[_ Old Earth _] Evolution: Belly Up in the Pacific?

[lordkalvan]

....Given that, there is not enough time for all the species that live and have lived on the planet to evolve. What is your answer to that point?

Can you demonstrate this with evidence-derived argument, or are you simply content to assert it and expect us to accept your unvarnished word for the fact?

I haven't heard of mutations producing new species....

So how do you imagine new species arise, then, given that you acknowledge that 'a bit' of speciation takes place?

This has been shown to be nonsense. Try here:
(Andrew B. Conley, Jittima Piriyapongsa and I. King Jordan, "Retroviral promoters in the human genome," Bioinformatics, Vol. 24(14):1563–1567 (2008).)

Can you explain how this shows conclusions from ERV insertions 'to be nonsense'?

What a poor explanation of a simple, multitudinously observed and observable fact!

You mean unlike your explanations?

Don't you think that a flight over the Pacific Ocean of 2,800 miles is a near guarantee of extinction: if the bird doesn't know where to go?

Why do you imagine 'the bird doesn't know where to go'?

A flight from Alaska to New Zealand - some 7,200 miles - is also a near guarantee of extinction if the bird doesn't know where to go.

Why do you imagine 'the bird doesn't know where to go'?

So question: How do the birds know where to go, and how did the information enter the genome?

Through the evolutionary algorithm: modify, if successful repeat, otherwise discard.

Bird A (doesn't know how to get to Capistrano)---->
mutation------> Bird B (DOES know how to get to Capistrano).

There was no first bird that flew to Capistrano never having flown anywhere else before. I have attempted to discuss this with you before, but you simply ignored the point.

That mutation represents a phenomenal input of NEW information.

There was no single mutation that led to a bird that had never before flown to Capistrano suddenly flying to Capistrano.

ETA Here's another discussion that illuminates evolutionary explanations of the development of migration routes:

The higher you are, the further you can see: at sea-level you can see about 5km; at 600m you can see around 90km; at 3000m you can see about 200km. Birds have much better acuity of vision than we do (source: e n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vision). Long migrations began as shorter migrations. Landforms did not always have the configuration they do today. Birds would fly to a landfall they could see. If the distance to that landfall progressively increased, successful overflying of intervening barriers would increasingly favour birds (and their descendants) that had more stamina, better navigational abilities, etc.

During the last Ice Age, sea levels in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, were more than 100m lower than they are today (source: w ww.gly.fsu.edu/~donoghue/pdf/donoghue-climatic-change.pdf). Birds migrating from Central and South America to North America could 'cut the chord' by overflying the sea. As sea levels progressively rose, the chord that was cut would become longer until, eventually, flying from one landfall to the next would entail flying out of sight of land.

But mutations do not create new information. They mainly destroy or maintain old information. So what happened?

Evidence?

Mutations, I repeat, have never been shown to create a single new species....

So what leads to new species? What is your explanation and evidence for the cause of 'a bit' of speciation?

Further, you must know that the vast bulk of mutations are either neutral or deleterious.

You have previously told us that all mutations are neutral or deleterious. So what effect do you now imagine the ones that are beneficial have? And what effect do you imagine that the combination and recombination of neutral mutations might be through multiple generations?

This is the same Berthold who described the annual migration of the shearwater - some 25,000 km, most of it over ocean. I would have said 'a high potential for rapid drowning' myself. I'm embarrassed to hear him say so.

What you may or may not be embarrassed by has no evidential value.

Mutations may AFFECT migratory behaviour. Surely you can see that they do not CREATE migratory behaviour?

So what does? What's your explanation and the evidence that you use to develop it? Here's a discussion you have still failed to respond to in any meaningful way:

Given that migratory behaviour is so varied, it is clear that this behaviour is triggered by different factors. If an animal migrates for reproductive purposes, the impulse for that behaviour lies in the instinct to reproduce and the destination of that migration is determined by the needs of the animal. Equatorial birds head north (or south) in the spring in pursuit of abundant food sources where competition is less fierce than in their winter habitats. An evolutionary explanation would start with the birds simply foraging at the edge of the rainforest and, when the spring/summer rains bring the flowering and fruiting season to the edges of the deserts, birds follow the rains to take advantage of the sudden supply of food. Birds might have developed trans-equatorial migratory behaviour by following the food-supplying rainfall from the northern edge of the tropics in the northern summer to the southern edge in the southern summer, using natural corridors such as river valleys and coastlines to develop ever longer migratory routes. None of this behaviour requires a supernatural intervention to bring it about and, given the obvious lack of a supernatural explanation required to account for observed changes in migratory behaviour in numerous species, if such an origin is proposed it is incumbent upon those providing it to provide the necessary supporting evidence.

I have put up example after example of some of the most miraculous migrations in nature. And all I get in response is 'mutations + natural selection'.

That is pure nonsense.

Why?

What mutations + natural selection can get the eels to swim 3000 miles to the Sargasso, spawn and die there, and the offspring find their way with no guides back to where their parents came from, 3000 miles away? Underwater at that?

You could always return to the relevant thread and respond to the points raised there.

What mutations+natural selection can prioduce birds flying 2,800 miles in one case, and 7,200 miles in the other, across the Pacific Ocean where there are no landmarks or anything to guide them? Or fly 7,500 miles from Argentina to Capistrano in the US and arrive there on the SAME DATE every year?

Variation in migratory habits. Oh, and the swallows don't all arrive on exactly the same date, do they? In fact, they don't arrive at all now. Why is that?

...Ever heard of Lamarckism? That's what you're invoking - are forced to invoke - here. But you know that Lamarckism is long dead, so where do you go from there?

No one is invoking Lamarckism except in your strawman version of what is happening in evolutionary terms.

I ask you again, HOW did that behaviour arise, and HOW did it get into the genome in the first place?
Because mutations are mostly neutral or deleterious. THEY CANNOT CREATE ANYTHING.

They can change eye-colour, for example. Looks like something created there to me.

That's it. Just wave a magic evolutionary wand, and all is easy. Well I have news for you. It's not.

That is the basis of my second question: how did the instinct enter the genome in the first place?

I assume it's there somewhere - though it has not been shown to do so.

So where do you think it might reside if it doesn't reside in the genome. Is each migrating animal guided supernaturally in its route?

 

[abrown9]

I have put up example after example of some of the most miraculous migrations in nature. And all I get in response is 'mutations + natural selection'.

Miraculous only from your viewpoint. Basically what it boils down to is that you can't accept that "Mutation + Natural Selection" can account for things you consider to be miraculous. You have in no way disproved evolution. There is no hard evidence you have offered that disagrees with evolutionary theory. You have only provided examples of complex behavioural patterns that are (relatively) poorly understood, and claimed that they could not possibly be the outcome of evolution.

No, we don't yet fully understand the genetic control of avian migration. This is because it is dependent on a number of factors: learning, environmental influence, and pre-programmed genetic factors. It's not so simple that we can make a knockout mutant or insert a gene to make a totally sedentary bird migrate.

What we do have, however, are populations that are partial migrants. These are where a portion of the population migrates and the other portion doesn't. These seem like fairly obvious "transition stages" between a sedentary population and a migratory one. Furthermore, experiments have been conducted that show how easy it is for a partial migrant to become sedentary or become a full migrant.

You continuously ask us "how does this happen". I'm not even sure what sort of evidence you would consider valid. Could you be so kind as to let us know what you consider valid evidence? While you're at it, could you also be kind enough to supply evidence to show why it doesn't happen (your incredulity does not count as evidence).

 

[Asyncritus]

Rather than going into great details, which will be necessarily speculative, can I ask why you propose the theory that dinosaurs somehow navigated across the Pacific?

 

[lordkalvan]

Rather than going into great details, which will be necessarily speculative, can I ask why you propose the theory that dinosaurs somehow navigated across the Pacific?

Whom are you asking and where did they propose the theory that dinosaurs somehow navigated across the Pacific?

 

[Asyncritus]

Whom are you asking and where did they propose the theory that dinosaurs somehow navigated across the Pacific?

I thought that was obvious.

If a bird is descended from a dinosaur, inheriting its instincts therefrom, and a bird can navigate its way across the Pacific, then a dinosaur must have done so at some point in order to hand the information down to its descendants.

Mustn't it?

If not, then where did the bird get its navigational instinct from?

 

[lordkalvan]

I thought that was obvious.

How is it 'obvious'?

If a bird is descended from a dinosaur, inheriting its instincts therefrom....

Why do you imagine (as you appear to here) that instincts cannot evolve in the same way as physical traits do?

and a bird can navigate its way across the Pacific, then a dinosaur must have done so at some point in order to hand the information down to its descendants.

You offer neither evidential nor logical grounds to suppose that this must be so. And why would the abilities of dinosaurs to migrate, the reasons for which they did so, the manner in which they did so and the way in which the trait evolved be any different from the way in which it did do for birds?

Mustn't it?

Not that you have demonstrated to any convincing degree.

If not, then where did the bird get its navigational instinct from?

Perhaps you would like to return to and address those several posts where I and others have discussed plausible mechanisms and conditions for evolutionary explanations for the origins of migratory behaviour?

 

[Asyncritus]

How is it 'obvious'?

Why do you imagine (as you appear to here) that instincts cannot evolve in the same way as physical traits do?

Because they are immaterial, and cannot evolve as physical things do. If you think that that is an unreasonable statement, then you need some evidence. Evidence, mind you, not speculations.

You offer neither evidential nor logical grounds to suppose that this must be so. And why would the abilities of dinosaurs to migrate, the reasons for which they did so, the manner in which they did so and the way in which the trait evolved be any different from the way in which it did do for birds?

This is a fairly logical consequence. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

Since birds migrate across the Pacific, then the dinosaurs must have done so too. That is the consequence of thinking that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Not that you have demonstrated to any convincing degree.

I don't think that birds evolved from dinosaurs. You presumably do.

So you need to face this logical consequence: if birds fly across the Pacific, then the dinosaurs, their alleged ancestors, must have crossed the Pacific too, in order to hand the instinct on to their avian descendants.

If they didn't, and I need to hear you say so, then an accounting is in order for the alternative origin of such abilities.

If they did, then an accounting for that phenomenon is also in order.

Perhaps you would like to return to and address those several posts where I and others have discussed plausible mechanisms and conditions for evolutionary explanations for the origins of migratory behaviour?

I think your imagination is running away with you.

'Plausible' mechanisms you say!

I've yet to hear of even an implausible evolutionary origin of the flights to Hawaii and to New Zealand in the case of the godwit. Far less a 'plausible' one.

Houston, we have a problem here!

 

[Jam]

Because they are immaterial, and cannot evolve as physical things do. If you think that that is an unreasonable statement, then you need some evidence. Evidence, mind you, not speculations.

Sorry, I don't really want to butt here in because I haven't read any of this thread, but I don't see why instincts couldn't evolve...

To claim that the instincts themselves are immaterial is potentially true (depending upon how you define "immaterial"), but the cause/source of instincts is almost indisputably the brain. For what else is there to an animal aside from its physical presence? The brain is a physical thing that we "know" to be able to evolve, and so surely it is perfectly possible for instincts to evolve, is it not?

 

[lordkalvan]

Because they are immaterial, and cannot evolve as physical things do.

Instinct is genetically transmitted, as evidenced by research into 'knockout' mice that I have referred you to on at least two occasions. Intelligence is also 'immaterial', but clearly has heritable aspects. In other words, genes 'control' evolvable traits and amongst those traits are both physical and non-physical characteristics.

If you think that that is an unreasonable statement, then you need some evidence.

And you need to provide some evidence that your statement has some factual basis, rather than being just an unsupported opinion.

Evidence, mind you, not speculations.

'Knockout' mice provide evidence that instinct is controlled by genes; genes are heritable and subject to evolution.

This is a fairly logical consequence. Can you demonstrate otherwise?

How is it 'a fairly logical consequence'? It seems to be nothing more than an assertion. If you want to claim that birds' migratory instincts have been inherited from similar migratory behaviour by dinosaurs, I will be interested to view the evidence you present. However, I fail to see how either case (inherited from dinosaurs or evolved independently) poses any particular problem. Can you explain why this is the case and why I have to demonstrate anything at all to invalidate an opinion for which you have offered neither evidence nor convincing logical argument?

Since birds migrate across the Pacific, then the dinosaurs must have done so too.

This does not follow. Insofar as the Paciific Ocean most likely only began to open during the Jurassic, I would refer you to an earlier post I made discussing how sea-levels in the Gulf of Mexico may have impacted the migratory patterns of birds and suggest that you consider an analogous argument in respect of the gradually enlarging Pacific Ocean insofar as it may have impacted any hypothetical migratory behaviour by then living animals.

That is the consequence of thinking that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

You have failed to demonstrate that this is any such consequence. Migratory instincts may have been inherited from non-avian ancestral species, but on the other hand they may not have. Whether they were or weren't neither validates nor invalidates evolutionary explanations for the development of migratory behaviour.

I don't think that birds evolved from dinosaurs. You presumably do.

I believe that there is evidence to support the hypothesis, but whether that evidence remains persuasive has little or no impact on whether contemporary birds inherited migratory instincts from ancestral species or not.

So you need to face this logical consequence: if birds fly across the Pacific, then the dinosaurs, their alleged ancestors, must have crossed the Pacific too, in order to hand the instinct on to their avian descendants.

Why? Perhaps the migratory instinct only evolved in avian species and not in their hypothesized theropod ancestors. You have offered no reason to prefer one alternative to the other.

If they didn't, and I need to hear you say so, then an accounting is in order for the alternative origin of such abilities.

As far as I can tell, your argument is immaterial to the argument that migratory behaviour is a naturally evolving trait. It can have evolved in theropod dinosaurs and continued to evolve in descendant bird species, or it can simply have evolved in birds independently. You seem to be busy constructing an argument that has no value in the context of determining whether or not migratory behaviour is a naturally evolving trait.

If they did, then an accounting for that phenomenon is also in order.

I would refer you to previous posts on this and other threads discussing naturalistic explanations for the evolution of migratory behaviour and that you have largely ignored. Why would you imagine that 'accounting' for hypothetical migratory behaviour in dinosaurs would be any different from 'accounting' for similar behaviour in birds (or turtles, wildebeest or butterflies)?

I think your imagination is running away with you.

In which case you can no doubt link me to your relevant replies?

'Plausible' mechanisms you say!

You have yet to show they they are not entirely plausible.

I've yet to hear of even an implausible evolutionary origin of the flights to Hawaii and to New Zealand in the case of the godwit. Far less a 'plausible' one.

Why do these birds migrate to the places they do? Do you imagine that one day one bird (or group of birds) flew to Hawaii or New Zealand, never having flown anywhere else before? I have asked you this question several times in different contexts, but you have never answered it.

Houston, we have a problem here!

Indeed you do, but it isn't with this spacecraft, Jim.

 

[lordkalvan]

Further to the assertions that the 'how' of migratory behaviour is impossible of an explanation in terms of evolutionary theory, thanks to poster Mountaineer Elf on another forum (CARM) for providing a link to the USGS page on bird migration from which this model is taken:

The general model for the evolution of migratory behavior considers a permanent resident that expands its range due to intraspecific competition into an area that is seasonally variable, providing greater resources for reproduction but harsher climactic stress and reduced food availability in the non-breeding season. Individuals breeding in these new regions at the fringe of the species' distribution are more productive, but in order to increase non-breeding survival they return to the ancestral range. This results, however, in even greater intraspecific competition because of their higher productivity, so that survival is enhanced for individuals that winter in areas not inhabited by the resident population. The Common Yellowthroat of the Atlantic coast is a good example. Birds occupying the most southern part of the species' range in Florida are largely nonmigratory, whereas populations that breed as far north as Newfoundland migrate to the West Indies in the winter, well removed from the resident population in Florida. Because a migrant population gains an advantage on both its breeding and wintering range, it becomes more abundant, while the resident, non-migratory population becomes proportionately smaller and smaller in numbers. If changing environmental conditions become increasingly disadvantageous for the resident population or interspecific competition becomes more severe, the resident population could eventually disappear, leaving the migrant population as characteristic of the species. These stages in the evolution of migration are represented today by permanent resident populations, partial migrants, and fully migratory species. As for all adaptations, natural selection continues to mold and modify the migratory behavior of birds as environmental conditions perpetually change and species expand or retract their geographic ranges. Hence, the migratory patterns that we observe today will not be the migratory patterns of the future.

Migration involves not just the evolution of a specific behavioral pattern, but often morphological changes as well. The shape of the wing is a structural correlate with migratory behavior. Migratory species typically have proportionally longer wings, with a higher aspect ratio, than related nonmigratory species. This adaptation reduces the relative impact of wing-tip (induced) drag, resulting in greater effective lift as well as an often more efficient ratio between wing area and body weight. Furthermore, the outer primary feathers, which together with the inner primaries provide forward thrust in flapping flight, are often longer in migrants, giving the wing a pointed rather than a rounded shape. In Asia, the sedentary Black-headed Oriole has a rounded wing, whereas the closely related Black-naped Oriole with pointed wings is migratory between Siberia and India. Albatrosses, falcons, swifts, various shorebirds, and terns, many of which make long-distance journeys, have long, more pointed wings. Even among closely related migrants there is a difference. Thus the pointed wings of the Semipalmated Sandpiper, which migrates from the arctic to only northern South America has noticeably shorter wings than the Baird's and White-rumped sandpipers that fly from the arctic all the way to the southern tip of South America.

Source: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/migratio/evolut.htm

Furthermore, sequencing of the genome of the Monarch butterfly has provided persuasive evidence that migratory instincts and abilities reside in the genes and are passed on genetically:

Dr. Steven M. Reppert and UMass Medical School colleagues Shuai Zhan, PhD, and Christine Merlin, PhD, together with Jeffrey L. Boore, PhD, CEO of Genome Project Solutions, sequenced and analysed the migratory Monarch butterfly genome and isolated an estimated set of 16,866 protein-coding genes allowing them to identify:

• genes involved in visual input and central processing by the sun compass;

• a full repertoire of molecular components for the monarch circadian clock;

• all members of the juvenile hormone biosynthetic pathway whose regulation is critical for a successful migration and which shows an unexpected regulation pattern;

• additional molecular signatures of oriented flight behavior;

• monarch-specific expansions of odorant receptors potentially important for long-distance migration;

• a variant of the sodium/potassium pump that underlies a valuable chemical defense mechanism to fend off predators during the migration.

Bullet points taken directly from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111123133127.htm

 

[Asyncritus]

Sorry LK.

I've been a bit preoccupied of late. and missed this.

Now you've quoted an article at some length.

Can you point out where it may have accounted for the Golden Plover

a. First flying across the Pacific and

b. How it accounts for the behaviour entering the genome?

and of course

c. How the young find their way to Hawaii without guides of any sort?

Thanks

Asy

 

[lordkalvan]

Sorry LK.

I've been a bit preoccupied of late. and missed this.

Now you've quoted an article at some length.

Can you point out where it may have accounted for the Golden Plover

a. First flying across the Pacific and

b. How it accounts for the behaviour entering the genome?

and of course

c. How the young find their way to Hawaii without guides of any sort?

Thanks

Asy

That's okay, we all have other things in our lives.

You might want to read the post and comment on its implications, which deal with things you have declared to be impossible of naturalistic expanations. You may then want to apply those implications to specific examples as appropriate.

You may also want to reflect on the post that preceded the one you are responding to.

 

[cupid dave]

There's a marvellous little bird called the Pacific Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva).

It does this fantastic thing, which evolution cannot even BEGIN to account for, and provides further proof if it were needed, that the theory should be abandoned.

The story begins in Alaska, where the birds breed. They lay their eggs, which hatch out normally, and the parents stay with them till they are reasonably able to take care of themselves.

Then the impossible happens.

The parents fly away, leaving them behind. But that's not the amazing part.

The parents now embark upon a 2,800 MILE JOURNEY to Hawaii,
ACROSS THE TRACKLESS PACIFIC OCEAN, a journey taking about 88 hours of NON-STOP flying time.

In the process, they lose about half their body weight.

Now consider HOW these birds could possibly navigate their way from Alaska to Hawaii. Could you? Without instruments and maps?

There's nothing to guide them - not the stars, because they fly by day and by night.

If they're one degree off course, they'll end belly up in the Pacific Ocean. But even if headwinds/ sidewinds blow them off course, they still make it.

They summer there, and then, head back to Alaska, across another 2,800 mile journey, where they breed again.

There, isn't that wonderful?

But hold on. The young, who were hatched in Alaska, FOLLOW THEIR PARENTS TO HAWAII a couple of weeks LATER, without a guide, without ever having seen Hawaii !!!

Any mistake in navigation, and they too would be belly up in the Pacific Ocean.

This is the work of reputable observers, and a well-known phenomenon. There is no guesswork here, no hypothesising, no theorising. Just fact.

Now I call on the evolutionists to account for

1 How the instinct evolved and

2 How the instinct entered the genome.

The whole idea that it evolved is entirely absurd, and should be belly up in the Pacific.

Source: many articles on Google.
Youtube has a video on this which you might like to visit:
Pacific Golden Plover Defies Evolution - YouTube

This is a very important observation which supports the idea that our own Uncosncious Mind can genetically store infoormation we LEAARN in our life time.
That is to say, iunstinct is evidence that what we learn is remembered in future births.


The importance of this in regard to Life After Death, resurrection, and life eternal is that our own Unconscious mind apparently does remember previous life experiences.
It supports the Bible claim that the dead will rise up, as memories of the past become accessible in the next evolution of our species:



Amplified Bible;

12 For now we are looking in a mirror that gives only a dim (blurred) reflection [of reality as in a riddle or enigma], but then [when perfection comes] we shall see in reality and face to face!
Now I know in part (imperfectly), but then I shall know and understand fully and clearly, even in the same manner as I have been fully and clearly known and understood [by God].

Here we see our God is in the kingdom within, he is lord, he is Truth.





Revelation21:4-5

AndGod, (blessing them with Total Phylogenetic Consciousness: [Carl Jung]),shall wipe away, (in their awakened Unconscious Mind: [FreudianHypothesis]), all tears from their eyes, (for life is a geneticallyremember able continuum from one generation to the next living generation);

(ingenetic memories of prior existences held in our Unconscious Mind) thereshall be no more death... (For we shall not all "sleep:"[1Co15:51], but total phylogenetic Consciousness will have evolved), neithersorrow... (for we, individually, are part of a living continuum of our ownpast, flowers upon our genetic vine), nor crying,.. (for we are happyin these revelations of reconstitution from our human gene pool), neithershall there be any more pain... for the former things (in Modern Homosapiens paradigm of the life experience) are passed away.



And“He,†(the ancient, phylogenetic, Collective Unconscious Mind), that satupon the throne (within the kingdom of the evolving Homoiousian sapiens'brain: [Luke 17:21]) said, Behold, (in this way, through evolution: [Gen9:11-18]), I make all things (in human experience) new.



Andhe said unto me, Write: for these words are true, (i.e.; Christ himself,the gospel Truth, rational, and scientifically feasible), and (worthyof) faithful (belief).