1. 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!

Featured Of birds and men. Covergent evolution.

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Wild Fox, May 22, 2020.

  1. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,963
    Ratings:
    +1,527
    Religion:
    nature
    Well my Odin post did not stimulate discussion in this area so here is my convergent discussion.

    Bird and mammal brain convergent evolution.

    Evolution predicts that similar adaptations can develop from different pathways to create similar adaptive features. This is the opposite of an intelligent design pattern. For me one of the most impressive examples of this is bird and mammal convergent evolution of brain patterns.

    First there must be and end to the inappropriate association with “bird brain” as not intelligent. Thanks to the lack of insight of Skinner who love to torture pigeons and other animals in artificial nonrepresentative ways we have a misrepresentation of birds and animals. All I have this to say to Skinner is (You ******* as*****! How could you be so ******* *****! Glad to get that off my chest)

    What we have learned in the last 30 years about bird intelligence is utterly amazing and the clearest evidence of convergent evolution.

    First the misconception the bird brains come from the striatum of the brain and is incorrect. The forebrain of birds is of pallial in origin. Thus the modern bird and mammal forebrain is derived from the pallial.

    This origional error was that avian brain was derived from striatum or basal ganglion with instinctual behaviors only of feeding sex and parental behavior.

    The telencephalon of birds is derived from the pallium and is functionally the same as the mammalian cortex from the same embryotic forebrain but instead of the layered cortex in mammals birds have nucleated pockets of grey matter.

    When you realize that Corvids (crows, ravens and similar species) and parrot brains are relatively the same size as primates when body mass is accounted for you start to appreciate our feathered friends.

    Early comparative psychologists (will not digress to complain further of Skinner) choose bird species such as pigeons to be representative of all birds. This is the same as choosing a mouse to be representative of humans. This lead to a misrepresentation of the avian world.

    We finally realize that this convergent evolution produced nucleated patterns in birds instead of laminated pattern as in mammal brains.

    One exception may be the wulst/hyperpallium on the dorsal forebrain of birds with its three to four layer and associated neurotransmitters.

    We see how evolution of vocal learning has developed in in song birds and parrots very similar to humans. With similar neuro networks involved creating similar patterns as in humans. Cetaceous mammals have similar ability but with yet unknown neural networks to be described.

    And the most impressive is the caudolateral nidopallium which has similar neuro connectivity, neurochemistry, neurophysiology and function to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. For all those not familiar, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is the area in the brain of humans which we pride ourselves of being so cognitively in control. There is also a similar dopamine distribution involved with motivations. Just as amazing there are projections to the somato-motor and limbic areas of the basal ganglion are similar in influence of behavioral and affective responses to the prefrontal cortex.

    Corvid brains have functionally analogous structures to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and neurological connections important of theory of mind.

    What this convergent evolution shows is the plasticity of the genetic code to create patterns of adaptations with different patterns to achieve the same results as an advantage to survival. What more could you ask for as evidence of evolution?

    Source (well at least one of them)

    www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(05)01404-1.pdf
     
    • Informative Informative x 6
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  2. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    8,716
    Ratings:
    +8,214
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    Nice.
     
  3. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    2,495
    Ratings:
    +96
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Every idea claimed is said by the human consciousness making those claims...the bird is saying those claims about its natural presence or conscious expressions.
     
  4. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,297
    Ratings:
    +1,858
    Religion:
    none
    Nice OP, but hard to read, even for a science interested layman when without much knowledge in neuroanatomy.
    (And I guess there are only a handful of readers here that have even basic knowledge of neurology.)
    What I want to say is, you won't get much participation with that language. And it is totally unnecessary for the topic.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. icehorse

    icehorse Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    9,520
    Ratings:
    +5,118
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Mock Turtle

    Mock Turtle Compassion, understanding, and tolerance.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2018
    Messages:
    5,288
    Ratings:
    +2,286
    Religion:
    Often the quickest path from ignorance to arrogance
    Many might look at a bird using a tool, such as a twig to gain something (usually food of course), but they often just don't equate it to what a human or other animal might do, and even a primate doing so might not be seen as tool-use. I can't fathom the logic, since intelligence is just that no matter which creature uses it and for what purpose.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,963
    Ratings:
    +1,527
    Religion:
    nature
    Thanks for the recommendation.
     
  8. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,963
    Ratings:
    +1,527
    Religion:
    nature
    Since corvids (crows and families) keep and modify the sticks to capture grubs we see an impressive level of intelligence and few other animals keep the same tool for reuse.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Wild Fox

    Wild Fox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,963
    Ratings:
    +1,527
    Religion:
    nature
    The basic message is that two different organism, birds and mammals, use the same layer of brain associated the structures involved in human intelligence but in two very different patterns. Mammals organizing in layers of nerve tissue and birds organizing in nucleated regions. Since intelligence is a clearly an adaptive trait especially in social animals evolution predicts that different lines of convergent evolution (in this case birds and mammals) can create different patterns to come up with the same adaptive trait and this is exactly what is seen.

    An intelligent designer once the best design is found would use that design for their creation. Convergent evolution as in this case supports evolution and no other explanation.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    11,542
    Ratings:
    +6,147
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    First I had to clearly define what Convergent evolution is........apparently, its "a process in biology. that occurs when two species from unrelated lines develop the same traits or features. This happens because they live in similar habitats, and have to develop solutions to the same kind of problems.

    Similarity in traits can occur in two ways. Both species might have acquired the trait by descent from a common ancestor. . . .On the other hand, both might be independent adaptations to similar conditions in their habitat. In this case the structures are analogous. Convergent evolution leads to analogous features."

    Convergent evolution - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I'm not even into the post and already I see problems with suggestions masquerading as facts....nice try. The suggestions are so subtle that those indoctrinated with their pet theory, don't even notice them. And those elusive "common ancestors" are never identified.....I wonder why?

    You have nothing but guesswork here....then a statement that seems to take those "might have's" and changes them to "must have's".....scientific sleight of hand right there.

    Evolution cannot prove that what it predicts is even true, or that it happened the way they say it "must have". The fact that all these traits demonstrate intelligent planning and design is equally true. You just replace an Intelligent Designer with a process that science assumes "might have" happened.

    It can equally be applied to the work of an intelligent Creator who designed them that way and with the ability to adapt to changed environments.......you just can't accommodate him in your worldview because science hasn't developed a way to test for him. They haven't developed a real test for macro-evolution either, but that doesn't stop them from "believing" their imagined scenarios.

    It seems to me that evolutionists can't separate real science from science fiction.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,297
    Ratings:
    +1,858
    Religion:
    none
    I'm not an evolutionary biologist but I think even I can divide that up for you. You say that an intelligent designer could explain all phenomena just as well as the evolutionary process. That would make evolution and intelligent design equivalent. But are they? Does your intelligent design hypothesis make any testable predictions that evolution doesn't make?
    If so we can part science from fiction by testing the prediction.
    If they are not different then we discard intelligent design per Occam's Razor as intelligent design uses an additional assumption that isn't necessary.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  12. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    11,542
    Ratings:
    +6,147
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    When contemplating Occam's razor which according to Wiki says that "when presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions, and it is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions."
    You've got to wonder, don't you?

    When dealing with macro-evolution as opposed to adaptation, it has been my experience that science will use adaptation (that has been testable to a point) in order to affirm evidence for macro-evolution, which cannot be tested or proven to have ever taken place. It is an unproven and unprovable assumption that adaptation (which only ever been seen to occur in a single species) over an extended period of time, can take a living creature outside of its family to create a whole different kind of living thing. I'm talking amoebas to dinosaurs..... or four legged furry things the size of a dog morphing into a whale.....now that is a stretch in anyone's imagination, let alone for those who are only guessing at what they assume "must have" taken place all those millions of years ago for their theory to have a single leg to stand on.

    Now, as we examine the "evidence" that science is presenting, how many assumptions do we see being made here? Way too many for my liking. I smell a rat. How many flukes does it take before you end up with statistical impossibility? Undirected chance produced all life on this planet? And that is leaving abiogenesis out of the picture. [​IMG]

    What did Darwin see that made him think of evolution as the means by which changes occurred in the creatures he observed? He saw finches....new varieties that were not found on the mainland and quite rightly assumed that they had 'evolved' (or rather adapted) to facilitate a change in food supply or environment.....he saw tortoises and iguanas that were well adapted to island life. But the one thing he did NOT observe was a change in their taxonomy. Each creature was still of the same family as their mainland cousins....and always had been and always would be. Those 'trees' that evolutionists would have us accept are not based on provable facts but on imagination and a lot of wishful thinking.
    The common ancestors in all those branches are never identified because they have no idea who or what they were....Intelligent Design doesn't need to invent creatures that never existed. There are no fortunate flukes in nature.

    The least amount of assumption is to see how beautifully designed and made life is...and how amazing each habitat is for the creatures designed to live in them.
    How we got here is so much more important than how living things adapted.....but the evolutionists are quick to divorce themselves from any mention of abiogenesis......I think they realize that if there is a Creator who emerges at some point in history, they are going to look pretty silly.

    To suggest that what took place in the dim dark past can be explained by people who never lived at that time is optimistic to say the least. It's OK to guess but at least admit that is what you are doing....:confused:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,297
    Ratings:
    +1,858
    Religion:
    none
    That is exactly why I formulated my question as I did. If intelligent design makes a testable prediction different to evolutionary biology, we examine the evidence for or against the differing predictions.
    I asked you for differing predictions.
    You didn't answer the question. (That's why I ignore your stuff beyond the cited.)
    If you can't answer the question or the answer is intelligent design doesn't make different predictions, only then Occam's Razor is applied.

    So, again, what are (or were) predictions made by intelligent design that are (were) different than those of evolutionary biology?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  14. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,130
    Ratings:
    +3,563
    Religion:
    Christian
    1) That what was considered defunct genes, called “Junk DNA,” would somehow have useful function in the genome.
    Voilà! According to the most recent ongoing research, they do!

    2) That life forms would appear suddenly, without obvious precursors. And that is what we find w/ the origin of land-based mammals, marine-based mammals, birds, and especially the Cambrian fauna.
     
    #14 Hockeycowboy, May 24, 2020
    Last edited: May 24, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    22,254
    Ratings:
    +16,819
    Religion:
    None

    Really nice OP, well worth four frubals if only i could post more than 1

    Having observed bird behaviour since childhood i im a firm believer they are intelligent creatures. Several years ago when i first read about long overdue research into Corvid intelligence i was so pleased.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    5,771
    Ratings:
    +4,945
    Religion:
    Atheist


    Apparantly you need another lesson in scientific choice of words based in intellectual honesty?

    You also yet again need to have it explained to you that determining common ancestry does not at all require the identification of the common ancestor?

    Tell me, do you EVER actually even consider correcting your mistakes after they have been pointed out and discussed at length?

    Do you honestly believe it does your position / argument any good when you insist on being wrong, even after being corrected?





    Except when it does every single time.
    Like how fossils are found of previously unknown species in the the exact location and of the exact age with the exact anatomical traits matching the prediction.

    Off course, if one simply ignores all these succesfull predictions, just like one ignores all the mistakes one makes, then you can pretend as if it doesn't happen.

    But you'll just be wrong, obviously.

    No, as that is just an assertion with no merrit, no explanatory power, no testable prediction and no falsifiability. While the claims of evolution are the exact opposite: they DO have predictability, they ARE falsifiable, the HAVE merrit and ENORMOUS explanatory power.




    Nope. First, there is no "intelligent designer" to replace, any more then there are undetectable graviton fairies "to replace".

    Second, it's based on evidence, and testable predictions - just like every other scientific theory.



    It can not.
    An "intelligent creation" would NOT result in nested hierarchies and it most certainly wouldn't result in a hotch-potch of variations of solutions for similar problems. At all. Not even by a long shot.

    An engineer designing such things would first have to go OUT OF HIS WAY to make it fall into nested hierarchies. Next, he'ld also be EXTREMELY wastefull and inefficient.

    So none of these aspects would be expected from an intentional creation. But every single one of them would not only be expected from a process of evolution - they'ld be required. As in: if such things would NOT be present, then evolution would be disproven.

    There is NOTHING that your "designer" is not compatible with. Because it's an unfalsifiable, merritless and unverifiable assertion that adds nothing to anything and explains nothing.

    A mammal with feathers would disprove evolution.
    You could just shrug your shoulders and say "that's how the designer made it".
    Only mammals having hair / fur is explained in evolution as genetic traits are only inherited by their off spring and as hari / fur is a mammalian trait, only mammals will have it.
    You could again just shrug your shoulders and say "the designer chose to only give mammals hair / fur".

    It's compatible with everything. Which makes it have merrit in nothing.
    It's a merritless, unfalsifiable, unverifiable, unsupportable faith based assertion with zero explanatory power.


    See? There you go... exactly like I said. Shrugging shoulders and just proclaiming "well that's how he did it..."

    No reason, no rhyme, no explanatory power, no reasoning...
    Just bare unfalsifiable assertion



    Yep.

    It's the same reason why we don't consider undetectable graviton fairies to explain gravity. There's no way to test for it and it's unfalsifiable, merritless, with no explanatory power whatsoever.

    As the saying goes: "the undetectable and the non-existant, look very much alike".



    False.
    Macro-evolution is evolution on the level of species of above. So it's speciation.
    Speciation is an observed fact. It factually and demonstrably happens.

    And for those divergences that take too long for us to observe, there's the genetic test. Genetic tests that SHOW and DEMONSTRATE common ancestry.

    Common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.


    Facts, don't require "belief".



    Says the biology denier.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  17. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    5,771
    Ratings:
    +4,945
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I can't even count anymore how many times I've corrected you on this...

    First, macro-evolution: evolution on the level of species or above. So divergence as a result of speciation. That is macro-evolution. Speciation has been observed. So we KNOW it happens.

    Second, common ancestry of species can be, and has been, genetically determined. It MOST DEFINATLY thus can be tested. It makes PLENTY of testable predictions. And uncountable amount, actually.

    Common ancestry of species through the evolutionary process, predicts a nested hierarchy in genetics and common ancestry. It also predicts a logical distribution of species (like only finding kangaroo's in australia).

    ALL these predictions are very very testable. And they ALL can be succesfully tested.


    [qutoe]It is an unproven and unprovable assumption that adaptation (which only ever been seen to occur in a single species) over an extended period of time, can take a living creature outside of its family to create a whole different kind of living thing[/quote]

    That's not what macro-evolution is. Apparantly, you require once again to have the law of monophy explained to you.

    If a species can be observed or demonstrated to have evolved outside of its family, then it would be a violation of the law of monophy.

    So that would actually disprove evolution.


    I've explained this ad nauseum to you in this very thread plenty of times.
    I've also predicted that it would be just a matter of time before you'll ignore it all and repeat this same rudimentary mistake. And here we are.... with you once again repeating this rudimentary mistake.

    Why do you insist on arguing against a strawman?


    At no point in history did a species evolve out of its ancestral family.
    I've challenge you multiple times to give one example.

    You didn't even try.

    The whale is a mammal, just like its mammal land walking ancestor was.


    Evolution isn't undirected at all. It's directed by natural selection.

    Yet another falsehood that you insist on repeating, no matter how many times people are correcting it.

    Abiogenesis is not within the scope of evolution theory. It's not even within the same field of inquiry.
    Yet another falsehood that you insist on repeating, no matter how many times people are correcting it.

    If he WOULD have observed a change in their taxonomy, THEN EVOLUTION WOULD BE DISPROVEN.

    Why do you insist on being wrong?

    As the law of monophy and the evolutionary model states.

    As the law of monophy and the evolutionary model states.



    Except that they are AS THE VERY REFERENCE YOU YOURSELF HAS POSTED about what such trees are, literally stated. Remember? It said that the trees are created from genetic and morpholical data.

    Nope. Instead, based on genetic and morphological data.

    Maybe you should read the references you yourself are posting.

    And again, we have something there that you have repeating several times in your other thread after which it was corrected by others and myself every single time.

    Again, you insist on being wrong.

    Once again, I need to point out to you that determining common ancestry does not at all require being able to identify the ancestor.

    Neither does evolution.
    ID however, DOES need to invent a "designer" and also ignore all evidence ot the contrary.
    Apparantly, going by your posts, it also requires the insistence on being wrong about rudimentary biology and lying about evolution.


    But there is such a thing as natural selection.

    Because all species were optimized by evolution for the habitat they find themselves in.
    Derp. It's what evolution does: it optimizes systems to fit the criteria in which those systems need to thrive.

    Either the optimization happens, or the species goes extinct.

    This is why genetic algoritms are used in engineering to optimize systems based on certain parameters.
    Depending on the type of problem, such algoritms do a far better job then any human engineer. Which is why companies like Boeing spend millions on such programs.

    When the topic is evolution, abiogenes is irrelevant.
    You know that off course, as so many people have pointed it out to you.

    You just like being wrong, apparantly.

    Evolution is not atheism.
    Plenty of theists, many of them christians, are evolutionary biologists.

    Yet another falsehood that you are hellbend on repeating.

    Especially if one is going to ignore evidence.

    Maybe you should admit to the obvious dishonesty and borderline lying you are engaging in here...

    Literally EVERY POINT you made in this post, you have made before in this thread and have been corrected on it.

    Yet here you are, repeating it all again as if nothing happened and nothing was said.


    There comes a point where I can no longer say that you are just mistaken.
    At some point, it's going to cross over into having to say that you are deliberatly lying.
     
    #17 TagliatelliMonster, May 24, 2020
    Last edited: May 24, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    5,771
    Ratings:
    +4,945
    Religion:
    Atheist
    SOME do. Many do not.
    What's the function of the broken teeth building genes in chickens, for example?

    Having said that... a more important question would be: HOW is this a prediction from "creation"?

    Are you saying that the presence of a non-functional defunct gene would disprove creation?
    Because if that is not what you are saying, then your point 1 isn't actually a prediction of creation.

    See that's the thing with predictions....
    If model A is correct, then prediction X should be correct. If prediction X is not correct, then model A is falsified (at least unless a reasonable explanation is given for X).

    If creation is compatible with BOTH non-functioning genes existing AND not existing... then neither is support for creation or a prediction thereof.


    How have you proven that no such precursors exist?

    Once again we also need to turn this around.

    IF a precursor for these is found, does that then mean that the creation model is falsified?

    Again: if creation is compatible with BOTH precursors existing and not existing, then neither is support for creation or a prediction thereof.

    So please clarify exactly HOW these predictions flow from that model, and note explicitly if creation would be compatible with either possibility. And if not, explain why.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  19. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,297
    Ratings:
    +1,858
    Religion:
    none
    I guess this is an answer to my question to @Deeje ? If not, please disregard this.

    1) I wasn't aware of that. Nice to learn new things. I mean, I was aware of non-coding DNA and I was aware that non-coding DNA could have regulatory functions.
    What I didn't know was that intelligent design had predicted that that function would be found before the finding and that evolutionary biology contradicted that prediction.
    I did a little searching but couldn't find anything conclusive.
    Can you elaborate?
     
  20. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    5,771
    Ratings:
    +4,945
    Religion:
    Atheist
    This is not true though.
    Nothing in ID results in this prediction naturally flowing from it.

    Moreover, if defunct / non-functional genes are found and demonstrated - it would not at all serve as evidence against creation / ID at all.

    So to creation / ID, it matters not if such dna exists or not.

    The poster furthermore, also completely ignores that it's only SOME such sequences that have been found to serve some function or another and he completely ignores all those sequences that indeed have no function at all except taking up space.

    Don't hold your breath.
     
Loading...