I Accept the Theory of Evolution
I feel sorry for people who cannot accept evolution theory because of their religious views and / or lack of imagination. I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over their plight however - they need to make a choice between science and the choir of angels. Natural selection and genetic mutation over millions of years is a theoretically sound basis for the natural world we know. I am convinced.
There's just one thing that troubles me, and I'm wondering if anyone out there can help me out with this, or point me in the direction of a reasonably succinct reference ('succinct' because I'm not going to devote weeks to studying this issue). Yes, I understand that genetic mutations are perpetuated if they confer a biological advantage. For instance, the first mutated five-fingered ape had a better chance of survival than its four fingered brothers and sisters. So it reproduced more, and those of its offspring who had five fingers had a similar advantage, until a time came when the four-fingered apes were no more.
However, that's a relatively simple mutation that could take place in one generation. How about the development of winged animals? It's unlikely that a non-winged species could mutate in a single step to the possession of wings, and it's difficult to see what the intermediate steps might be which would be biologically advantageous. What use is a half wing? My hypothesis is that all mutations must be biologically advantageous at every stage, so there must have been some prior usefulness in the limbs that would eventually become wings ... perhaps as aids to balancing for animals that lived in trees? Any corroboration or alternative explanations would be welcome.
I want to stress that my lack of understanding of this point does not lead me to question the overall theory. Unlike religious theorists, I can accept that there are things I do not understand, without needing to fill the gaps with magic and superstition.
There's just one thing that troubles me, and I'm wondering if anyone out there can help me out with this, or point me in the direction of a reasonably succinct reference ('succinct' because I'm not going to devote weeks to studying this issue). Yes, I understand that genetic mutations are perpetuated if they confer a biological advantage. For instance, the first mutated five-fingered ape had a better chance of survival than its four fingered brothers and sisters. So it reproduced more, and those of its offspring who had five fingers had a similar advantage, until a time came when the four-fingered apes were no more.
However, that's a relatively simple mutation that could take place in one generation. How about the development of winged animals? It's unlikely that a non-winged species could mutate in a single step to the possession of wings, and it's difficult to see what the intermediate steps might be which would be biologically advantageous. What use is a half wing? My hypothesis is that all mutations must be biologically advantageous at every stage, so there must have been some prior usefulness in the limbs that would eventually become wings ... perhaps as aids to balancing for animals that lived in trees? Any corroboration or alternative explanations would be welcome.
I want to stress that my lack of understanding of this point does not lead me to question the overall theory. Unlike religious theorists, I can accept that there are things I do not understand, without needing to fill the gaps with magic and superstition.
By:
TopGardener
Age:
46-50
,
Male
