You say the eye is a "perfect" device - the eye is certainly not perfect, having been "wired up" in an illogical way
Not that I`m disagreeing, but I`m wondering what you mean by the human eye being wired up in an illogical way? Are you referring to the fact that when an image that we are looking at is processed by the eye, the image is projected onto our retina upside down, and then is converted the right way up by our brains? If so this is an unavoidable occurance determined by the laws of optical physics. If we said that for arguments sake, a "god" designed the human eye, this creator could have realised that there was no way of getting round this problem, and instead designed the human brain to be flexible enough to convert the image upside down. What I was thinking about when I said the eye was a perfect optical device was the eye`s ability to change the size of the pupil automatically to the amount of light in the environment using a collection of tiny muscles, all working together in the same way that a camera lense adjusts its apparture. Now i find it hard to accept that a biological device that can do this arose as a spontaneous mutation in the gene pool. Even when you take into account the number of "random" genetic mutations that there could be, what are the chances of one of these mutations spontaneously creating the perfect human camera? That`s like a monkey "accidentally" typing the entire works of Shakespeare!
Last Edit: Dec 29, 2006 13:48:00 GMT by alexraybould
We aren't talking about a Saturday afternoon in the garden shed! This is evolution over millions of years!
"That`s like a monkey "accidentally" typing the entire works of Shakespeare!"
The way I see it, the monkey actually did think up the entire works of Shakespeare!! It just took millions of years for that monkey to get the brain capacity to do it! ;D
You say the eye is a "perfect" device - the eye is certainly not perfect, having been "wired up" in an illogical way
Not that I`m disagreeing, but I`m wondering what you mean by the human eye being wired up in an illogical way? Are you referring to the fact that when an image that we are looking at is processed by the eye, the image is projected onto our retina upside down, and then is converted the right way up by our brains? If so this is an unavoidable occurance determined by the laws of optical physics. If we said that for arguments sake, a "god" designed the human eye, this creator could have realised that there was no way of getting round this problem, and instead designed the human brain to be flexible enough to convert the image upside down. What I was thinking about when I said the eye was a perfect optical device was the eye`s ability to change the size of the pupil automatically to the amount of light in the environment using a collection of tiny muscles, all working together in the same way that a camera lense adjusts its apparture.
Not quite what I'm referring to. The way the eye is wired up to take images from the retina to the brain is backwards - the "wires" protrude into the eye rather than outside (as in some other species) creating blind spots. If it was wired up the right way around, there would be no blind spots. (Again, I'll point to my lack of knowledge about biology and would need to read up on this point again from someone who knows more about it to be completely accurate in what I'm saying, rather than off the top of my head from a book I read a couple of months ago! ;D )
Now i find it hard to accept that a biological device that can do this arose as a spontaneous mutation in the gene pool. Even when you take into account the number of "random" genetic mutations that there could be, what are the chances of one of these mutations spontaneously creating the perfect human camera? That`s like a monkey "accidentally" typing the entire works of Shakespeare!
Surprisingly enough, it's not the same thing at all. I suggest reading Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker", which goes into these points in great detail and (obviously) far better than I ever could!
You seem to suggest that the eye sprang from nowhere after a mutation, which is clearly not what happened - that is NOT evolution. It probably started off with one organism developing a photo-sensitive cell which allowed it to detect an approaching predator better than those without the photosensitive cell. Then the number of photosensitive cells grew which gave it better abilities to avoid predators. The predators grew better photosensitive cells which allowed it to find its prey better. And the arms race went on over thousands and thousands of generations with tiny little changes which gave the predator or prey an advantage that allowed it to survive.
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
Yes, I have to conceed that your explanation makes sense, Bujin. It could very well be that a biological device as sophisticated as the human eye could have evolved via a process of a number of very small mutations over the course of millions of years rather than one spontaneous, and miraculous mutation. I still find it amazing though that these tiny mutations occur in the first place, and if indeed mutations themselves are purely random then we are truly lucky to even exist at all. Although I completely accept that evolution is scientific fact, it is still difficult for me to accept that some kind of creator wasn`t involved in, or created the evolution process itself. I remember reading years ago of a cat that was born with wings, somewhere in Yorkshire. There were photographs which showed the cat itself. The wings were only about the size of birds wings and apparantly although the cat could flap it`s wings, not surprisingly it couldn`t fly. Assuming this wasn`t a hoax then this was a classic example of a random mutation which could potentially have created a new species, particularly if the cat had been able to fly! Now if this cat had been born with three or five legs instead of four, or with no ears, or four ears, that wouldn`t be much of a surprise. But where did a full set of wings come from!? The only scientific explanation could be that the genetic ancestor of the cat was an animal which once had wings, and then lost them, much like the Penguin did. Then millions of years later this dormant gene makes a reappearance spontaneously in one of this animal`s decendants. If this scientific explanation isn`t the case, then this would surely be an example of a quantum leap in the evolution process. Much like my original assumption of the sophisticated optical device arising from a single spontaneous mutation.
In addition I have heard that there is, or was, a bewilderment amongst the scientific community as to the so called "missing link". Fossil remains could not determine when and how the human backbone originated, as it appeared to arise from nowhere. Either the fossil remains were incomplete, or the backbone originated spontaneously. However my knowledge of this is not exactly extensive so you might be able to enlighten me on this.
Another interesting thing which I have always considered is the fact that the whole natural selection process occurred through a reinforcement of those genetic characteristics which promoted the human or animal`s survival by making it more effective at catching prey, escaping from predators, and / or being healthy enough to survive long enough to reproduce. As I mentioned before, for the first time in the history of man, we now live in a society where the genetically weak are supported and protected by Social security, technology, the National Health service, and the general benefits of a relatively "civilised" society. Therefore such individuals can still survive to an age where they can reproduce. If there is no longer a surival of the fittest, does this mean the end to human evolution as we know it? Is this as good as it gets? I`m interested in what your take is on this? Thanks for the Richard Dawkins reference by the way. Hopefully one day I might get the time to have a read of it!
Last Edit: Jan 1, 2007 16:07:45 GMT by alexraybould
Although I completely accept that evolution is scientific fact, it is still difficult for me to accept that some kind of creator wasn`t involved in, or created the evolution process itself.
My personal take on this is that it is because it is ingrained into you from a very young age - kids learn about the Bible and God (at least, we do in the predominantly Christian UK) right from the moment they start school (or even before). Kids are effectively pre-programmed (perhaps through evolution) to believe what their elders tell them as in the majority of cases, it means that they will be safer. Therefore, when the elders tell them there's a God, a Heaven and Hell, Jesus as the son of God, etc..., they have no reason to doubt it. They expect their parents, teachers, etc... to tell them the truth. So, when they get older, the idea of there being an intelligent being who created the universe is so deeply ingrained in their brain, they find it incredibly difficult to let go. Even I, as an atheist, still cannot let go completely of the idea of a God because I was one of those kids too. However, I am rationalising it all the time.
The idea of there being a primary creator is appealing because it "answers" the question of where life on earth originated from. However, what that does is open up more difficult questions - where did God come from? Who made God? It's no real answer.
I remember reading years ago of a cat that was born with wings, somewhere in Yorkshire. There were photographs which showed the cat itself. The wings were only about the size of birds wings and apparantly although the cat could flap it`s wings, not surprisingly it couldn`t fly. Assuming this wasn`t a hoax then this was a classic example of a random mutation which could potentially have created a new species, particularly if the cat had been able to fly! Now if this cat had been born with three or five legs instead of four, or with no ears, or four ears, that wouldn`t be much of a surprise. But where did a full set of wings come from!?
I suspect it was a hoax. I don't know of this exact case, but that's not how winged creatures evolved anyway. They didn't just not have wings in one generation and then a load of babies were born that DID have wings, so the idea that a cat could obtain a full set of wings in one generation is illogical.
However, if you do find any more information about this, I'd be interested in reading up on it and asking questions to people who know a hell of a lot more about biology than me!
In addition I have heard that there is, or was, a bewilderment amongst the scientific community as to the so called "missing link". Fossil remains could not determine when and how the human backbone originated, as it appeared to arise from nowhere. Either the fossil remains were incomplete, or the backbone originated spontaneously. However my knowledge of this is not exactly extensive so you might be able to enlighten me on this.
I'm aware of the "missing link", but I don't know a great deal about it. There are plenty of unanswered questions with evolution - no-one is claiming it is a complete theory. However, unanswered questions do not invalidate what is an extremely solid theory in every other aspect.
I suspect the answer to this problem will lie within the bounds of the general theory of evolution. It may lead to minor changes in the theory (which scientists would be more than happy to accept), but it won't throw the entire theory out of the window.
Another interesting thing which I have always considered is the fact that the whole natural selection process occurred through a reinforcement of those genetic characteristics which promoted the human or animal`s survival by making it more effective at catching prey, escaping from predators, and / or being healthy enough to survive long enough to reproduce. As I mentioned before, for the first time in the history of man, we now live in a society where the genetically weak are supported and protected by Social security, technology, the National Health service, and the general benefits of a relatively "civilised" society. Therefore such individuals can still survive to an age where they can reproduce. If there is no longer a surival of the fittest, does this mean the end to human evolution as we know it? Is this as good as it gets? I`m interested in what your take is on this?
My take on it is that if people with genetic disorders are kept alive through medicine and are able to pass on their genes then we no longer have "survival of the fittest", and "bad" genes will get passed down. It is not the end of human evolution - humans may evolve over a long period of time to the point where what we call "disabilities" today become more and more normal. Evolution does not necessarily always produce better offspring - particularly in this artificial world. (The natural world will almost always produce "better" offspring because the better offspring will always survive more than than the worse ones).
So - does that mean medicine is a good thing? Or does it mean that we should not give medicine to genetically flawed people? Well, this is where morality steps in. And this is often where the religious try to take the high ground. But as an atheist, I still think it's better to try to help your fellow man (or woman, for the PC among you...) than to allow them to suffer and die. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean that you should live like an animal in the natural world with your only objective being to pass on your healthy genes.
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
Having read through that very extensive summary on so called "Winged Cats", it does indeed appear that most of the sightings of winged cats are actually as a result of matted fur, or Feline Cutaneous Asthenia (FCA). The fact that many of the so called "wings" apparantly fell off after a certain period of time would lend weight to the "matted fur" theory. Cutaneous Asthenia is a rare genetic disorder in which the skin is loosely attached to the body and can result in large folds of skin extending outwards from the body.
There have been a great number of "winged cats" which have been shot, found dead, seen, and exhibited in museums and freak shows over the course of recorded history. Very few of these "winged cats" were medically examined, but those that were concluded that the occurances were examples of matted fur or possible cases of FCA. Many of the cases which were not medically examined contained eye witness reports of such cats flapping their "wings" or "swooping down" onto the ground, which would suggest a functional pair wings. However one could argue that the eye witness testimonies may have been exaggerated, either intentionally or unconsciously. Particularly if the witness would have been more inclined to believe a paranormal explaination than a scientific one (as would have been the case with previous god and devil fearing generations!)
Based on the research done, although we cannot rule out 100% that at least one of the unexamined cases which occured were actually genuine wings, there is no evidence which contradicts, or questions the integrity of the theory of evolution as a steady process of small, discrete mutations / changes over the course of millions of years. If a cat with a fully functioning set of wings could be found, then I would argue that it would create a mystery which would imply a devine intervention rather than a natural change over the course of millions of years.
What has occured to me while looking into this is how wings in contempory winged animals actually evolved in the first place? An animal cannot fly with half a set of wings. Aerodynamically, a full set of wings needs to exist before the bird / animal can get off the ground. So how did wings evolve slowly over the course of millions of years? For example, a particular species has in it`s flock an animal which is born with a mutated set of flaps of skin on it`s back, which could be the beginning of "wings" as we know them. However what advantage over prey or predators would it give? For wings to be reinforced into the gene pool, in the absence of any other kind of advantage, they would have to be fully functioning in the first place in order to enable the animal to fly away from predators or to find and trap prey. Either a fully functioning set of wings suddenly grew as a mutation in a member of the species (which would be a mystery), or the whole evolution of wings is a mystery in itself.
What has occured to me while looking into this is how wings in contempory winged animals actually evolved in the first place? An animal cannot fly with half a set of wings. Aerodynamically, a full set of wings needs to exist before the bird / animal can get off the ground. So how did wings evolve slowly over the course of millions of years? For example, a particular species has in it`s flock an animal which is born with a mutated set of flaps of skin on it`s back, which could be the beginning of "wings" as we know them. However what advantage over prey or predators would it give? For wings to be reinforced into the gene pool, in the absence of any other kind of advantage, they would have to be fully functioning in the first place in order to enable the animal to fly away from predators or to find and trap prey. Either a fully functioning set of wings suddenly grew as a mutation in a member of the species (which would be a mystery), or the whole evolution of wings is a mystery in itself.
Hopefully that last paragraph makes sense!
It's a common question, and again, it's covered in Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker".
You say that "Aerodynamically, a full set of wings needs to exist before the bird / animal can get off the ground", and indeed you are correct, if you imagine that the wing evolved with the purpose of enabling the animal to fly.
That's not quite how it worked.
Imagine a tree-dwelling animal with no wings. It jumps from branch to branch, and occasionally falls. When it falls from a great height, it causes damage to itself when it hits the ground.
Now, imagine that a genetic mutation allows the creature to have an extended flap of "skin". When the creature falls, this time it has more surface area, so therefore its terminal velocity (the speed at which the gravitational force pulling it downwards is equal and opposite to the atmospheric drag (also called air resistance) pushing it upwards) is lower. The animal is still damaged (possibly killed) when it falls from the tree, but because of the lower terminal velocity, it can fall from a greater height without sustaining enough damage to kill it.
The flap of skin is then genetically mutated and selected over many thousands of generations to become larger, allowing the creature to survive falls from greater and greater heights. Skeletal structure may give the creature "arms", which allows it to expand and contract the flap as required. It learns over further generations that as it falls from the tree, moving the flap of skin with its arms up and down give it more lift. Eventually, the evolution takes it to the point where the animal no longer has to be in the trees to begin with - it just moves the flaps of skin to generate its own lift.
EDIT: Again, though, I'll point out that I'm not a biologist, and I'm new to all this evolution stuff too, so this is quite a simplistic view. There's probably a lot more to it than that, but that's just one way a wing could have evolved.
Well worth a look if you're interested in evolution and natural selection. It doesn't mention the evolution of the wing (as it does in the book), but it does cover the evolution of both the eye and camouflage.
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
Thanks Bujin. I can see how that theory could reasonably explain the evolution of wings. I will have to read the Dawkins book at some point!
I noted with interest your comments on the question of to what further extent evolution can occur in a species which now is advanced enough to care for and protect the weak. Personally, I am still of the opinion that evolution may now have reached a state in which no further progress can take place. Whilst I agree that it is ethically correct for man to help his (or her!) fellow man, It would be worrying to think that in this world of war, selfishness, cruelty, violence, stupidity, ignorance, and self destruction...... the intellect, and therefore the wisdom of our species as a whole may evolve no further.
Another thing that a lot of religious people think is that God made humans in his own image. Now, the problem with this idea is that thinking about it for a few minutes points to one of three things:
1) God is not a great designer, 2) God is not a benevolent being, but likes to see humans suffer, or 3) God is not responsible for the human body.
To elaborate slightly, just think of a few things about the supposedly "perfect" human body (which, as I said, was made in His own image).
1) I've already mentioned the illogical wiring of the eye. 2) The mouth. This orifice is responsible for three different jobs - eating, breathing and speaking. It's a flawed design. How easy is it to choke while eating? Why not, like whales, have one passage for eating and one for breathing? Makes a lot more sense. 3) The spine. Why is it curved? Any engineer will tell you that it's not built for any sort of load-bearing. The vast majority of people will experience back pain at some point in their lives - incidentally, this is why fraudulent mediums often will say something like "he suffered with his back, didn't he dearie?". 4) The spinal chord. This one is a follow-on from (3). The structural integrity of the spine is quite weak, yet through it runs the nervous system. If the spine breaks and this spinal chord is severed, the consequences are terrible! No backup systems. 5) We've all heard the "why run a sewer through an amusement park" thing, right? Why is our genitalia used for reproduction as well as removal of waste products? Doesn't seem like the most hygienic way of doing things!!!
Where am I going with this?
Well, along with things like the appendix and the coccyx, these things could all be improved upon.
I should point out that none of these arguments are my original ideas - they've all been lifted from people far more articulate and knowledgeable than me!!!
Of course, the point behind the question was the ethics of helping people with genetic mutations to reproduce. I suspect what this will produce in time is a much more diverse range of humanity. Evolution will still continue, but the human species won't necessarily get better, because the mutation will occur, but selection won't (as much).
(Having just read through what I wrote, it does seem to be waffling off at a tangent... )
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
Another thing that a lot of religious people think is that God made humans in his own image. Now, the problem with this idea is that thinking about it for a few minutes points to one of three things:
1) God is not a great designer, 2) God is not a benevolent being, but likes to see humans suffer, or 3) God is not responsible for the human body.
Aha, but that is assuming the traditional religious view that god created man and there is no such thing as evolution. As you`re aware, according to this dogma, man appeared out of nowhere after being "created" in six days, and man never evolved, nor will man ever improve upon the state in which he (or her!) exists today. Could it not be that there is another perspective?
Consider my original theory (albeit a theory that so far has been unable to be proven), that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive, and there is a higher form of consiousness (for want of a better word a "god"), who is gradually creating and perfecting all life on earth through the gradual process of evolution. Could it not be that this god is still working on, and perfecting all species on earth? Hence for example the reason why the human backbone is curved is NOT because god made a big error and created a curved backbone when it should have been straight, but because the human backbone is still in the process of being straightened
I have to agree with your statement though that god is not a benevolent being. To believe that god is all mercyful and doesn`t want to see us suffer is a naive religious fallacy. If this were the case there would be no death, no terminal illnesses, you would always get the girl, and everything would go your way. If there IS a god, then we are just pawns in his greater plan, whatever that is
It's impossible to rule out that theory, of course, but you then have to ask the question of where the "god" character came from in the first place. The theory of evolution is, in my opinion, extremely elegant - the idea that humans, elephants, eagles, crocodiles, etc... are all just complex vehicles built up around replicators (DNA) over millions of generations in order to ensure their survival.
I, like most scientists, believe that the idea of belonging to some sort of masterplan of a higher intelligence is just wishful thinking.
Fry: Hey, wait, I'm having one of those things…you know, a headache with pictures. Leela: An idea?
To include god as the architect of creation in itself creates and infinite regress...by the logic of creationist own argument that anything as complex as life must have a designer....we must then ask the question who designed god..ad infinity.
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
To include god as the architect of creation in itself creates and infinite regress...by the logic of creationist own argument that anything as complex as life must have a designer....we must then ask the question who designed god..ad infinity.
But cannot the same be said of science? Science has studied the universe and came up with a model of the universe that states that everything in the universe began from a "Big Bang". Now whilst this is a theory that none the less I believe in 100%, it then necessitates the questions "What existed before the big Bang?", "What created the matter that exploded outwards in the first place?" "Where did matter come from?" Where did the laws of physics come from which created a big bang in the first place?"
)
