Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: The Blind Watchmaker

By: De_Composed in 6TH POPE | Recommend this post (0)
Sun, 18 Feb 24 5:24 AM | 36 view(s)
Boardmark this board | 6th Edition Pope Board 		Msg. 50313 of 58523
(This msg. is a reply to 50301 by Zimbler0)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Zimbler0:

Re: “it is not necessarily the 'best design' that wins out but the most adaptable to the various niches in the eco-systems.”It's a subject Dawkins covers.

He's a believer in 'gradualism,' which means extremely small changes that only have to bestow extremely small benefits in order to become standard characteristics in a species. Dawkins brings up the point that it is far more likely for a change to occur in some existing body trait than out of nothing. He raises the subject of angels - which are usually shown as having wings stemming from their backs. Indeed, it would be most beneficial to have wings coming out of the back while still getting to keep the arms. But virtually all of the winged animals got them via arm alterations... ultimately at the EXPENSE of the arms!

Dawkins supposes that animals with forelimbs most likely grew skin between those limbs and their bodies... allowing them to leap great distances like flying squirrels do today. Extra skin is an extremely small change. Generations later, their muscles changed so that the webby arms could rapidly flap and let the animal travel further and with better control. Then the tails and bones changed granting still longer glides and better control. And eventually these proto-birds were able to truly fly.

But wouldn't it have been a better design if they'd still had their arms? THAT would have been a fantastic survival trait. But there was nothing on the back that supported the spontaneous development of tiny changes beneficial to the animal, while there were forelimbs that could, with relative ease, adapt in interesting ways. So that's why no animals evolved with wings AND arms, like angels. 'Intelligent design' would have given us better birds, but that's not how evolution works.

Dawkins' book is often dull, but well worth reading for those with an interest in the subject. His idea for how life could have originally spawned in river beds out of self-replicating crystalline clay (as opposed to the 'primordial soup,' or 'volcanic vents' we so often hear about) is brilliant. I think the argument makes great sense.

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: The Blind Watchmaker
By: Zimbler0 in 6TH POPE
Sun, 18 Feb 24 1:44 AM 		Msg. 50301 of 58523

>>>
Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design,
>>>


This, I have no problem believing and going along with. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and 'survival of the fittest' means it is not necessarily the 'best design' that wins out but the most adaptable to the various niches in the eco-systems.

Zim.

« 6TH POPE Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next