Question for a knowledgeable evolutionist

I'm an evolutionist. Out of the many unfortunate holes in the theory, there is one that stands out prominently to me:

The development of wings. What benefits can a primitive wing provide before it evolved enough to actually allow the organism to hover, glide, or fly?

Nature doesn't nessecarily select for the most suited?

The development of wings. What benefits can a primitive wing provide before it evolved enough to actually allow the organism to hover, glide, or fly?

Click to expand...

pointed stubs for defense, better maneuverability, better balance, etc... there's tons of possibilities.

who's wings are we talking about?
One flaw in the what good are wings without flight is that wings arn't just for flying. Winged animals use wings for lots of helpful things.

in birds wings seem to have origionally been used for display, temperature control for vulnerable eggs and young, manuvering while jumping/running/falling from heights. All things that wings are still used for.

In insects the wings are also used for temperature control, signaling, mating and so on.

Bats also use wings for temperature control as well as flight.

so in short the wing is a very useful thing to have, eaven if it can't get you off the ground at first. Flight seems to have been a secondary development in terms of wing evolution.

wa:do

Just out of interest, I believe that there is a seed (from a tree or a bush..........not sure) that has 'wings'; nature's way of making sure it doesn't grow too near to the parent.

painted wolf said:

who's wings are we talking about?
One flaw in the what good are wings without flight is that wings arn't just for flying. Winged animals use wings for lots of helpful things.

in birds wings seem to have origionally been used for display, temperature control for vulnerable eggs and young, manuvering while jumping/running/falling from heights. All things that wings are still used for.

In insects the wings are also used for temperature control, signaling, mating and so on.

Bats also use wings for temperature control as well as flight.

so in short the wing is a very useful thing to have, eaven if it can't get you off the ground at first. Flight seems to have been a secondary development in terms of wing evolution.

wa:do

Click to expand...

What she said.

Birds and bats wings are the modified forelimbs of their therapod and rodent ancestors respectively.
At first they would have been arms like any other therapod dinosaur or rodent. Tree dwelling individuals were selected for longer feathers or skin flaps which allowed them to jump from tree to tree with a small amount of gliding. This was simply developed upon over the generations.
They would never have been useless or a hinderance.

What 'other holes' are you talking about exactly, i can't really think of any?

finalfrogo said:

I'm an evolutionist. Out of the many unfortunate holes in the theory, there is one that stands out prominently to me:

Click to expand...

If youre going to make comments like that I suggest you list ALL the holes you think evolution has.. it has no flaws as far as I am aware..

The development of wings. What benefits can a primitive wing provide before it evolved enough to actually allow the organism to hover, glide, or fly?

Click to expand...

This is the old 'whats the use of a bird with half a wing' argument.

The problem is youre approaching the problem sideways. Wings dont just develop through evolution from nothing. There has never been a species of bird with half a wing! Wings are simply a transformation of a limb. For example there are lizards in the rain forests which dont fly as such, but they jump from trees and use the webbing under their arms to allow them to glide. With adjustments to the skeletal structure and an increased area of webbed skin we get closer and closer to a wing (plus of course the formation of feathers at some stage).

michel said:

Just out of interest, I believe that there is a seed (from a tree or a bush..........not sure) that has 'wings'; nature's way of making sure it doesn't grow too near to the parent.

Click to expand...

Maples have wings, sort of.
More trees, though, create edible seeds that are picked up by various animals and buried or pooped out far from the parent tree.

Hmm, I assume for balance. Blunt stubs for battle, stubs for defence?

Michel, is it the sycamore seed that spins like a propeller?

Natural selection through the chance favorable mutation is the natural force by which species evolve but, in my opinion, it's not the only game in town. It is only the basic control.

Once you get life forms that have advanced to a certain degree, like humans, there needs to be a guiding hand. It may very well be programmed into our DNA to evolve in a specific direction.

Super Universe said:

Once you get life forms that have advanced to a certain degree, like humans, there needs to be a guiding hand. It may very well be programmed into our DNA to evolve in a specific direction.

Click to expand...

That's an odd notion, SU. I don't understand how you came to this conclusion.
Explain?

You use the term "advanced." Advancement is a principle foreign to evolution theory, which posits only adaptation as a developmental pattern.

Super Universe said:

Once you get life forms that have advanced to a certain degree, like humans, there needs to be a guiding hand. It may very well be programmed into our DNA to evolve in a specific direction.

Click to expand...

hmmm, not so sure I'm with you on this one. What guiding hand could you be refering to? What other life forms besides humans would you classify as advanced?

Mutation is the only way to get new genes into a life form (excluding bacteria's ability to swap genes). The overwhelming majority of mutations, over 90%, are bad for a particular species. Science says that this 1 favorable mutation out of 10 is responsible for evolution of all species over time.

But what does the first Homo-sapien mate with? There has to be two around at the same time and not just two but at least a male and a female of breeding age.

There is a scientific concept called Punctuated Equilibrium. It seems that certain species slowly evolve to a point and then there is a sudden evolution of the whole. The entire species evolves in the exact same manner in one quick swoop.

When I said that there may be a guiding hand of God involved, I meant that it's in our DNA to become human and evolve in a certain direction. I don't think natural selection really has a choice which way it goes for us.

Mutation is the only way to get new genes into a life form (excluding bacteria's ability to swap genes). The overwhelming majority of mutations, over 90%, are bad for a particular species. Science says that this 1 favorable mutation out of 10 is responsible for evolution of all species over time.

Click to expand...

The vast majority of mutations are neutral. I won't be so bold as to make up stats though. For the rest of them whether they are harmful or beneficial usually depends on the enviroment in which they arise.

But what does the first Homo-sapien mate with? There has to be two around at the same time and not just two but at least a male and a female.

Click to expand...

Ther was no first Homo sapien. Individuals don't evolve; populations do. It's not as if two individuals of an ancestral species mated and behold a Homo sapien was born. Over time the ancestral species evolved and at some point they were no longer the ancestral species, but Homo sapien. And that line is largely arbitrary.

There is a scientific concept called Punctuated Equilibrium. It seems that certain species slowly evolve to a point and then there is a sudden evolution of the whole. The entire species evolves in the exact same manner in one quick swoop.

Click to expand...

That's not what puncutated equilibrium is. Puncuated equilibrium involves the isolation of a small population of a species from the larger population, where they evolve as an adaptation to a specific enviromental niche. These new species appear "suddenly" (I put suddenly in quotes because we are talking about geologic time scales) because of the rareness of fossilization. Entire species don't evolve this way. Rather the theory proposes that a small population of the species evolves isolated from the rest of species. There's no reason to think that the rest of the species doesn't still exists, though to be sure it is evolving too.

When I said that there may be a guiding hand of God involved, I meant that it's in our DNA to become human and evolve in a certain direction. I don't think natural selection really has a choice which way it goes for us.

Click to expand...

What direction would that be? Natural selection never has a choice. It's not a sentient being. Traits are selected based on their advantage in the environment the species exists in. There's no controlling force.

Anne

zabugle said:

There's no controlling force.

Anne

Click to expand...

Prove it.

Don't you know you can't prove a negative. Natural selection works perfectly well without the need for a controlling force. There's no reason to assume that there is one. I'm afraid you're the one that's going to have to prove that there is one.

Sure you can. My checking account is now in the negative and the bank just proved it by charging me a fine.

If I don't have the money to pay the check that I wrote how am I going to pay the fine?

Anyway, the proof is in the pudding.

Super Universe said:

Mutation is the only way to get new genes into a life form (excluding bacteria's ability to swap genes). The overwhelming majority of mutations, over 90%, are bad for a particular species. Science says that this 1 favorable mutation out of 10 is responsible for evolution of all species over time.

But what does the first Homo-sapien mate with? There has to be two around at the same time and not just two but at least a male and a female of breeding age.

There is a scientific concept called Punctuated Equilibrium. It seems that certain species slowly evolve to a point and then there is a sudden evolution of the whole. The entire species evolves in the exact same manner in one quick swoop.

When I said that there may be a guiding hand of God involved, I meant that it's in our DNA to become human and evolve in a certain direction. I don't think natural selection really has a choice which way it goes for us.

Click to expand...

I know your belief in this comes from the Urantia Book. But i can tell you it is wrong.

For a start life didn't begin 600,000,000 years ago as stated in the Book, it began 3.5 billion years ago and we have fossilised bacteria to prove it.

Also the book states that mammals "suddenly sprang" from therapod like reptiles. This also isn't true as we have the 'missing links' that prove otherwise, that the Urantia Book claims we will never find. We have mammal-like reptile fossils from before the age of the dinosaurs. We also have reptile-like mammals living today in the form of the monotremes.

None of my above claims come from the Urantia Book. They come from trying to remember what I was taught in my college classes fifteen years ago.

Mutation IS the only way to get NEW genes into a life form.

Punctuated Equilibrium is a scientific concept. It's not from the Urantia Book. Anne's description of it sounds more correct than mine.

Finally, no one can prove or disprove that our evolution is guided so I suppose it's just another one of those faith things...

Also don't take everything in the Urantia Book at face value. The Urantia Book even says that certain scientific information given in the book is not precise.

It is not supposed to be so easily given, we have to earn it and in so doing improve our connection to God.

Did you think Einstein was so smart to figure out that space was time on his own?