[Colonol Dekker]

Realllyy

[Janos]

For example, to go back to the whale; large mammals could migrate to the water - like a hippo or elephant nowadays does - for food or to better escape predation. I would suggest, actually, that it's more likely monkeys (as distinct from apes) evolved tails as a consequence of living in trees; I'm pretty (99%) sure that a cursory check to the ape-monkey evolutionary tree will reveal that.

Earliest known primates had tails. Tail is a complex system and once lost is very unlikely to pop up again, especially in similar form, so it's more propable that ancestors of apes lost them at some point.

[aldo_14]

For example, to go back to the whale; large mammals could migrate to the water - like a hippo or elephant nowadays does - for food or to better escape predation. I would suggest, actually, that it's more likely monkeys (as distinct from apes) evolved tails as a consequence of living in trees; I'm pretty (99%) sure that a cursory check to the ape-monkey evolutionary tree will reveal that.

Earliest known primates had tails. Tail is a complex system and once lost is very unlikely to pop up again, especially in similar form, so it's more propable that ancestors of apes lost them at some point.

Ah, cheers.  i'll need to look up the primate evolution stuff when I'm home tonight

[Janos]

For example, to go back to the whale; large mammals could migrate to the water - like a hippo or elephant nowadays does - for food or to better escape predation. I would suggest, actually, that it's more likely monkeys (as distinct from apes) evolved tails as a consequence of living in trees; I'm pretty (99%) sure that a cursory check to the ape-monkey evolutionary tree will reveal that.

Earliest known primates had tails. Tail is a complex system and once lost is very unlikely to pop up again, especially in similar form, so it's more propable that ancestors of apes lost them at some point.

Post/PM some links if you find something really good, right mate?
Ah, cheers.  i'll need to look up the primate evolution stuff when I'm home tonight

[Turnsky]

For example, to go back to the whale; large mammals could migrate to the water - like a hippo or elephant nowadays does - for food or to better escape predation. I would suggest, actually, that it's more likely monkeys (as distinct from apes) evolved tails as a consequence of living in trees; I'm pretty (99%) sure that a cursory check to the ape-monkey evolutionary tree will reveal that.

Earliest known primates had tails. Tail is a complex system and once lost is very unlikely to pop up again, especially in similar form, so it's more propable that ancestors of apes lost them at some point.

technically humans still have "tails" albeit in the form of the coccyx, right at the end of the spinal column

even though it serves no real purpose, it's there anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

[Janos]

For example, to go back to the whale; large mammals could migrate to the water - like a hippo or elephant nowadays does - for food or to better escape predation. I would suggest, actually, that it's more likely monkeys (as distinct from apes) evolved tails as a consequence of living in trees; I'm pretty (99%) sure that a cursory check to the ape-monkey evolutionary tree will reveal that.

Earliest known primates had tails. Tail is a complex system and once lost is very unlikely to pop up again, especially in similar form, so it's more propable that ancestors of apes lost them at some point.

technically humans still have "tails" albeit in the form of the coccyx, right at the end of the spinal column

even though it serves no real purpose, it's there anyway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx

Yeah, and the rest of the apes have remnants of tails or very short tails too. Several vertebrae been lost, though, and most ape tails consist of only 3-6 vertebrae. Vestigial remnants that serve different purposes nowadays.

[Ford Prefect]

Evolution is flukey, Look at the Daddy long legs- Most powerful poison in the animal kingdom.......
But no teeth,

Source-Ricky Gervais stand up show-Animals.

I think that's a myth that just survives through repetition.

[Colonol Dekker]

Eat one then :d

[Janos]

Eat one then :d

http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/longlegs.htm

There are poisonous birds (several New Guinean species) and venomous mammals (shrews and several other insectivorae, platypus) which are far more dangerous.

[Edward Bradshaw]

I see that this has already been brought up before, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics.  Has anyone gotten a workaround for that?

Whats to work around? Thermodynamics is about heat. Only someone that has no idea how evolution works would say thermodynamics is a problem for it. No surprise that Creationists think its a good argument.

BTW, how do complex systems evolve from simple ones?  Okay, this means assuming we're talking about more than "microevolution" or small change within an existing, complex system.

ALL there is "microevolution". There is no other process. Everything that has ever evolved has just been a modified version of whatever its ancesters were.

eg You can scramble a few table values in FS and get some interesting results, maybe to your benefit, but that's not making a whole new game from nothing.

And just like a "tornado in a junkyard", Evolution doesnt work anything like that.

OK, I think the theory is that "survival of the fittest" or "natural selection" produces those results over long periods of time.  But, for that to work on a complex system, you must have intelligent input.  Because any additional organ, for example, is more likely to become a liability than an asset in a fight for survival unless it >poof!< evolved instantaneously. 

No "poof" is not what evolution does, thats Intelligent Design and Creationism you're talking about.

Take for example the eye. There are many precursurs to the human eye, and we still see many of them about in nature today. Some animals eyes are just light sensitive membranes.

ie, If you just crawled out of the water, and you're dragging your tail behind you, that'd make you an easy lunch.  But you'd never make it out of the water because while you were evolving your legs, that made you a snack for a gator.  Oh, wait a minute.  That's right.  I forgot. 

1. EVOLUTION IS NOT LIKE X-MEN 

2. Populations evolve not individuals .

3. You are saying this creature shouldnt exist:
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/6378/smeegle1mc.jpg

The new theory is that the cows started on land and evolved into whales.  Right.

No it isnt. This is what you are calling a "cow":

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/cow-whale.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1550000/images/_1553008_newwhale300.jpg

Okay, and what makes you think the gene code for the legs (or tail, if you're going into the water) would stay there for more than a few generations?  Unless it proved of some benefit to the organism (and for that it'd have to function to some degree of efficiency) it'd be dropped off.  Like that tail you didn't need when you tripped over something on the way out the door.  I've always wondered about that one.

It doesnt matter if an adaptation isnt 100% beneficial, just so long as it increases reproductive success.

The only way around that is to say that various mutations happened to be beneficial for a certain situation, and happened to have evolved for no reason whatsoever, and had been ready and in-place when something happened to necessitate their existence.

Only when you understand that evolution doesnt work like X-Men and that individuals dont evolve you wont understand any of this.





[/quote]

[Flipside]

Also, the second law of Thermodynamics assumes a single phase-space for the system to develop under.

The DNA of a Human IS simpler than the DNA of a Frog. It's called the Space Elevator theory. A Frog's DNA holds thousands of little 'instructions' for what chemical is best for dealing with things like 'Cold water', 'Salty Water' etc. Human's do it another way. We took a lot longer to evolve, by creating a self-regulating system, which is far far more complex. But now that the complex system has evolved, it is far less effort to stay there.

It's like asking why Cavemen didn't have TV and why aren't we hitting each other over the head with clubs now (ok, ok, yes, in some places we are, but that's beside the point ), after all, technology has got more complex, not less.

[aldo_14]

There's an analogy I always liked about tornado and a junkyard.

Let's say a tornado hits a junkyard and builds a 747.  Now let's say it hits a junkyard and builds...a junk pile.  Ok?

Now, what do you think the odds of either are?

Identical.

Yup.  Identical.  Why?  Because each of those combinations of atoms is as likely as the other.

And the thing about this analogy is, it applies very well to one of the main creationist arguement.  The arguement of design, essentially states that everything that exists, is the only thing that could ever exist, and the only way it could ever exist, and then tries to apply that as a rule of evolution - something which is really running contrary to what we expect from evolutionary theory.  And, another little quirk is, this assumption only makes sense from a human point of view (ala the 747 vs junk); so it's actually also presumptious of Gods design (which, is actually rather flawed in many occasions).

[Edward Bradshaw]

There's an analogy I always liked about tornado and a junkyard.

Let's say a tornado hits a junkyard and builds a 747.  Now let's say it hits a junkyard and builds...a junk pile.  Ok?

Now, what do you think the odds of either are?

Identical.

up.  Identical.  Why?  Because each of those combinations of atoms is as likely as the other.

And the thing about this analogy is, it applies very well to one of the main creationist arguement.  The arguement of design, essentially states that everything that exists, is the only thing that could ever exist, and the only way it could ever exist, and then tries to apply that as a rule of evolution - something which is really running contrary to what we expect from evolutionary theory.  And, another little quirk is, this assumption only makes sense from a human point of view (ala the 747 vs junk); so it's actually also presumptious of Gods design (which, is actually rather flawed in many occasions).

Of course, the short answer to the Tornado in a Junkyard argument is -- "STRAWMAN!"

I dont understand your responce to it. The chances that the numbers 1234567 will come up in a lottery draw isnt the same as it coming up as all different numbers, even though I know some people that will put on thier big smart ass glasses on and say 'well actually its exactly the same'.

[aldo_14]

Of course, the short answer to the Tornado in a Junkyard argument is -- "STRAWMAN!"

I dont understand your responce to it. The chances that the numbers 1234567 will come up in a lottery draw isnt the same as it coming up as all different numbers, even though I know some people that will put on thier big smart ass glasses on and say 'well actually its exactly the same'.

Well the point is that the chances are identical, it's just that the human mind assigns additional 'value' on top of particular scenarios which skew our perception.

[Flipside]

It's our love of Stories. You are far more likely to see a headline saying 'Consecutive Lottery Numbers Drawn!' than 'Lottery Numbers Had Nothing In Common!'.

That's why we attach the significance.

[Ace]

Of course what creationists fail to realise is that life is a logical and necessary condition for the furthering of entropy.

By 'ordering' materials life enhances entropy in the universe.

[Edward Bradshaw]

Of course, the short answer to the Tornado in a Junkyard argument is -- "STRAWMAN!"

I dont understand your responce to it. The chances that the numbers 1234567 will come up in a lottery draw isnt the same as it coming up as all different numbers, even though I know some people that will put on thier big smart ass glasses on and say 'well actually its exactly the same'.

Well the point is that the chances are identical, it's just that the human mind assigns additional 'value' on top of particular scenarios which skew our perception.

The point is that the tornado in a junkyard is a strawman, that is not how evolution works. To respond to it with the argument that the chances of throwing a pile of junk around and it forming itself into a complex machine rather than a junk pile being exactly the same just muddies the waters. Its one of the easiest Creationist caricatures to refute, Evolution simply doesnt work that way. Dont try and be smart.

Ed

[karajorma]

I think you've missed the point of Aldo's post. He isn't refuting the common Creationist argument that evolution is random. He's refuting specified complexity which is a main ID argument based on the chance that evolution could result in humankind evolving. What specified complexity misses is that although the chance of humankind evolving is small the chance of something evolving is virtually a certainty.

Creationists like to do their calculations pretending that humankind was the only possible outcome for evolution and it's simply not true.

[Edward Bradshaw]

I think you've missed the point of Aldo's post. He isn't refuting the common Creationist argument that evolution is random. He's refuting specified complexity which is a main ID argument based on the chance that evolution could result in humankind evolving. What specified complexity misses is that although the chance of humankind evolving is small the chance of something evolving is virtually a certainty.

Creationists like to do their calculations pretending that humankind was the only possible outcome for evolution and it's simply not true.

Which might be a good point if he wasnt trying to use their analogy of a tornado in a junkyard. Its just not the same in any respect. Life just doesnt work that way, and a 747 could never be formed out of junk that got throw around by a tornado. Thats all that really needs to be said about it.

[Flipside]

Actually, the comment was made by an Astronmer, Hoyle iirc, with regards of the formation of Proteins out of Amino Acids, and in pointing out that the odds of a group of Amino Acids forming and folding into a coherent 200-molecule protein string purely by accident was about the same chance as a Tornado hitting a junkyard and making a 747, and that the odds of DNA just happening to form at the same time is minute. Therefore there must be some missing aspect of the formation of complex life that we still haven't found.

That said, 'Don't know' and 'God' should not be treated as the same thing