Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Would evolution have predicted the platypus?

gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:10:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Considering evolution's power as a predictive tool. If Australia was only discovered now, would we have foreseen Monotremes?
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:26:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:10:45 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Considering evolution's power as a predictive tool. If Australia was only discovered now, would we have foreseen Monotremes?

Yes, just as evolutionary theory predicted that we should be able to find a creature resembling the urvogel (Archaeopteryx), or Tiktaalik, or Pikaia Gracilens.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:30:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:26:13 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:10:45 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Considering evolution's power as a predictive tool. If Australia was only discovered now, would we have foreseen Monotremes?

Yes, just as evolutionary theory predicted that we should be able to find a creature resembling the urvogel (Archaeopteryx), or Tiktaalik, or Pikaia Gracilens.

And what two other animals would the platypus be the tranitional form for?
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:32:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What power as a predictive tool? There's a huge element of randomness in evolution; it's just that the best adapted survives and thrives, not that an environment will produce a certain sort of animal (of course, theoretically, one should be able to predict absolutely everything, but like that's ever going to happen).

Missing link predictions isn't really evolution as having any predictive powers; it's just deductive reasoning.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:39:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:32:02 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
What power as a predictive tool? There's a huge element of randomness in evolution; it's just that the best adapted survives and thrives, not that an environment will produce a certain sort of animal (of course, theoretically, one should be able to predict absolutely everything, but like that's ever going to happen).

Missing link predictions isn't really evolution as having any predictive powers; it's just deductive reasoning.

Interesting... We have one definite yes and what I'll take as a no - I wonder where this will land?
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:44:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:30:39 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:26:13 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:10:45 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Considering evolution's power as a predictive tool. If Australia was only discovered now, would we have foreseen Monotremes?

Yes, just as evolutionary theory predicted that we should be able to find a creature resembling the urvogel (Archaeopteryx), or Tiktaalik, or Pikaia Gracilens.

And what two other animals would the platypus be the tranitional form for?

Pardon me, I did not mean to imply that the platypus is a transitional form. But just as evolutionary theory predicted the existence of transitional forms, it also predicted the existence of species and genera which feature traits that are closer to those of the ancestral forms. As such the Platypus, in this instance, is a mammal that has features that closely resemble those of reptiles, specially its reproductive system. Monotremes are rather primitive mammals.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:50:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
We cannot ever hope to track the minuteness of possible adaptations - not really. The best we're getting is that some organism will likely carry on as it's currently adapting, because anything dramatic would negate its evolution so far, and it seems unfeasible that one single mutation should prove sufficient to ensure continued evolutionary success. I mean, fair enough, there's land to be walked on, so something will walk on land; there's a sky to be flown through, so something will fly through it; there's darkness to be prowled through, --and so on. But you're not throwing out a prediction like 'otter-like creature with a beak' as anything that's a must. There's is no 'there's a mammal with a beak to be possible, ergo there will be a mammal with a beak'. Evolution doesn't care for flourishes. It's first come, first served. And it's hugely random.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:56:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:44:04 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:30:39 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:26:13 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:10:45 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Considering evolution's power as a predictive tool. If Australia was only discovered now, would we have foreseen Monotremes?

Yes, just as evolutionary theory predicted that we should be able to find a creature resembling the urvogel (Archaeopteryx), or Tiktaalik, or Pikaia Gracilens.

And what two other animals would the platypus be the tranitional form for?

Pardon me, I did not mean to imply that the platypus is a transitional form. But just as evolutionary theory predicted the existence of transitional forms, it also predicted the existence of species and genera which feature traits that are closer to those of the ancestral forms. As such the Platypus, in this instance, is a mammal that has features that closely resemble those of reptiles, specially its reproductive system. Monotremes are rather primitive mammals.

Isn't everything a transitional form? They are hardly primitive, they have awesome poison spikes, electo sensitive bills and a pouch to boot. How would these features have been predicted by evolutionary theory?
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 4:59:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:33:21 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The platypus was some random fluke of a mutation which paid off. It's that simple.

And they are like sooo super cute too
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:01:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:59:52 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:33:21 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The platypus was some random fluke of a mutation which paid off. It's that simple.

And they are like sooo super cute too

lol. Ya I know. Dude, r u really 35?
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:01:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:56:26 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:44:04 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:30:39 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:26:13 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:10:45 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Considering evolution's power as a predictive tool. If Australia was only discovered now, would we have foreseen Monotremes?

Yes, just as evolutionary theory predicted that we should be able to find a creature resembling the urvogel (Archaeopteryx), or Tiktaalik, or Pikaia Gracilens.

And what two other animals would the platypus be the tranitional form for?

Pardon me, I did not mean to imply that the platypus is a transitional form. But just as evolutionary theory predicted the existence of transitional forms, it also predicted the existence of species and genera which feature traits that are closer to those of the ancestral forms. As such the Platypus, in this instance, is a mammal that has features that closely resemble those of reptiles, specially its reproductive system. Monotremes are rather primitive mammals.

Isn't everything a transitional form? They are hardly primitive, they have awesome poison spikes, electo sensitive bills and a pouch to boot. How would these features have been predicted by evolutionary theory?

1) Technically yes, everything is a transitional form, but you know what I meant.
2) They are primitive in the sense that they "split" from the rest of the Mammalia class earlier than the rest.
3) Perhaps some of the features of the modern platypus could not have been predicted, but a creature with its reproductive features could have been predicted.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:04:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:50:50 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
We cannot ever hope to track the minuteness of possible adaptations - not really. The best we're getting is that some organism will likely carry on as it's currently adapting, because anything dramatic would negate its evolution so far, and it seems unfeasible that one single mutation should prove sufficient to ensure continued evolutionary success. I mean, fair enough, there's land to be walked on, so something will walk on land; there's a sky to be flown through, so something will fly through it; there's darkness to be prowled through, --and so on. But you're not throwing out a prediction like 'otter-like creature with a beak' as anything that's a must. There's is no 'there's a mammal with a beak to be possible, ergo there will be a mammal with a beak'. Evolution doesn't care for flourishes. It's first come, first served. And it's hugely random.

So it sounds as though its predictive use lies more in inferring what has happened in the past rather than what is to come in the future
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:08:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:01:20 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:59:52 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:33:21 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The platypus was some random fluke of a mutation which paid off. It's that simple.

And they are like sooo super cute too

lol. Ya I know. Dude, r u really 35?

Its very fashionable to be 35, I know some very respectible woman who have been 35 for quite a number of years
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:09:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:04:59 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:50:50 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
We cannot ever hope to track the minuteness of possible adaptations - not really. The best we're getting is that some organism will likely carry on as it's currently adapting, because anything dramatic would negate its evolution so far, and it seems unfeasible that one single mutation should prove sufficient to ensure continued evolutionary success. I mean, fair enough, there's land to be walked on, so something will walk on land; there's a sky to be flown through, so something will fly through it; there's darkness to be prowled through, --and so on. But you're not throwing out a prediction like 'otter-like creature with a beak' as anything that's a must. There's is no 'there's a mammal with a beak to be possible, ergo there will be a mammal with a beak'. Evolution doesn't care for flourishes. It's first come, first served. And it's hugely random.

So it sounds as though its predictive use lies more in inferring what has happened in the past rather than what is to come in the future

More or less. I mean, the foundation of evolution is random mutations. You can't hardly know if one species isn't going to evolve into another's turf and wipe it out, or whatever. It's hugely - and I mean hugely - variable.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:15:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, there's also that evolution will take the easiest path. Like, sea to land, flippers to legs, legs to arms, arms to wings. Helicopter birds aren't all that feasible. But when you're getting down to real intricacy of detail, it's near-chaos.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2015 5:26:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Actually, thinking about it because of medic's thread, there is possibly a lot more predictive power in evolution than I'm giving it credit for. As I said in his thread, the eye has supposedly evolved separately a whole bunch of times on earth, giving it stake a sort of easily evolved- and hugely beneficial organ which will probably occur in every instance of evolution given time. And there are other organs like this, too, just I can't think of them at the moment.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 12:41:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 5:01:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:56:26 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:44:04 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:30:39 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:26:13 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:10:45 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Considering evolution's power as a predictive tool. If Australia was only discovered now, would we have foreseen Monotremes?

Yes, just as evolutionary theory predicted that we should be able to find a creature resembling the urvogel (Archaeopteryx), or Tiktaalik, or Pikaia Gracilens.

And what two other animals would the platypus be the tranitional form for?

Pardon me, I did not mean to imply that the platypus is a transitional form. But just as evolutionary theory predicted the existence of transitional forms, it also predicted the existence of species and genera which feature traits that are closer to those of the ancestral forms. As such the Platypus, in this instance, is a mammal that has features that closely resemble those of reptiles, specially its reproductive system. Monotremes are rather primitive mammals.

Isn't everything a transitional form? They are hardly primitive, they have awesome poison spikes, electo sensitive bills and a pouch to boot. How would these features have been predicted by evolutionary theory?

1) Technically yes, everything is a transitional form, but you know what I meant.
2) They are primitive in the sense that they "split" from the rest of the Mammalia class earlier than the rest.
3) Perhaps some of the features of the modern platypus could not have been predicted, but a creature with its reproductive features could have been predicted.

But why not a live birth warm blooded reptile transition - there are so many different options - can evolution accurately state which avenue it went down?
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Paleophyte
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 10:35:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:10:45 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Considering evolution's power as a predictive tool. If Australia was only discovered now, would we have foreseen Monotremes?

Evolution predicts that isolated habitats like islands are likely to have unusual endemic species. It does not predict monotremes specifically but if you want to find weird evolutionary left-overs it's certainly the type of place you'd look.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 2:51:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/24/2015 12:41:34 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:01:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:56:26 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:44:04 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:30:39 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:26:13 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:10:45 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Considering evolution's power as a predictive tool. If Australia was only discovered now, would we have foreseen Monotremes?

Yes, just as evolutionary theory predicted that we should be able to find a creature resembling the urvogel (Archaeopteryx), or Tiktaalik, or Pikaia Gracilens.

And what two other animals would the platypus be the tranitional form for?

Pardon me, I did not mean to imply that the platypus is a transitional form. But just as evolutionary theory predicted the existence of transitional forms, it also predicted the existence of species and genera which feature traits that are closer to those of the ancestral forms. As such the Platypus, in this instance, is a mammal that has features that closely resemble those of reptiles, specially its reproductive system. Monotremes are rather primitive mammals.

Isn't everything a transitional form? They are hardly primitive, they have awesome poison spikes, electo sensitive bills and a pouch to boot. How would these features have been predicted by evolutionary theory?

1) Technically yes, everything is a transitional form, but you know what I meant.
2) They are primitive in the sense that they "split" from the rest of the Mammalia class earlier than the rest.
3) Perhaps some of the features of the modern platypus could not have been predicted, but a creature with its reproductive features could have been predicted.

But why not a live birth warm blooded reptile transition - there are so many different options - can evolution accurately state which avenue it went down?

Could you rephrase your question, please? At the moment I am not sure what exactly it is you are asking, and I don't want to do you the disservice of misinterpreting what you said, again.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 6:07:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/24/2015 2:51:09 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/24/2015 12:41:34 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:01:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:56:26 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:44:04 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:30:39 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:26:13 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:10:45 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Considering evolution's power as a predictive tool. If Australia was only discovered now, would we have foreseen Monotremes?

Yes, just as evolutionary theory predicted that we should be able to find a creature resembling the urvogel (Archaeopteryx), or Tiktaalik, or Pikaia Gracilens.

And what two other animals would the platypus be the tranitional form for?

Pardon me, I did not mean to imply that the platypus is a transitional form. But just as evolutionary theory predicted the existence of transitional forms, it also predicted the existence of species and genera which feature traits that are closer to those of the ancestral forms. As such the Platypus, in this instance, is a mammal that has features that closely resemble those of reptiles, specially its reproductive system. Monotremes are rather primitive mammals.

Isn't everything a transitional form? They are hardly primitive, they have awesome poison spikes, electo sensitive bills and a pouch to boot. How would these features have been predicted by evolutionary theory?

1) Technically yes, everything is a transitional form, but you know what I meant.
2) They are primitive in the sense that they "split" from the rest of the Mammalia class earlier than the rest.
3) Perhaps some of the features of the modern platypus could not have been predicted, but a creature with its reproductive features could have been predicted.

But why not a live birth warm blooded reptile transition - there are so many different options - can evolution accurately state which avenue it went down?

Could you rephrase your question, please? At the moment I am not sure what exactly it is you are asking, and I don't want to do you the disservice of misinterpreting what you said, again.

I was implying that when you look at two different forms and try and predict the intermediary it could go multiple ways - and which one of these would evolution "predict"?

So would we expect to see an egg laying warm blooded mammal between ourselves and our ancestors, or a live birth cold blooded mammal, or any combination in between? I'm questioning evolution's predictive value - especially when we are often very surprised by the actual outcomes - eg falcons being more closely related to parrots than other birds of prey.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 11:28:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:10:45 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Considering evolution's power as a predictive tool. If Australia was only discovered now, would we have foreseen Monotremes?

Evolution isn't predictive, it's retrodictive, so no.
"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
gingerbread-man
Posts: 301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 1:10:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 11:08:48 AM, Geneaux wrote:
Could evolution predict this https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se...?

The survival benefits of a small blade and a bit of electrical tape cannot be under estimated.
Not my gumdrop buttons!

Debates currently in voting period:

http://www.debate.org...
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 5:21:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 6:07:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/24/2015 2:51:09 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/24/2015 12:41:34 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:01:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:56:26 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:44:04 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:30:39 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:26:13 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:10:45 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Considering evolution's power as a predictive tool. If Australia was only discovered now, would we have foreseen Monotremes?

Yes, just as evolutionary theory predicted that we should be able to find a creature resembling the urvogel (Archaeopteryx), or Tiktaalik, or Pikaia Gracilens.

And what two other animals would the platypus be the tranitional form for?

Pardon me, I did not mean to imply that the platypus is a transitional form. But just as evolutionary theory predicted the existence of transitional forms, it also predicted the existence of species and genera which feature traits that are closer to those of the ancestral forms. As such the Platypus, in this instance, is a mammal that has features that closely resemble those of reptiles, specially its reproductive system. Monotremes are rather primitive mammals.

Isn't everything a transitional form? They are hardly primitive, they have awesome poison spikes, electo sensitive bills and a pouch to boot. How would these features have been predicted by evolutionary theory?

1) Technically yes, everything is a transitional form, but you know what I meant.
2) They are primitive in the sense that they "split" from the rest of the Mammalia class earlier than the rest.
3) Perhaps some of the features of the modern platypus could not have been predicted, but a creature with its reproductive features could have been predicted.

But why not a live birth warm blooded reptile transition - there are so many different options - can evolution accurately state which avenue it went down?

Could you rephrase your question, please? At the moment I am not sure what exactly it is you are asking, and I don't want to do you the disservice of misinterpreting what you said, again.

I was implying that when you look at two different forms and try and predict the intermediary it could go multiple ways - and which one of these would evolution "predict"?

So would we expect to see an egg laying warm blooded mammal between ourselves and our ancestors, or a live birth cold blooded mammal, or any combination in between? I'm questioning evolution's predictive value - especially when we are often very surprised by the actual outcomes - eg falcons being more closely related to parrots than other birds of prey.

1) I think it would be possible to predict the existence of all transitional forms, yes they cut both ways, but that is not a problem.
2) It is true that we are still often surprised by what we find because in the end nature is far more creative than we can imagine.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 5:22:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 6:07:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/24/2015 2:51:09 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/24/2015 12:41:34 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:01:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:56:26 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:44:04 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:30:39 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:26:13 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:10:45 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Considering evolution's power as a predictive tool. If Australia was only discovered now, would we have foreseen Monotremes?

Yes, just as evolutionary theory predicted that we should be able to find a creature resembling the urvogel (Archaeopteryx), or Tiktaalik, or Pikaia Gracilens.

And what two other animals would the platypus be the tranitional form for?

Pardon me, I did not mean to imply that the platypus is a transitional form. But just as evolutionary theory predicted the existence of transitional forms, it also predicted the existence of species and genera which feature traits that are closer to those of the ancestral forms. As such the Platypus, in this instance, is a mammal that has features that closely resemble those of reptiles, specially its reproductive system. Monotremes are rather primitive mammals.

Isn't everything a transitional form? They are hardly primitive, they have awesome poison spikes, electo sensitive bills and a pouch to boot. How would these features have been predicted by evolutionary theory?

1) Technically yes, everything is a transitional form, but you know what I meant.
2) They are primitive in the sense that they "split" from the rest of the Mammalia class earlier than the rest.
3) Perhaps some of the features of the modern platypus could not have been predicted, but a creature with its reproductive features could have been predicted.

But why not a live birth warm blooded reptile transition - there are so many different options - can evolution accurately state which avenue it went down?

Could you rephrase your question, please? At the moment I am not sure what exactly it is you are asking, and I don't want to do you the disservice of misinterpreting what you said, again.

I was implying that when you look at two different forms and try and predict the intermediary it could go multiple ways - and which one of these would evolution "predict"?

So would we expect to see an egg laying warm blooded mammal between ourselves and our ancestors, or a live birth cold blooded mammal, or any combination in between? I'm questioning evolution's predictive value - especially when we are often very surprised by the actual outcomes - eg falcons being more closely related to parrots than other birds of prey.

P.S. I forgot to add in my first reply that I did not know that falcons were more closely related to parrots.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 6:24:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/23/2015 4:32:02 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
What power as a predictive tool? There's a huge element of randomness in evolution; it's just that the best adapted survives and thrives, not that an environment will produce a certain sort of animal (of course, theoretically, one should be able to predict absolutely everything, but like that's ever going to happen).

Missing link predictions isn't really evolution as having any predictive powers; it's just deductive reasoning.

It has great predictive power. Ie, if you find a flower with its nectar hidden deep inside the flower structure, it must exist an insect with a long tonge to reach that nectar. That is not deductive reasoning alone, it is deductive reasoning assuming evolution.

Another thing is asking for a scientific theory to perform fortunetelling. That of course wont happen.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 6:27:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 5:21:26 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/25/2015 6:07:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/24/2015 2:51:09 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/24/2015 12:41:34 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:01:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:56:26 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:44:04 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:30:39 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:26:13 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:10:45 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Considering evolution's power as a predictive tool. If Australia was only discovered now, would we have foreseen Monotremes?

Yes, just as evolutionary theory predicted that we should be able to find a creature resembling the urvogel (Archaeopteryx), or Tiktaalik, or Pikaia Gracilens.

And what two other animals would the platypus be the tranitional form for?

Pardon me, I did not mean to imply that the platypus is a transitional form. But just as evolutionary theory predicted the existence of transitional forms, it also predicted the existence of species and genera which feature traits that are closer to those of the ancestral forms. As such the Platypus, in this instance, is a mammal that has features that closely resemble those of reptiles, specially its reproductive system. Monotremes are rather primitive mammals.

Isn't everything a transitional form? They are hardly primitive, they have awesome poison spikes, electo sensitive bills and a pouch to boot. How would these features have been predicted by evolutionary theory?

1) Technically yes, everything is a transitional form, but you know what I meant.
2) They are primitive in the sense that they "split" from the rest of the Mammalia class earlier than the rest.
3) Perhaps some of the features of the modern platypus could not have been predicted, but a creature with its reproductive features could have been predicted.

But why not a live birth warm blooded reptile transition - there are so many different options - can evolution accurately state which avenue it went down?

Could you rephrase your question, please? At the moment I am not sure what exactly it is you are asking, and I don't want to do you the disservice of misinterpreting what you said, again.

I was implying that when you look at two different forms and try and predict the intermediary it could go multiple ways - and which one of these would evolution "predict"?

So would we expect to see an egg laying warm blooded mammal between ourselves and our ancestors, or a live birth cold blooded mammal, or any combination in between? I'm questioning evolution's predictive value - especially when we are often very surprised by the actual outcomes - eg falcons being more closely related to parrots than other birds of prey.

1) I think it would be possible to predict the existence of all transitional forms, yes they cut both ways, but that is not a problem.
2) It is true that we are still often surprised by what we find because in the end nature is far more creative than we can imagine.

Well in fact prettt much every phylogenetic tree is a bunch of predictions mixed together, as it predicts the existence of common ancestors in every dicotomy of the tree.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2015 6:30:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/25/2015 6:27:00 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 1/25/2015 5:21:26 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/25/2015 6:07:55 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/24/2015 2:51:09 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/24/2015 12:41:34 AM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 5:01:35 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:56:26 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:44:04 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:30:39 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:26:13 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 1/23/2015 4:10:45 PM, gingerbread-man wrote:
Considering evolution's power as a predictive tool. If Australia was only discovered now, would we have foreseen Monotremes?

Yes, just as evolutionary theory predicted that we should be able to find a creature resembling the urvogel (Archaeopteryx), or Tiktaalik, or Pikaia Gracilens.

And what two other animals would the platypus be the tranitional form for?

Pardon me, I did not mean to imply that the platypus is a transitional form. But just as evolutionary theory predicted the existence of transitional forms, it also predicted the existence of species and genera which feature traits that are closer to those of the ancestral forms. As such the Platypus, in this instance, is a mammal that has features that closely resemble those of reptiles, specially its reproductive system. Monotremes are rather primitive mammals.

Isn't everything a transitional form? They are hardly primitive, they have awesome poison spikes, electo sensitive bills and a pouch to boot. How would these features have been predicted by evolutionary theory?

1) Technically yes, everything is a transitional form, but you know what I meant.
2) They are primitive in the sense that they "split" from the rest of the Mammalia class earlier than the rest.
3) Perhaps some of the features of the modern platypus could not have been predicted, but a creature with its reproductive features could have been predicted.

But why not a live birth warm blooded reptile transition - there are so many different options - can evolution accurately state which avenue it went down?

Could you rephrase your question, please? At the moment I am not sure what exactly it is you are asking, and I don't want to do you the disservice of misinterpreting what you said, again.

I was implying that when you look at two different forms and try and predict the intermediary it could go multiple ways - and which one of these would evolution "predict"?

So would we expect to see an egg laying warm blooded mammal between ourselves and our ancestors, or a live birth cold blooded mammal, or any combination in between? I'm questioning evolution's predictive value - especially when we are often very surprised by the actual outcomes - eg falcons being more closely related to parrots than other birds of prey.

1) I think it would be possible to predict the existence of all transitional forms, yes they cut both ways, but that is not a problem.
2) It is true that we are still often surprised by what we find because in the end nature is far more creative than we can imagine.

Well in fact prettt much every phylogenetic tree is a bunch of predictions mixed together, as it predicts the existence of common ancestors in every dicotomy of the tree.

Indeed, excellent point, dear sir--or madam--and well phrased.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.