeniable'!

Dinosaurs massive? Not all mammals are whales, elephants or hippos. Not all dinosaurs were Brontosaurs or Tyrannosaurs. The dinosaurs, like the mammals, started small, and one of these small families of feathered dinos developed flight.