Evolution is not random -here's why

[beenherebeforeagain]

It could be I've classified them based on the results of their mutations, when the mutations themselves are quite different. That would be a human tendency.

yes, that is what I've been trying to say.

 

[Cooky]

Flight is a capability. As is swimming, burrowing, crawling, jumping, running...

There are lots of ways that different living things achieve each of these, some of them are capable of doing more than one of these. The exact way each lineage does it depends on those who came before in their lineage.

The "flight" of rays and penguins in the medium of water are very different, and the histories and anatomies are very different...yet in trying to survive, both lines came up with something that "looks like" flight in the medium of water.

Likewise, insects, two varieties of mammals, a variety of reptile, and a variety of proto-dinosaur came up with motion through the medium of air that we call flight. And there are a number of others who float, balloon or glide in the air, too...

I wonder how many species developed the mutation to grow limbs and walk on land then, completely seperate from one another.

 

[Jose Fly]

It could be I've classified them based on the results of their mutations, when the mutations themselves are quite different. That would be a human tendency.

Well, anatomy is the result of mutation. That's the basis of an old saying in biology....genotype determines phenotype.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The law of probability suggests otherwise.

Even reading you thread straight: There is no 'law of probability' that works this way. It would be like saying that a winner in a 1 ticket human lottery (1 in ~6 billion) could never happen because the odds are too great.

But it's pointless to think of it this way because evolution isn't random. Mutations are random but the process of selection isn't. So pure statistics analysis doesn't apply. Traits as a result of mutation which give a benefit survive through propagation, those with a detriment are weeded out (unless there is a sufficient tradeoff) and those with neutral cost benefit are sometimes carried on and sometimes not depending on the individual population's.

As for flight, I know quite a lot about avian evolution from my studies. Evolution isn't long term goal orientated. Each small change had a benefit long before flight. Feathers from modified scales provided better thermoregulation, coloration for communication or camouflage. Small 'half wings' were used for brooding eggs, making long jumps, making tighter corners, scaling steeper inclines. Hollow bones meant less energy spent on movement, ability to climb easier. Etc. There was a long time where dinosaurs superficially resembles birds long before they could fly.

 

[Valjean]

So is it impossible that animals had ancient genes from their common finned ancestors, and those genes merely refreshed? If that makes any sense.. Do you know what I mean?
View attachment 26014

We all have ancient genes. They often get repurposed

Would wings or "soaring" have developed more readily due to ancient DNA from our marine ancestors?

The Wings could develop from any gene that produces a useful feature that could transform into a wing with further changes. Doesn't matter where the gene came from.

The law of probability suggests otherwise. Six different species? All unrelated develop the same mutations. Yes, I understand that natural selection can thrust this mutation forward due to advantages... But the mutation itself had to occur first. Do you not see the unlikeliness of this?

NO!!! You're missing the whole point. All different mutations that eventually produced very different structures that could accomplish the same thing. The same ability developed by several different paths.

Regardless, there would have been at least a thousand year period where the slightly flappy skin, or the pre-webbed feet, or the function-less wings would not have had a single advantage in flight. That period would have existed. Even if it were a short period in terms of evolution, it would still have been a substantial number of years.

Each small change is advantageous. The useful features develop slowly, becoming ever more useful, over many generations, step by small step.

I see. So categorizing animals as those who possess "flight" is actually an abstract thought. In actuality, they are completely different processes?

Now you're catching on.

I wonder how many species developed the mutation to grow limbs and walk on land then, completely seperate from one another.

Just look at their history; at the original structures the limbs developed from.

 

[Twilight Hue]

...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

No it's not. All one has to do is look at the genome.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Actually, any scientist (or even engineer) worth his pocket protector
knows that evolution is not random. Genetic mutations can occur
randomly (eg, radiation), but a fitness function (aka survival of the
fittest) selects useful mutations, making the emergent results non-random.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I wonder how many species developed the mutation to grow limbs and walk on land then, completely seperate from one another.

three that I can think of...what became arachnids, insects, and the vertabrate fish that led to amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals, birds and other branches of the evolutionary tree...there were also plants that came to live on land as well...as well as fungi and others...

 

[Skwim]

The law of probability suggests otherwise. Six different species? All unrelated develop the same mutations. Yes, I understand that natural selection can thrust this mutation forward due to advantages... But the mutation itself had to occur first. Do you not see the unlikeliness of this?

Just as a heads-up here; same mutation is not the same as "same" adaptation. The "same" adaptations you cited required different mutations. And in as much as the mutations are different, the laws of probability you suggest play no part in their similarity. It would be like claiming that it's impossible that 9 different forms of animals developed legs independently and separate from one another.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

...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

Science does not consider evolution as a random process.

You are arguing the bogus argument for Intelligent Design. which has no scientific basis..

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

Convergent evolution is very common and explained well by the science of evolution because environmental factors are main influence on the species that adapt to given environments. All these animals can be traced back to earlier forms.

Again, again, again, and again many many times science does not consider the processes that are considered evolution as random.

You are arguing the bogus argument for Intelligent Design. which has no scientific basis.

 

[Segev Moran]

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

You have two things wrong here
The first, is the assumption that evolution is a random process. it is not. If you'll learn the theory you'll come to find that there is only one factor that is kind of random process, but when understanding this process you understand that even this process is not really random rather an non-debatable outcome that we can see and observe every day.
None of the religious authorities today contradict this process (I mean gene mutations and the changes every living organism is having throughout the generations).

The evolution process is a process that describes to details the "development" of species and is supported by many evidence.
The entire idea behind evolution is the observable life forms that behave is a very predicted way. we can predict today how an organism will change and adapt based on the environment it lives in. this means that the random factor is very low.

The "random" thing in evolution is the fact that once a merge of genes occurs, some couples change location or mutate. this change of genes causes something very small to change in the organism.
from there, based on the environment, this organism either survives or not. the better it survives, the more its genes will spread.

We know today that almost 99% of species (specie meaning specie as defined by the scientific theory of evolution) that lived on earth are extinct, and we have today almost 9 million we know of!
This means that over the decades, there was an enormousness amount of species spread all over the globe.
It only makes sense that many species developed the same capabilities.
Some, developed a very unique set of capabilities, but most organisms share the same ones.

The most common ones are breathing as this capability is developed due to the high consternation of oxygen on our planet.

Most have digestive capability as carbon is very common in our universe.

Flight, as air is a very common and practical place for organisms to survive, allowed species to ...well.... survive better!

In the old ages, when air was very oxygen reach for example, the dominant spices were huge! not because it was a random thing, rather it allowed organism to make better use of available resources and survive better.

species like cockroaches, that have a big amount of reproduction, haven't changed much over time, this is not because they were "unlucky" with the random changes, rather because the changes were not effective enough and were "swollen" inside the big numbers of entities.

Putting all that aside, I can relate to the thought that evolution is not a spontaneous process.
Although most of the scientific community treats evolution is such, the question of what "drives" this process it is not a thing to dismiss so easily as most scientists do!

going back in time, it is clear that something drives and "guides" the forces that work on our universe. random or not, this "guiding system" is there, we can see it everywhere, we can feel it, we can sense it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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"?

Mutations are random, natural selection is not. So yes, natural selection will guide fish to be more hydrodynamic, and the same happened to swimming lizards such as ichthyosaurs and whales. The external body shape of sharks, ichthyosaurs, and dolphins are all rather similar since an object shaped like a cube does not move through the water very easily.

That does not imply a guiding intelligence at all.

 

[Cooky]

Just as a heads-up here; same mutation is not the same as "same" adaptation. The "same" adaptations you cited required different mutations. And in as much as the mutations are different, the laws of probability you suggest play no part in their similarity. It would be like claiming that it's impossible that 9 different forms of animals developed legs independently and separate from one another.


View attachment 26016

.

Thanks for that Skwim.

 

[Cooky]

Science does not consider evolution as a random process.

You are arguing the bogus argument for Intelligent Design. which has no scientific basis..

Oh, I didn't know that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So is it impossible that animals had ancient genes from their common finned ancestors, and those genes merely refreshed? If that makes any sense.. Do you know what I mean?

View attachment 26014

Out of use genes tend to degenerate to the point of being worthlessness. New genes tend to evolve more than old ones being "refreshed". I like to use the phrase "Evolution is a one way street" That is why dogs can't evolve into cats. Their paths split millions of years ago and there is no going back.

 

[Cooky]

In the old ages, when air was very oxygen reach for example, the dominant spices were huge! not because it was a random thing, rather it allowed organism to make better use of available resources and survive better.

.

I always wondered about that. Makes sense.

 

[exchemist]

So is it impossible that animals had ancient genes from their common finned ancestors, and those genes merely refreshed? If that makes any sense.. Do you know what I mean?

View attachment 26014

Well, that's interesting. In the case of the eye, I have read that there does seem to be a very ancient gene called Pax 6, that carries a sort of toolkit from which eyes can develop and seems to have been used when eyes arose in several different phyla.

It seems hard to imagine such a thing operating with wings, but I'm not an expert.

 

[Segev Moran]

I always wondered about that. Makes sense.

Its more complex than that but that the general idea

 

[Sunstone]

I saw the title of this thread and thought, "Huh. I wonder what reason he'll give". I click the thread and what do I find? "I find it extremely bazaar [sic] and highly unlikely".

Ok then. *shrug*

Just to prove how boring I am, the name of that particular form of reasoning is called "an argument from incredulity", and it is a recognized fallacy of logic. Doesn't mean his conclusion is false -- it might be false (most likely, in my opinion), or it might be true -- but it does mean that his argument is not a good argument for believing his conclusion.

You probably already knew all that though.

This is why I never get invited to parties.