This is not an attack on evolution

[montalban]

I'm not sure if I can raise this topic here.

I asked a few evolutionist friends of mine how the Australopithecine creature could have survived. To me it seems it has no adaption that made it suitable to survive.

It was a mid-sized creature that was not fast, strong, nor particularly intelligent. It had no tool-making skills and no language capability.

It didn't even live in the trees.

How is it that every meat-eating creature didn't make short work of them?

My atheist friends gave me two responses:

a) It must have survived, because we're here
and
b) the bible's account of creation is all false.

One of these replies has nothing to do with the question.

[JamesR]

Reproduction ability, stealth and ability to hide, and a diet based on a plentiful food source are all reasons that could lead to even the most incapable creature surviving. Research the creature in question and see how it relates to these questions.

[montalban]

Reproduction ability, stealth and ability to hide, and a diet based on a plentiful food source are all reasons that could lead to even the most incapable creature surviving. Research the creature in question and see how it relates to these questions.

That doesn't answer me at all, 'cause we're talking about a largish ape, not a creature that can burrow, or crawls around on all fours

How does a large ape hide in the savanna when walking on two legs?

Predators act not just on sight, but smell. So whilst a lion might not see one of these ape-creatures the jackals would smell them

[quietmorning]

LOL. . .sometimes people just like to take jabs where they can, even if their jabs make absolutely no sense.

This was a roll your eyes and move on moment (the comment about b) the bible's account of creation is all false.)

The fact that you are missing is that there isn't enough information, yet.  And when there is more information, it is likely for a while, until more information is found to look like it means one thing, but actually it means another. 

(Just a side note that doesn't really have to do with the answer I'm about to give, but its sticking out in my brain):  You don't know if the ape would lie flat in the savanna or not, just as we sometimes do when we are trying to hide. 

They did not survive. 

They are extinct. 

It only takes ONE mating with another species to introduce a genome into a another species.  It's likely that there were more, but it isn't about the survivability of the genus, it's about the reproduction.  There were different sub-species within the genus - so who knows how much they differed and what their adaptation skills or mutations were? 

 

[Schultz]

It only takes ONE mating with another species to introduce a genome into a another species.  It's likely that there were more, but it isn't about the survivability of the genus, it's about the reproduction.  There were different sub-species within the genus - so who knows how much they differed and what their adaptation skills or mutations were? 

BINGO.

The very first thing my physical anthro professor said on day one was, "We're going to spend the next three months talking about sex.  Sex.  Sex.  Oh, and SEX.  Contrary to what you may think, Darwinian evolution is not about adaptation.  Being able to survive in your environment doesn't mean jack unless you can mate and pass on those genes."

[quietmorning]

You know, come to think of it, trying to hide in grassy plains by lying flat might be a reason why we ended up upright - to reduce our profile. . .

one more to add to they myriads of guesses. 

[Aindriú]

It only takes ONE mating with another species to introduce a genome into a another species.  It's likely that there were more, but it isn't about the survivability of the genus, it's about the reproduction.  There were different sub-species within the genus - so who knows how much they differed and what their adaptation skills or mutations were? 

How exactly are genomes 'introduced'?

[quietmorning]

It only takes ONE mating with another species to introduce a genome into a another species.  It's likely that there were more, but it isn't about the survivability of the genus, it's about the reproduction.  There were different sub-species within the genus - so who knows how much they differed and what their adaptation skills or mutations were? 

How exactly are genomes 'introduced'?

Via DNA. 

[montalban]

They did not survive.  

For more than a million years they did. It seems imporbable that nature just holds off until they can evolve into something better.

They'd be instead easy prey for all the predators

[montalban]

It only takes ONE mating with another species to introduce a genome into a another species.  It's likely that there were more, but it isn't about the survivability of the genus, it's about the reproduction.  There were different sub-species within the genus - so who knows how much they differed and what their adaptation skills or mutations were? 

 

I thought I'd deal with this separately as it's slightly off-topic.

My basic understanding (from high school biology) is that a 'species' is the smallest group that contains members that can mate and produce viable offspring. Thus a dog and cat are different species because no matter how often my dog bothers my cat they're not going to produce viable young.

That two different 'species' can mate means a re-working of the very definition of species - which is also another problem I have - the way evolutionists just throw out their own definitions when it suits. For e.g. Neanderthal are said to be a different species (which means that they can't mate with modern man) and then people suggest that one of the reasons they vanished is that they were 'bred-out' by modern man.

[montalban]

It only takes ONE mating with another species to introduce a genome into a another species.  It's likely that there were more, but it isn't about the survivability of the genus, it's about the reproduction.  There were different sub-species within the genus - so who knows how much they differed and what their adaptation skills or mutations were?  

BINGO.

The very first thing my physical anthro professor said on day one was, "We're going to spend the next three months talking about sex.  Sex.  Sex.  Oh, and SEX.  Contrary to what you may think, Darwinian evolution is not about adaptation.  Being able to survive in your environment doesn't mean jack unless you can mate and pass on those genes."

Yes, and this too is yet another problem I have; survival of the luckiest. You could have, for example, two male lions. One has some mutation that makes it more suitable for surviving in a water-less environment (where that trait would be an advantage). However if it's not physically bigger/stronger than the other male lion it's not going to get to mate with the females and pass those genes on. So not only do you have a situation where most mutations aren't beneficial, the chance of beneficial genes actually being passed on depends on the right lion being able to mate. Just a matter of luck.

Another example is turtles. When they hatch and make for the sea various seabirds are there to eat them. The one turtle with the right beneficial gene is just as likely to be eaten by the bird as any other young.

And the tautology of 'survival of the fittest' because what is deemed 'fit' is simply that which survived.

Interestingly when I've mentioned this tautology in the past, people have lept to the defence of Darwin by saying he didn't coin the phrase, Spencer did. However Darwin adopted the phrase and said (in a later ed. of Origin of Species) it best describes his theory!

[Sinful Hypocrite]

You are all Mutants from the black lagooney

[montalban]

You are all Mutants from the black lagooney

I'm looking for another mutant, to ....

actually that should be a personal ad


Mutant: Seeks other mutant to start new species

[NightOwl]

You seem to have a lot of "problems" with evolution but have you tried doing research on the topic beyond debating with your friends? There is an enormous amount of material about evolution floating around in libraries, bookstores, and the academic corners of the Internet. If you're having a hard time understanding specific concepts or the evolutionary histories of certain species I'd recommend starting there rather than looking for answers from laymen on Internet forums. In fact, a simple Google search turned up a number of books specifically about the Australopithecines.  https://www.google.com/search?q=australopithecines&tbm=bks&tbo=1&oq=Australopithecine

[quietmorning]

It only takes ONE mating with another species to introduce a genome into a another species.  It's likely that there were more, but it isn't about the survivability of the genus, it's about the reproduction.  There were different sub-species within the genus - so who knows how much they differed and what their adaptation skills or mutations were? 

 

I thought I'd deal with this separately as it's slightly off-topic.

My basic understanding (from high school biology) is that a 'species' is the smallest group that contains members that can mate and produce viable offspring. Thus a dog and cat are different species because no matter how often my dog bothers my cat they're not going to produce viable young.

That two different 'species' can mate means a re-working of the very definition of species - which is also another problem I have - the way evolutionists just throw out their own definitions when it suits. For e.g. Neanderthal are said to be a different species (which means that they can't mate with modern man) and then people suggest that one of the reasons they vanished is that they were 'bred-out' by modern man.

I should have said sub-species, as you are correct, cats and dogs don't mix.  But a dog could mate with a wolf.  And then there's the thought that we really don't know that much.  There is a world of information that we just guess at as we don't have a live animal or group to study.  Even the animals we have NOW - many, we are completely oblivious about concerning mating, mutations, etc.

[Jonathan Gress]

It only takes ONE mating with another species to introduce a genome into a another species.  It's likely that there were more, but it isn't about the survivability of the genus, it's about the reproduction.  There were different sub-species within the genus - so who knows how much they differed and what their adaptation skills or mutations were? 

BINGO.

The very first thing my physical anthro professor said on day one was, "We're going to spend the next three months talking about sex.  Sex.  Sex.  Oh, and SEX.  Contrary to what you may think, Darwinian evolution is not about adaptation.  Being able to survive in your environment doesn't mean jack unless you can mate and pass on those genes."

Unless you reproduce asexually.

[biro]

I read once there was a type of plant or fungus with 36 genders. You think it's hard to find the restroom at a baseball stadium now?

[Jonathan Gress]

I read once there was a type of plant or fungus with 36 genders. You think it's hard to find the restroom at a baseball stadium now?

I can see 36 human genders in the not-too-distant future. We already have three binary categories: male/female, cis/trans, queer/non-queer (?), which is 16 possible permutations. One more binary category brings us to 32.

[montalban]

You seem to have a lot of "problems" with evolution but have you tried doing research on the topic beyond debating with your friends?

I get this a lot too... instead of people answering my questions they ask me to justify myself for addressing problems I have with it.

Well, yes, after doing biology, I did "Prehistory" at university. Our text was "In Search of Ourselves" by Poirier.

More recently I have read African Exodus by Chris Stringer and Robin McKie (which itself has some stupid argument in it) and Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction by Milford Wolpoff. These two books present mutually exclusive theories on the rise of modern man.


The "We don't have an answer, go research it yourself" modus doesn't work with me.

[montalban]

It only takes ONE mating with another species to introduce a genome into a another species.  It's likely that there were more, but it isn't about the survivability of the genus, it's about the reproduction.  There were different sub-species within the genus - so who knows how much they differed and what their adaptation skills or mutations were? 

 

I thought I'd deal with this separately as it's slightly off-topic.

My basic understanding (from high school biology) is that a 'species' is the smallest group that contains members that can mate and produce viable offspring. Thus a dog and cat are different species because no matter how often my dog bothers my cat they're not going to produce viable young.

That two different 'species' can mate means a re-working of the very definition of species - which is also another problem I have - the way evolutionists just throw out their own definitions when it suits. For e.g. Neanderthal are said to be a different species (which means that they can't mate with modern man) and then people suggest that one of the reasons they vanished is that they were 'bred-out' by modern man.

I should have said sub-species, as you are correct, cats and dogs don't mix.  But a dog could mate with a wolf.  And then there's the thought that we really don't know that much.  There is a world of information that we just guess at as we don't have a live animal or group to study.  Even the animals we have NOW - many, we are completely oblivious about concerning mating, mutations, etc.

And yet we are told Neanderthals were a different SPECIES!

[jmbejdl]

It only takes ONE mating with another species to introduce a genome into a another species.  It's likely that there were more, but it isn't about the survivability of the genus, it's about the reproduction.  There were different sub-species within the genus - so who knows how much they differed and what their adaptation skills or mutations were? 

 

I thought I'd deal with this separately as it's slightly off-topic.

My basic understanding (from high school biology) is that a 'species' is the smallest group that contains members that can mate and produce viable offspring. Thus a dog and cat are different species because no matter how often my dog bothers my cat they're not going to produce viable young.

That two different 'species' can mate means a re-working of the very definition of species - which is also another problem I have - the way evolutionists just throw out their own definitions when it suits. For e.g. Neanderthal are said to be a different species (which means that they can't mate with modern man) and then people suggest that one of the reasons they vanished is that they were 'bred-out' by modern man.

I should have said sub-species, as you are correct, cats and dogs don't mix.  But a dog could mate with a wolf.  And then there's the thought that we really don't know that much.  There is a world of information that we just guess at as we don't have a live animal or group to study.  Even the animals we have NOW - many, we are completely oblivious about concerning mating, mutations, etc.

And yet we are told Neanderthals were a different SPECIES!

When I was growing up we weren't - they were a different subspecies (Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). I've no idea why they've changed this but I'm sure there must be some good reason, though it certainly can't be the ability/or inability to produce viable offspring (which is also exactly what I was taught for the definition of species) because we and the Neanderthals clearly could produce viable offspring. Clearly something has changed in the definition of species in the intervening years (rather like it has with planet) but the end of the day these are all just categories that we've invented to make sense of the world - if it makes more sense to tweak the definition now there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

James

[montalban]

When I was growing up we weren't - they were a different subspecies (Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis). I've no idea why they've changed this but I'm sure there must be some good reason, though it certainly can't be the ability/or inability to produce viable offspring (which is also exactly what I was taught for the definition of species) because we and the Neanderthals clearly could produce viable offspring. Clearly something has changed in the definition of species in the intervening years (rather like it has with planet) but the end of the day these are all just categories that we've invented to make sense of the world - if it makes more sense to tweak the definition now there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

James

Oh, I accept that they weren't. They were on a different branch... in some texts, 30 years ago

When I did pre-history there were four different (and mutually exclusive) theories of how modern man arose, and some had Neanderthal as an ancestor. Others as a distinct branch (and dead-end).

The theories in Poirier are:

the Unilinear School;

the Polyphyletic School;

the Preneanderthal School; and,

the Presapiens School

These mutually exclusive theories have been set aside and currently we have two different (but still mutually exclusive) theories (above I've mentioned a book from each school of thought)

Walpoff supports the Multi-regional (aka diregional) model. And this is against the "Out of Africa" model.


I don't think anything has changed in the definition of species (as such; from my reading at present) only that scientists are quick to discard terms like this when it doesn't suit.

It's the same with the finches on the Galápagos Islands. One scientist might say there's 11 species of finch. Another says there's 15. I might suggest that they're all the one species and people are looking at sub-species variations.

At school we were taught a lot of nonsense to demonstrate evolution. One was the classical example of moths changing colour due to pollution, and then back again when that pollution is lessened. It's a silly example because they never change species.

Silly examples continue with Richard Dawkins suggesting that people can use biomorphs to simulate how small changes in a 'species' can lead to great diversity.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with biomorphs. They're simple computer programs that generate random pictures, like perhaps, something that looks like a stick. One might watch how the 'stick' evolves into looking like a leaf. This isn't of course to suggest sticks became leaves, but to show how small changes lead to great variation.

“Dawkins started from a conventional recursive algorithm : for each iteration, a new connection is generated. The aim was to generate tree forms. Starting from a trunk, to any new iteration corresponds a sub-branch. The use of biomorph quickly showed the algorithm was absolutely not limited to the realization of different trees (apple trees, fir trees ...) ; but could also generate many types of forms, biological or not. Dawkins was therefore quite surprised to discover an insect-looking biomorph followed by planes, bats, branched candlesticks?”
http://www.rennard.org/alife/english/biomintrgb.html

The problem being is that Dawkins encourages the student to pick/interfere with the program to pick which 'species' they think is more viable, and then let the computer run again from the choice the student makes.

It thus completely fails as an analogy to evolution because nature doesn't sit there going "Oo! I like the look of that! I'll let this one run (evolve)..."

But this is JUST LIKE DARWIN - who used the analogy of pigeon breeders picking particular traits of pigeons and breeding those to get those traits!

I find it incredible that in order to demonstrate (by analogy) evolution, people resort to using examples of an intelligent designer!

I feel too many people think Dawkins is a genius. I'll set out a longer example next for those who wish to read it

[montalban]

When dealing with 'random' mutations the analogy of 'monkeys typing randomly and yet eventually coming up with a complete work of Shakespeare'.

Thomas Huxley (“Darwin's Bulldog”) used this technique in Oxford, in 1860, while debating Samuel Wilberforce. He stated that if monkeys randomly strummed typewriter keys for a long enough time, then sooner or later Psalm 23 would be printed out. Huxley used this argument to demonstrate that life could have originated on Earth by chance.
 
Julian Huxley (1887-1975) repeated this analogy to 'prove' that long periods of time could allow impossible evolution to occur. In his analogy, given enough time, monkeys randomly typing on typewriters could eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.

It was obvious that this was in fact a terrible problem for the Darwinists because it ignores the 'harm' that would be derived all that inaccurate typing all those monkeys were doing (if we continue the analogy that the typing is = to DNA coding). Furthermore the time-frame involved is enormous.

Dawkins continued using the monkey-typing analogy, but thought he could solve the time-frame problem. Dawkins continued this hypothesis in his novel “The Blind Watchmaker”

Dawkins provides an easy-to-understand computer simulation of the principle of selection from random mutations using the example of a “monkey typist.” The monkey's first efforts on the typewriter produce the following random string of characters:
WDLMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P
 
Dawkins now “breeds” from this incomprehensible starting point a litter of “progeny” in each one of which a letter is randomly changed to any other letter (with a space counting as a letter). Of all the offspring, only one is kept for continued breeding; the one whose letter sequence matches more closely, however, slightly, the Shakespearean phrase:
 
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
 
After forty-one generations of “breeding,” the random initial phrase “evolves” into the target phrase: “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.”
Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 47-8.

and
“A potential source of confusion is the idea of evolution having a “target;'' we have normally combined this activity with others, such as Selection in Action, to address this. Cumulative SelectionOne of the most frequent arguments one hears against the theory of evolution is that complex forms and behaviors simply couldn't have evolved by ``random chance'' alone. The point we must often get across to students is that evolution does not, in fact, work this way; change is cumulative. Richard Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, dispels the myth of random chance by using the very metaphor that opponents of evolution often turn to: the monkey at the typewriter. This program models his suggestion that, were a monkey allowed to type random letters, he would produce a work of Shakespeare very quickly if letters he happened to type in the right places were preserved with each attempt. With this program, students type in a phrase of their choosing and observe how long a random phrase takes to ``evolve'' into their target phrase. Below are some sample investigations...”
http://www.geocities.com/jscarrie/sf0/bill.html
 
However, the problem is that these proposals rest on the anti-evolutionary idea of 'purpose'.
“When I observe that Richard Dawkins was unable to write a computer program that simulated his linguistic thought experiment, I did not mean that the task at hand was difficult. It is impossible. Mr Wadkins commends the discussion in Keen and Spain's Computer Simulation in Biology as a counterexample; it is no such thing. What Keen and Spain have done is (to) transcribe Dawkins's blunder into the computer language BASIC. Here are the steps that they undertake. A target sentence is selected “BASIC BIOLOGICAL MODELLING IS FUN”. The computer is given a randomly derived set of letters. The letters are scrambled. At each iteration, the computer (or the programmer) compares the randomly derived sequence with the target phrase. If the arrays - sequences on the one hand, target phrase on the other - do not match, the experiment continues; if they do, it stops.
There is nothing in this that is not also in Dawkins, the fog spreading from one book to the next. The experiment that Keen and Spain conduct is successful inasmuch as the computer reaches the target; but unsuccessful as a defense of Darwinian evolution. In looking to its target and comparing distances, the computer is appealing to information a biological system could not possess.
The point seems to be less straightforward than I imagined, so let me spell out the mistake. Starting from a random string, suppose the computer generates the sequence BNDIT DISNE SOT SODISWN TOSWXMSPW  SSO. Comparing the sequence with its target, it proposes to conserve the initial “B”. But why? The string is gibberish. Plainly, the conservation of vagrant successes has been undertaken with the computer's eye fixed firmly on its future target, intermediates selected not for what they are (gibberish, after all), but for what they will be (an English sentence). This is in violation of the rule against deferred success. Without the rule, there is nothing remotely like Darwinian evolution. What the computer has in fact done is to match randomly selected items to a template, thus inevitably reintroducing the element of deliberate design banished from the Darwinian model.”
David Berlinski; “Letters: David Berlinski and Critics” in Dembski, W. A. (ed) “Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who Find Darwinism Unconvincing”, p304

[NightOwl]

You seem to have a lot of "problems" with evolution but have you tried doing research on the topic beyond debating with your friends?

I get this a lot too... instead of people answering my questions they ask me to justify myself for addressing problems I have with it.

Well, yes, after doing biology, I did "Prehistory" at university. Our text was "In Search of Ourselves" by Poirier.

More recently I have read African Exodus by Chris Stringer and Robin McKie (which itself has some stupid argument in it) and Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction by Milford Wolpoff. These two books present mutually exclusive theories on the rise of modern man.


The "We don't have an answer, go research it yourself" modus doesn't work with me.

So you think the answers will be more easily found on an Orthodox Christianity forum...? I have a (slightly) better solution: http://www.thescienceforum.com/biology/

By the way, we DO have a specific thread for evolution: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,4959.0.html

There are 113 pages and it's possible your objections have already been discussed.

[NightOwl]

Just to be clear, I'm making these suggestions on the basis that you're genuinely trying to find answers to these questions, and, as your title suggests, have no hidden agenda or duplicitous intentions in asking them.

[montalban]

Just to be clear, I'm making these suggestions on the basis that you're genuinely trying to find answers to these questions, and, as your title suggests, have no hidden agenda or duplicitous intentions in asking them.

The great irony in that your posts offer no answer, but are instead looking at myself, and motivations!

However the forum one is a better suggestion that the previous one, of Google!

[NightOwl]

Just to be clear, I'm making these suggestions on the basis that you're genuinely trying to find answers to these questions, and, as your title suggests, have no hidden agenda or duplicitous intentions in asking them.

The great irony in that your posts offer no answer, but are instead looking at myself, and motivations!

However the forum one is a better suggestion that the previous one, of Google!

No, as I said, I am taking your first post and thread title at face value and am trying to help. If your motivations were other than what you explicitly presented, it would have been pointless for me to make the suggestions that I did.

[montalban]

Anyway, evolution won't fall because of these questions.

The explanations for evolution as I've exampled above do it no good.

Another was that relating to vestigial organs

The theory goes: We don't know what this organ does in humans, therefore it has no function.

If it has no function it must be 'vestigial' - a left-over from an earlier form.

All of this is based on assumptions.

When I did biology in high school there were a number of vestigial organs - a number since reduced as functions have been found for some of them.

[montalban]

Darwin used 'the eye' as a way of explaining evolution.

He used as examples a number of eyes, from a simple light-sensitive spot, onwards to our own eye (see pic)

The problem here is one of conceptual trickery.

The photo-sensitive spot does not lead to the next developed eye but is an end in itself. All these examples are ends in themselves.

I could easily draw-up a list of things; skate-board, bike, motor-bike, car, aeroplane, rocket ship and one can see a 'progression' from a simpler form to a more complext one. However the invention of the car was not held back until the skate-board was developed

[montalban]

Interesingly the eye is used as an argument against design.

It is suggested that a creator could not have been involved in the eye, because it is poorly designed. It has, for an example a 'blind-spot'

The problem with this argument is it's soelyl subjective. What makes for a 'poor design' is in the eye of the beholder.

Despite the 'blind-spot' the human eye functions quite well.

It can't see "X-Rays" or "Infra-Red" and pehaps a designer could have given these traits. But that doesn't make it a poorer eye.

[Sinful Hypocrite]

It really is not far removed from why a turtle or any number of species who seem slow and weak survive along with others such as sharks, Life always finds a way.

[TheTrisagion]

I'm not sure if I can raise this topic here.

I asked a few evolutionist friends of mine how the Australopithecine creature could have survived. To me it seems it has no adaption that made it suitable to survive.

It was a mid-sized creature that was not fast, strong, nor particularly intelligent. It had no tool-making skills and no language capability.

It didn't even live in the trees.

How is it that every meat-eating creature didn't make short work of them?

My atheist friends gave me two responses:

a) It must have survived, because we're here
and
b) the bible's account of creation is all false.

One of these replies has nothing to do with the question.

1. your atheist friend should do a better job of studying such things before giving pat answers
2. Australopithecus had a body make up similar to the modern bonobo and they are still around
3. If an creature can procreate fast enough, it makes up for a lot of genetic deficiencies.  I will admit to not knowing much of Australopithecus' sexual proclivities
4. Ground sloths had a much worse physical make up and they lived for a long time and were even contemporary with modern man until going extinct.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: This is not an attack on evolution