Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

It's hard to believe we evolved ears

johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 12:54:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How does anything evolve an ear, how can evolution explain the very first ears on a living being.

I mean how are we supposed to know we need ears without ever having them in the first place to know there is something to hear or listen to.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 12:58:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 12:54:25 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How does anything evolve an ear, how can evolution explain the very first ears on a living being.

I mean how are we supposed to know we need ears without ever having them in the first place to know there is something to hear or listen to.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:01:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In summation, it didn't go:

organisms notably lacking ears and all ear-like functions---> organisms with full-blown modern ears.

Nobody "wanted" ears- the ones with better senses simply lived on and the ones without died and did not reproduce thus we do not see their lineage today.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:16:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 12:58:01 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/31/2013 12:54:25 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How does anything evolve an ear, how can evolution explain the very first ears on a living being.

I mean how are we supposed to know we need ears without ever having them in the first place to know there is something to hear or listen to.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks, but although it's written in english it seems like scientific jargon, with words I am not familiar with, to be honest it might as be in a foreign language. But thanks all the same.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:20:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes. A lot of science is hard to believe, because a lot of it is hard to understand. That's why people who do science go to school for many years.

That, in itself, is fine. We can't all be experts in every field.

When you try and leverage your lack of understanding into making an assessment of the validity of the theory though...

...then we have a problem.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:20:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 1:01:37 PM, Oryus wrote:
In summation, it didn't go:

organisms notably lacking ears and all ear-like functions---> organisms with full-blown modern ears.

Nobody "wanted" ears- the ones with better senses simply lived on and the ones without died and did not reproduce thus we do not see their lineage today.

You say the ones with better senses lived on, but I am asking how one developed any hearing sense at all, without having any in the first place.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:21:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 1:16:14 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/31/2013 12:58:01 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/31/2013 12:54:25 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How does anything evolve an ear, how can evolution explain the very first ears on a living being.

I mean how are we supposed to know we need ears without ever having them in the first place to know there is something to hear or listen to.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Thanks, but although it's written in english it seems like scientific jargon, with words I am not familiar with, to be honest it might as be in a foreign language. But thanks all the same.

This is a bit simpler, I think: http://evolvingsenses.blogspot.com...
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:28:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 1:20:07 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yes. A lot of science is hard to believe, because a lot of it is hard to understand. That's why people who do science go to school for many years.

That, in itself, is fine. We can't all be experts in every field.

When you try and leverage your lack of understanding into making an assessment of the validity of the theory though...

...then we have a problem.

I am just stating I find it hard to believe. I do not make claim to having through knowledge.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:30:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 1:21:00 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/31/2013 1:16:14 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/31/2013 12:58:01 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 1/31/2013 12:54:25 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How does anything evolve an ear, how can evolution explain the very first ears on a living being.

I mean how are we supposed to know we need ears without ever having them in the first place to know there is something to hear or listen to.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Thanks, but although it's written in english it seems like scientific jargon, with words I am not familiar with, to be honest it might as be in a foreign language. But thanks all the same.

This is a bit simpler, I think: http://evolvingsenses.blogspot.com...

Thanks I shall take the time to look into it.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:30:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 1:28:02 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/31/2013 1:20:07 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yes. A lot of science is hard to believe, because a lot of it is hard to understand. That's why people who do science go to school for many years.

That, in itself, is fine. We can't all be experts in every field.

When you try and leverage your lack of understanding into making an assessment of the validity of the theory though...

...then we have a problem.

I am just stating I find it hard to believe. I do not make claim to having through knowledge.

The point is, how can you consider something hard to believe when you don't know why it's believed?
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:37:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 1:30:32 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 1/31/2013 1:28:02 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/31/2013 1:20:07 PM, drafterman wrote:
Yes. A lot of science is hard to believe, because a lot of it is hard to understand. That's why people who do science go to school for many years.

That, in itself, is fine. We can't all be experts in every field.

When you try and leverage your lack of understanding into making an assessment of the validity of the theory though...

...then we have a problem.

I am just stating I find it hard to believe. I do not make claim to having through knowledge.

The point is, how can you consider something hard to believe when you don't know why it's believed?

Umm because I don't know. thats why. I already thought I stated I do not know. duh.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 2:01:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's hard to believe we evolved ears because it's simply and literally unbelievable.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 2:04:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 2:01:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
It's hard to believe we evolved ears because it's simply and literally unbelievable.

LOL @ willful scientific illiteracy
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 2:07:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 2:01:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
It's hard to believe we evolved ears because it's simply and literally unbelievable.

And yet, overwhelmingly biologists do believe it. If it's literally unbelievable they must not really exist?
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:45:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 1:20:52 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/31/2013 1:01:37 PM, Oryus wrote:
In summation, it didn't go:

organisms notably lacking ears and all ear-like functions---> organisms with full-blown modern ears.

Nobody "wanted" ears- the ones with better senses simply lived on and the ones without died and did not reproduce thus we do not see their lineage today.

You say the ones with better senses lived on, but I am asking how one developed any hearing sense at all, without having any in the first place.

Well, snakes 'hear' through their jawbones resting on the ground--they pick up vibrations. So in a sense, so long as an organism has nerves, it can feel the vibrations... and hearing is just feeling vibrations in air.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 4:17:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 2:01:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
It's hard to believe we evolved ears because it's simply and literally unbelievable.

It's posts like this that make it hard to beleive we evolved brains.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 11:23:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:45:19 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 1/31/2013 1:20:52 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/31/2013 1:01:37 PM, Oryus wrote:
In summation, it didn't go:

organisms notably lacking ears and all ear-like functions---> organisms with full-blown modern ears.

Nobody "wanted" ears- the ones with better senses simply lived on and the ones without died and did not reproduce thus we do not see their lineage today.

You say the ones with better senses lived on, but I am asking how one developed any hearing sense at all, without having any in the first place.

Well, snakes 'hear' through their jawbones resting on the ground--they pick up vibrations. So in a sense, so long as an organism has nerves, it can feel the vibrations... and hearing is just feeling vibrations in air.

Good point.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,212
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 2:47:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Reduction of the complex to the simple is a fairly easy thing to do with hearing. Other biological systems may be way harder to pick apart.

Also, I still can't find the explanation for why biology mainly evolves and mutates in specific lines of symmetry (mostly external and some internal). Any eggheads out there know?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 7:49:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 4:17:54 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:01:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
It's hard to believe we evolved ears because it's simply and literally unbelievable.

It's posts like this that make it hard to beleive we evolved brains.

Because we didn't evolve brains.

But honestly, I did phrase that very poorly lol
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 8:57:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 2:47:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Reduction of the complex to the simple is a fairly easy thing to do with hearing. Other biological systems may be way harder to pick apart.

Also, I still can't find the explanation for why biology mainly evolves and mutates in specific lines of symmetry (mostly external and some internal). Any eggheads out there know?

Well, depends what you mean by symmetry. There's a lot of ways that could be taken. For instance, do you consider jellyfish symmetrical? Worms? Starfish are symmetrical, but not in the bilateral sense we think of.

Or is it more of a "one lung on either side of the body" symmetry?

For in-species symmetry, basically the less genetically healthy someone is, the less likely they are to have symmetrical features. Therefore, we see symmetrical people as "more beautiful" than non-symmetrical. http://www.youbeauty.com...

But in a more general physiological sense (i.e. why one lung on either side), evolution doesn't always favor symmetry, but I can't really think of a good way to explain why it would without going way to far into Evo Devo. Basically, in most cases it is easier for an organisms' basic bodyplan to be modified through symmetrical segmentation than asymmetrical. The less complex the bodyplan, the less symmetry tends to present (e.g. jellyish).
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 8:59:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 2:47:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Reduction of the complex to the simple is a fairly easy thing to do with hearing. Other biological systems may be way harder to pick apart.

Also, I still can't find the explanation for why biology mainly evolves and mutates in specific lines of symmetry (mostly external and some internal). Any eggheads out there know?

What does "biology mainly evolves and mutates in specific lines of symmetry" mean?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:18:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 12:54:25 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How does anything evolve an ear, how can evolution explain the very first ears on a living being.

I mean how are we supposed to know we need ears without ever having them in the first place to know there is something to hear or listen to.

The evolution of a sensory system has nothing to do with a specific organism knowing or needing anything, organism's don't "will" an evolutionary development, that would entail evolution occurring in a single organism during it's lifetime, and that certainly isn't how evolution works.

Evolving the ability to sense and interpret vibrations in the environment is a rather straightforward process, but you will never understand it and it could never be explained to you if that's the way you're thinking about evolution.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:59:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Reduction of the complex to the simple is a fairly easy thing to do with hearing.

The Fool: Ha, It was thought to be that easy, it's not anymore.

Proof One.

I am making the assumption that you think colors are simply, Electro-magnitude wavelength. And of course sound being another sort of wave length. I base that on the fact that this is the most Pop-science.

By just the very fact that you can dream colors and sounds. Or the possibility to hallucinate them, it direct Proof of the impossibility of reducing them simply wave length in the air.

If my assumption is true, you are confusing One type of antecedent chain of events With Correlate sometimes with colors but are definitely not any direct or exclusive Cause of colors.

Thus it will never and could never be a necessary cause of sounds or colors, Let alone Be the actual colors and sound. Not even The possibility, of being them. That is how much the Reduction is Fail!!

Proof Two. Just for good measure.

Another proof is this. Someone could Know everything there is about what electro-magnetic wavelengths are. And still know absolutely nothing about the actual sound or colors.

For they me be the most intelligent and educated physicist and/or neuroscientist and know everything we know about colors in the reductionary sense but be Absolutely Color blind Or Tone Deaf.

Nail in the coffin:
You can teach all you want about such over-reductionism to a blind or deaf person, And Low and behold they would learn absolutely nothing,
about sound or color respectively.

They would never even know what Color what sounds or color is LIKE.

While at the same time someone can be a complete GarretKadeDupre And still know no what color actually is.

Quick Review:
I showed that colors exist independently of any CURRENT Pop-science notions.
Which is a direct counter-example and thus fatal blow. Of that kind of reductionist.
I Demonstrated that all the knowledge of our current and temporary but evolving are to reductive to possible account for what color actually is.

I demonstrated the fallacy of confusing the Correlation with causation,
And that there is more than one Type of antecedent causal Chain which can lead to the Consequent of actual colors or sound. A difference between and explanation of cause vs. the actual colors.

At best the primitive when IF AND ONLY IF , in synch with currently Unknown factors involved with the direct consequent which is the actual colors, themselves.

I gave an inverted parallel PROOF. Which is the STRONGEST POSSIBLE PROOF There CAN BE..

1. We can have knowledge of all popular scientific explanations but still have no Clue of what colors actually are.
2. We can know what colors are without any knowledge whatsoever of the Pop-Scientific explanation of what colors are claimed to be.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 8:52:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 12:54:25 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How does anything evolve an ear, how can evolution explain the very first ears on a living being.

I mean how are we supposed to know we need ears without ever having them in the first place to know there is something to hear or listen to.

God did it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 5:21:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 2:47:32 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Reduction of the complex to the simple is a fairly easy thing to do with hearing. Other biological systems may be way harder to pick apart.

Also, I still can't find the explanation for why biology mainly evolves and mutates in specific lines of symmetry (mostly external and some internal). Any eggheads out there know?

Well, technically nothing in nature is symmetrical, at least not perfectly. A leaf may seem symmetrical, but look at the vasculature and you'll see that it isn't. And floral symmetry can actually be changed when certain genetics are tweaked, it's called peloria. Aside from that, it all depends on the structure. When it comes to leaves and stems, the positioning of nodes and meristems in a definite patters allows the plant to grow in a way which is orderly and maximizes both its stability and exposure to sunlight. A tree with leaves entirely in one direction, for example, would have any axillary growth go in the opposite direction, which would cause you to have all new growth on one side of the plant. Over time this would lead to a waste of potentially gathered sunlight and structural instability. For more 'primitive' plants which don't need to worry about such structure, like thallose liverworts, such elements of structure are not found. Floral structure is usually tailored to pollinators, and a very symmetrical, brightly colored structure 'pops' more than a disorderly one does. This isn't written in stone though: just take a look at the spectacular Vigna caracalla. The flowers are completely asymmetrical due to a highly specialized pollination pollination mechanism: http://upload.wikimedia.org....

Basically, since symmetry is more useful in mostcases it is manifested in most places because the genes which code for it are more pervasive due to their being selected for. Asymmetry is the exception to this rule only where it proves to be exceptionally beneficial.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2013 5:49:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 12:54:25 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How does anything evolve an ear,

how can evolution explain the very first ears on a living being.

I don't know but you are commiting a serious strawman if you contend that ambiguity within a scientific paridigm makes it false.


I mean how are we supposed to know we need ears without ever having them in the first place to know there is something to hear or listen to.

Stop using fallacious objections to debunk evolutionary theory and assume this makes the Bible true and Jesus' resurrection true, you're being ridiculous..
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 2:31:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 12:54:25 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How does anything evolve an ear, how can evolution explain the very first ears on a living being.

I mean how are we supposed to know we need ears without ever having them in the first place to know there is something to hear or listen to.

A much better example is snake venom / venom pouches.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 2:46:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 2:31:48 AM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
At 1/31/2013 12:54:25 PM, johnlubba wrote:
How does anything evolve an ear, how can evolution explain the very first ears on a living being.

I mean how are we supposed to know we need ears without ever having them in the first place to know there is something to hear or listen to.

A much better example is snake venom / venom pouches.

No sh!t, man. Or color changing scales a la the chameleon. I mean, how does that happen incrementally? Seems like the intermediate steps would have been a disadvantage.

Or, if we want to stick with ears, bat ears are nuts as well. they're eyes for Christ's sake.

nuts.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 4:26:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:45:19 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 1/31/2013 1:20:52 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 1/31/2013 1:01:37 PM, Oryus wrote:
In summation, it didn't go:

organisms notably lacking ears and all ear-like functions---> organisms with full-blown modern ears.

Nobody "wanted" ears- the ones with better senses simply lived on and the ones without died and did not reproduce thus we do not see their lineage today.

You say the ones with better senses lived on, but I am asking how one developed any hearing sense at all, without having any in the first place.

Well, snakes 'hear' through their jawbones resting on the ground--they pick up vibrations. So in a sense, so long as an organism has nerves, it can feel the vibrations... and hearing is just feeling vibrations in air.

This brings to mind the question. Why then do we not "hear" from every possible nerve ending that reaches our outer surfaces? According to Oryus, those with "better" (a relative term highly dependant on factors which are complicated to calculate. Hence I will not calculate them here) senses naturally survive longer and as such reproduce more, than those with not so good senses. By this logic, we should have evolved ears at every possible region where we can, simply because it will help us live longer and reproduce better. So why aren"t we all ears? (I like the unintended pun :D)

Is this the result of some retarding factor? Why do we find super-sensitive hearing in "ancient" crickets, like this: http://www.livescience.com.... Or is this the result of some "super-duper fast evolution" that subsequently slowed? Could I have some evidence of such a process rather than hypothetical answers? (As is the case with the evolvingsenses.blogspot article, which is informative, but hypothetical) Have falsifiable experiments been done regarding the evolution of the ear?
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.
Muted
Posts: 377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 4:37:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
adding a post to favorite thread
Exterminate!!!!!!-Dalek.

The ability to speak does not make you a competent debater.

One does not simply do the rain dance.