Evolution defying animals? EEEEH

[Norseman]

(13-03-2011 03:48 PM)Cdf50 Wrote:  Now, Evolution in general is amazingly simple, but it can be hard to grasp at times. I won't lie, I myself wouldn't have any ideas as to how to explain the evolution of the organisms brought up in the documentary. So if you could, norseman, share some of the ideas you have about how they might have evolved?

Sure, why not. But please, do a quick google as well. Among others, talkorigins has detailed pages on a lot of creationist favourites.

The two key words to keep in mind when you try to figure out how something has evolved is "gradual" and "co-adaptation".
I'll skip past the beetle, since I already posted a video on that, and go straight for the giraffe.

The giraffe is a good example of how important it is to keep in mind that key word "gradual". You say that the video mention three things. Big heart, long neck and sponge-thingy (don't know why he didn't mention the one-way valves that keep it's blood from running the wrong way in between heart beats). Now imagine an ancestral giraffe witch has all of these adaptations, but with a slightly less functional sponge. It might get a serious headache when it lowers it head, or feel dizzy when it lifts it back up, but it wouldn't die.
In fact it is perfectly possible that this giraffe was genetically superior to it's peers if the to-long-for-it's-sponge neck gave it access to a larger food supply.
Imagine an animal ancestral to the giraffe, but so distant that it looks nothing like a giraffe at all. Imagine it looking more like a horse. I won't speculate on what it actually looked like, because it really doesn't matter. At a time when food supply was low, there might have been a selective pressure witch favored longer necks because of greater access to food. If this goes on for a sufficient number of generations the average neck length might become very long indeed. So long that brain damage due to low blood pressure will become as great a problem for the animals as the lack of food. If food at this stage becomes more easily accessible this will of course lead to an advantage for the shorter necked individuals and giraffes as we know it would never have existed.
we know today of course that this never happened and that the long necked pre-giraffes forced the threes they ate to evolve to become taller in order to avoid being eaten by the giraffes, wich then again had to grow longer neckes and legs and so on ad neuseam.
Since the need for nutrition forced the giraffes to be tall there will naturally have been an advantage in having a strong heart, so this will have evolved as a consequence of the elongation of the neck.
Important to remember: This did not have to happen at the same time! There is no fixed neck-size to heart-size ratio that must be observed in order for an animal to survive! We can argue that there might be a ratio witch is "perfect", but nobody (except you-know-who) ever said nature had to be perfect in order to work. If anyone tries to sell you that crap, ask them to contemplate their appendix.
The last of our unholy trio of magical adaptations, the "sponge", is probably the last mutation to be favored. There will have been a time when the blood pressure building up when the animal was drinking caused such a disadvantage that it negated the positive effects of having a long neck. A mutation at this point witch cause even the slightest resemblance of a sponge with the desired effect would have beef hugely favored by natural selection. In later generation all that has to happen is that the sponges become better, the hearts bigger and the necks longer. one single mutation at a time.

I can see that I really went on about the giraffe, and I don't think I'm going to bother with the others for now. the TTA forum will go out of server space if I go on like this.

As for the scared of lion, not scared of zebra thing, that's just stupid. Of course behavioral patterns are subject to natural selection. Imagine if this was not the case. Imagine a population of any species where nobody's behavior was at all influenced by there genes. Where, if it was not for nurture, an individual would be equally scared/not scared of everything. Whether this means that they are cocky in the presence of lions, or shit scared of bunnies makes no difference, but we can go with cocky in the presence of lions for the sake of argument.
If an individual in this population had a single mutation whick made it 1% more likely to become phobic of a characteristic of lions, say whiskers for example, this would be a huge selective advantage. Do I need to go on explaining how this advantage can be further strengthened through small gradual steps?
I think not.

[Starlighter]

Hey! Christian here! What you are saying about Christians is a complete assumption(also like what th guy in the movie is doing). And you know what they say... To assume makes an a$$ out of u m e. I believe totally what you guys are talking about, this guy makes no sense and tries to disprove evolution by saying "how could evolution do this... It couldn't" well that old guy is completely wrong.

Yes I did say I'm a Christian and yes I do believe in God( why I'm posting here I don't know), it is with these beliefs that let me fill the factual holes, however small they may be, in the evolution theory. Yes this guy has totally taken it three steps too far with this video, and no not all Christians are as bad as you think. Most of the ones I know, myself include, will let you believe in the force if that was your way. That stuff is not for me to judge, what I can judge are factual errors and proofs that would lead to a scientific theory.

[Buddy Christ]

Digging up a post from a year ago, eh Star? I've never read this thread, and will use this opportunity just to post a video from QualiaSoup (again?) that explains the bombardier beetle. Starts at 2:34.

[Lilith Pride]

It's been a long time since I saw Kikko. I was kinda upset when I realized this was the old thread on this subject. It was a good discussion.

[mysticjbyrd]

Disproving intelligent design with a mouse trap

[Ben]

All these things assume that one of the dependent features would have had to evolve completely first.

It seems more likely to me that they both evolved gradually with each other.

For example, an early ancestor of a giraffe grew slightly taller than its relatives. As the species grew taller and taller, blood in the brain started to become a possible issue, but not a cause of eminent death. Then the spongy tissue to protect them started to evolve, allowing them to grow even taller, then the spongy tissue grew more, and so on.

[Dom]

What I find interesting is the beaver.

What the beaver is doing is actually less on a physical level like all the other mentioned animals, the beaver evolved an intelligent, cognitive behavior. This probably applies also to other species I am not familiair with.

The beaver knows engineering principles that are based on trial and error.

It proves that animals are intelligent, and, if the intelligence is challenged by their surroundings on a continuing basis, will develop some amazing skills. There just isn't the drive to develop skills that may not be directly related to survival as in humans.

Beavers display a skill that took humans eons to learn - the engineering of dams is quite intricate and adjusts to the current situation - size and type of wood, width and depth of water as well as strength of current etc. A number of variables have to be taken into account with each new structure.

Some animals have evolved into what we may call "idiot savantes". Their intelligence is limited to learning from repetative life experiences with the exception of one thing in which they excel and could challenge the average human.

Put anyone of you without an education in engineering and without a book next to a beaver and make the same materials available, the beaver will build the better dam.

I really don't think we are all that much smarter to start with, it's that we communicate complex ideas and we record what others in our species have found. It is communication skills we are most evolved in, and other than our thumbs, that is what makes us the dominant species.

Which brings me back to the importance of education, everything seems to bring me back to this.

[Sol]

I think the "sponge" thing being referred to is the Rete Mirabile, a simple google should easily explain its function.
Saves speculating. and could be used as an example of species relatedness and evolution rather than a special case for uniqueness/complexity/design/voodoo/woo