• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution is not random -here's why

Cooky

Veteran Member
...Because it's impossible that 6 or 7 different species developed "flight" independently and separate from one another.

main-qimg-9c5294e5c713474faad80f29b006d8b1.jpg
p02k77tv.jpg
images-2.jpg
pteranodon-dinosaur-4d-3d-puzzle-egg-toy-kit-125-p.jpg
images-1.jpg

wallace-flying-frog-outstreched.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
...Because it's impossible that 6 or 7 different species developed "flight" independently and separate from one another.

View attachment 26008 View attachment 26009 View attachment 26010 View attachment 26011 View attachment 26012
View attachment 26013
Convergent evolution - Wikipedia
  • Convergent evolution is the independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages. Convergent evolution creates analogous structures that have similar form or function but were not present in the last common ancestor of those groups. The cladistic term for the same phenomenon is homoplasy. The recurrent evolution of flight is a classic example, as flying insects, birds, pterosaurs, and bats have independently evolved the useful capacity of flight. Functionally similar features that have arisen through convergent evolution are analogous, whereas homologous structures or traits have a common origin but can have dissimilar functions. Bird, bat, and pterosaur wings are analogous structures, but their forelimbs are homologous, sharing an ancestral state despite serving different functions.
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
How exactly do you know that this is impossible?

I believe it's called "convergent evolution". I find it extremely bazaar and highly unlikely. So unlikely, that it is impossible. It should be clear that mutations are not random, but are based on environmental needs. Somehow.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Oops. Beat me to it. :)
And yes, to a certain degree I do believe there is more to how evolution actually works then the idea of pure arbitrariness. It's a bit more intelligent than that, but not in the sense of some outside mind pulling the strings in some grand plan to make things looks a certain way. It's more that once evolution has figured something out, it doesn't reinvent the wheel every time, but simply repeats a pattern laid down before it.

One wonders then, what about how evolution has laid down patterns elsewhere, such as on the far flung ends of the universe? Is it all just local evolution to this planet, or do patterns exist in the fabric of reality collectively, and it benefits evolution everywhere, outside this planet? I frankly can't imagine that wouldn't be the case, if these "cosmic habits" are true. That gives one pause for reflection. :)
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
Convergent evolution - Wikipedia
  • Convergent evolution is the independent evolution of similar features in species of different lineages. Convergent evolution creates analogous structures that have similar form or function but were not present in the last common ancestor of those groups. The cladistic term for the same phenomenon is homoplasy. The recurrent evolution of flight is a classic example, as flying insects, birds, pterosaurs, and bats have independently evolved the useful capacity of flight. Functionally similar features that have arisen through convergent evolution are analogous, whereas homologous structures or traits have a common origin but can have dissimilar functions. Bird, bat, and pterosaur wings are analogous structures, but their forelimbs are homologous, sharing an ancestral state despite serving different functions.

Yes, there is a definition for it, however doesn't it suggest that mutations are based on environmental needs or allowances? And are not ultimately "random"?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I believe it's called "convergent evolution". I find it extremely bazaar and highly unlikely. So unlikely, that it is impossible. It should be clear that mutations are not random, but are based on environmental needs. Somehow.
It doesn't demonstrate whether or not mutations are random, but it does demonstrate that the combined process of variation and natural selection has found flight-related changes advantageous in several different types of organism.

Selection is anything but "random".
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
...Because it's impossible that 6 or 7 different species developed "flight" independently and separate from one another.

View attachment 26008 View attachment 26009 View attachment 26010 View attachment 26011 View attachment 26012
View attachment 26013

Well the problem with the challenge just in human development alone we have archetype stories developing independently.

So nature can manifest non locally since ultimately it is non local unto itself. Its like saying its larger than the set of all sets always thus not contained by the word nature . . That makes say a scienctific or religious TOE rather impossible and delusional when considered and debated seriously say between what we call science and religion.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
I believe it's called "convergent evolution". I find it extremely bazaar and highly unlikely. So unlikely, that it is impossible. It should be clear that mutations are not random, but are based on environmental needs. Somehow.
so your argument is that of incredulity...you can't believe it, therefore it can't have happened...

Can you quantify your incredulity? Give us some statistics or something to back up that it is bazaar and so unlikely that the unlikeliness = impossibility?
 

Cooky

Veteran Member
It doesn't demonstrate whether or not mutations are random, but it does demonstrate that the combined process of variation and natural selection has found flight-related changes advantageous in several different types of organism.

Selection is anything but "random".

But the mutations didn't occur overnight. It would have taken a millions of years for the flying squirrel to have had flappy, unflyable skin turn into something useful.

...Same with all the rest who forfeited their front limbs. And for feathers to have coincidentally developed, I can only imagine wings would have only been advantageous for slapping prey around. But even that does not seem advantageous.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Yes, there is a definition for it, however doesn't it suggest that mutations are based on environmental needs or allowances? And are not ultimately "random"?
A further thought to this to add, if you are not familiar with the concept:

Morphogenetic field - Wikipedia

Morgan was a particularly harsh critic of fields since the gene and the field were perceived as competitors for recognition as the basic unit of ontogeny.[3] With the discovery and mapping of master control genes, such as the homeobox genes the pre-eminence of genes seemed assured. But in the late twentieth century the field concept was "rediscovered" as a useful part of developmental biology. It was found, for example, that different mutations could cause the same malformations, suggesting that the mutations were affecting a complex of structures as a unit, a unit that might correspond to the field of early 20th century embryology.

Scott Gilbert proposed that the morphogenetic field is a middle ground between genes and evolution.[3] That is, genes act upon fields, which then act upon the developing organism.
I find this to offer a bit larger of a picture than merely happenstance. In this sense, the sense of fields or "cosmic habits", there is clearly a certain "intelligence" at work. A river will always follow the grove laid down ahead of it, until there is some massive change which requires novelty to emerge to create a new groove. Then once that is laid down, everything follows that path.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
so your argument is that of incredulity...you can't believe it, therefore it can't have happened...
Seems to be so.

Can you quantify your incredulity? Give us some statistics or something to back up that it is bazaar and so unlikely that the unlikeliness = impossibility?
Shoot, I'd settle for just some evidence to support his argument. So far, it's literally nothing more than what you described above.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
...Because it's impossible that 6 or 7 different species developed "flight" independently and separate from one another.

View attachment 26008 View attachment 26009 View attachment 26010 View attachment 26011 View attachment 26012
View attachment 26013
So Landon, look closely at the pics you posted. One thing that should stand out to you is how different taxa achieve flight via very diverse means. With the flying squirrel it's a flap of skin between limbs. But with birds it's via hollow bones, feathers, and modified forelimbs. Then with insects its via outgrowths of the exoskeleton.

If all those traits were pre-planned and executed by non-random mutations, why did it occur via such diverse means? It would seem to me that such diversity supports all of it originating via random mutations working on pre-existing anatomies.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
But the mutations didn't occur overnight. It would have taken a millions of years for the flying squirrel to have had flappy, unflyable skin turn into something useful.

...Same with all the rest who forfeited their front limbs. And for feathers to have coincidentally developed, I can only imagine wings would have only been advantageous for slapping prey around. But even that does not seem advantageous.
You need to read a bit about feathers. There is a nice little section on their evolution here: Feather - Wikipedia It's quite interesting.

Now that we know there were many feathered dinosaurs, not associated with flight at all, we can see that feathers must have originally served other purposes (insulation, display). Insulation makes a lot of sense, as effective flying dinosaurs needed to be small and light (in which case they would tend to lose heat quickly) and also probably would need to be warm-blooded, to sustain the high metabolic rate needed to generate enough power for flight.

Feathers subsequently became useful for flight (changing a bit in structure from symmetrical to asymmetrical in the process). This change of function of a characteristic is very common in evolution and is called exaptation. Exaptation - Wikipedia

It should always be remembered that fossilisation is a rare process, the re-exposure at the surface of rocks containing fossils is also rare and the actual finding of such re-exposed fossils takes a lot of luck. So the combined probability of us finding fossils of all these creatures, showing all the evolutionary stages, is very low indeed. We work with a jigsaw with many of the pieces missing, in other words with many questions yet to be answered. But even so, the broad picture is clear.
 
Top