Evolution?

A True Open Forum; Share/Discuss whatever you like
User avatar
shankara
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri May 11, 2018 12:21 pm
Reputation: 40

Re: Evolution?

Postby shankara » Tue Oct 02, 2018 9:22 am

Vutulaki wrote:Think of the time spans involved.


I'm not sure the time span really matters. Having useless wings would present no survival advantage and there would be no reason why dinosaurs with useless wings would breed with other dinosaurs with useless wings (rather than those without).

Well, unless for some reason the useless wings somehow appeared attractive to other dinosaurs leading them to mate with each-other more than with dinosaurs without such a mutation. But I'm not sure that it makes sense even in that case, and if it does then it suggests something of Divinity-Guided Evolution, some kind of teleological intention in nature like Teilhard de Chardin suggests (and which is, as it happens, the doctrine of the Catholic Church). If there is a sexual-aesthetic preference between the embryonic pre-manifestations of a higher form of life, this suggests that the Eros of nature is striving towards higher forms of existence.

Alfredo
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 7:56 am
Reputation: 21

Postby Alfredo » Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:48 am

shankara wrote:
Vutulaki wrote:Think of the time spans involved.


I'm not sure the time span really matters. Having useless wings would present no survival advantage and there would be no reason why dinosaurs with useless wings would breed with other dinosaurs with useless wings (rather than those without).

Well, unless for some reason the useless wings somehow appeared attractive to other dinosaurs leading them to mate with each-other more than with dinosaurs without such a mutation. But I'm not sure that it makes sense even in that case, and if it does then it suggests something of Divinity-Guided Evolution, some kind of teleological intention in nature like Teilhard de Chardin suggests (and which is, as it happens, the doctrine of the Catholic Church). If there is a sexual-aesthetic preference between the embryonic pre-manifestations of a higher form of life, this suggests that the Eros of nature is striving towards higher forms of existence.


Firstly atmospheric conditions were so different that we wouldnt really know if they flew or not.
But wings arent just for flying. Big heavy things like dinos might have developed wings to help them run up hills, or to jump and flap to propel themselves further like chickens, or even to glide from tree to tree like sugar-gliders.
Over the millions of years they were evolving for, they might have first been used run up hills and run faster, few million years later they are flapping their wings to jump further and further, few millions years later they're "flighty" like chickens junping further and further, few hundred millions years later they've developed flight flying further and further as they evolve. Entitely plausible.

User avatar
shankara
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri May 11, 2018 12:21 pm
Reputation: 40

Postby shankara » Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:55 am

Alfredo wrote:
Firstly atmospheric conditions were so different that we wouldnt really know if they flew or not.
But wings arent just for flying. Big heavy things like dinos might have developed wings to help them run up hills, or to jump and flap to propel themselves further like chickens, or even to glide from tree to tree like sugar-gliders.
Over the millions of years they were evolving for, they might have first been used run up hills and run faster, few million years later they are flapping their wings to jump further and further, few millions years later they're "flighty" like chickens junping further and further, few hundred millions years later they've developed flight flying further and further as they evolve. Entitely plausible.


I'm not sure that useless stumpy wings would present any kind of survival advantage at first. In fact quite the opposite. But ok, even if you can perhaps explain wings, what about eyes? Or lungs?

Anyway I think all of this is a moot point because there is still no explanation of the spark of consciousness. You can say "consciousness is a product of the brain" but really that makes no sense, it's like saying "infinity is a product of numbers". If consciousness were a product of matter then all matter would be conscious. If everything is a just a big matter machine then there would be no "I AM", there would just be a machine. And the trouble is that evolution can't provide any explanation for the arising of consciousness out of the darkness of unconsciousness.


Return to “Anarchy Zone”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests