Faith in Theory (Great article by great conservative)

Opinion Journal ^ | December 26 2005 | James Q Wilson

[RightWingAtheist]

When a federal judge in Pennsylvania struck down the efforts of a local school board to teach "intelligent design," he rightly criticized the wholly unscientific nature of that enterprise. Some people will disagree with his view, arguing that evolution is a "theory" and intelligent design is a "theory," so students should look at both theories.

But this view confuses the meaning of the word "theory." In science, a theory states a relationship between two or more things (scientists like to call them "variables") that can be tested by factual observations. We have a "theory of gravity" that predicts the speed at which two objects will fall toward one another, the path on which a satellite must travel if it is to maintain a constant distance from the earth, and the position that a moon will keep with respect to its associated planet.

[SalukiLawyer]

I'm sorry. I thought it was a fair question. Maybe I am just misunderstanding Darwinism. You know, finch beaks and all that. I thought that it was a survival benefit that caused things like wings to develop. If you give me that, then asking what survival benefit a lizard who had sprouted a little wing received is a reasonable question.

Since I am apparently wrong that mutations need to be beneficial to reinforce and develop a characteristic like a flying wing, perhaps someone could explain to me what the mechanism is, if it is not random beneficial mutations?

[SalukiLawyer]

Flying is flying, and swimming is swimming. No amount of wishing will make a penguin capable of flight.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I always get those two confused. Fly - sky. Got it!

No amount of wishing can make a bird fly, but apparently it can make a lizard fly!

[oneofmany]

You are right, I misspoke. Justice Black said that Sec. Humanism was a religion obiter dictum.No legal standing. Still, it was the position of one (probably more) of the Supremes.
Thanks for the links.

[SalukiLawyer]

Out of curiosity, what are the arguments answering why apes aren't extinct if humans evolved from them?

Ooh ooh! I know this one! Humans did not evolve from present day apes. Both present-day apes and humans evolved from a common, now-extinct, ancestor. Humans are therefore not "more evolved" than apes.

This is a lot easier than I thought it was going to be!

[oneofmany]

Ah. Thanks

[Senator Bedfellow]

Maybe I am just misunderstanding Darwinism. You know, finch beaks and all that. I thought that it was a survival benefit that caused things like wings to develop.

Something of a misuderstanding, but that's why we're here ;)

Mutations cause traits to appear - natural selection is what determines if they hang around or not. The mere fact that some trait would be advantageous does not determine if it actually appears or not. Instead, traits arise more or less by accident, and then the maladaptive are weeded out, leaving the adaptive in place. Or, as I said, if there's no pressure one way or the other for some trait - the trait is neutral with regard to the environment - it may hang around for a while, given that there's no pressure not to have it.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Thanks for clearing that up for me. I always get those two confused. Fly - sky. Got it!"

You're welcome. :)

" No amount of wishing can make a bird fly..."

I never said that. I said make a penguin fly. Pay attention. You were making progress.

" ...but apparently it can make a lizard fly!"

Never heard of flying lizards I take it? http://www.accessexcellence.org/LC/TL/sly/sly_imgWin22.html

A good example of how an *imperfect* wing can still aid an animal.

[SalukiLawyer]

Mutations cause traits to appear - natural selection is what determines if they hang around or not. The mere fact that some trait would be advantageous does not determine if it actually appears or not. Instead, traits arise more or less by accident, and then the maladaptive are weeded out, leaving the adaptive in place.

You put it very well, thank you. Which brings me back to my original question. If someone shows me a picture of a lizard with a little wing to prove that birds evolved from lizards, then I take it "wingness" was indeed somehow beneficial, because otherwise there would be no birds. In your words, it would be "adaptive" and so these lizards (their offspring) would have hung around to eventually become birds.

Wings are wonderful. Flying has got to be about the coolest adaptation ever, and birds are very successful. (If you've ever seen the Hitchcock movie, you know just what I mean.) But there has to be a point at the beginning where you've got this poor mutated freak with wings instead of legs, and all the other lizards are looking at it like its a Thalidomide baby or something right up to the time when, lagging behind its little brothers and sisters, it becomes lunch for a bigger lizard.

That's how I see it. Maybe you see a benefit to a winglet that does not involve flying at all. Surely there must be some benefit early on, right? Is the answer: "Yes, there must have been a benefit, and just because no one can imagine it doesn't mean it did not exist."

[SalukiLawyer]

Never heard of flying lizards I take it?

No, but I had heard of flying squirrels. Thanks for the link. The problem is this. This lizard is an end result. There is no reason to think it is on the way to bird-hood. I would say there is a difference between a mature species that represents a decent match between form and environment and a mutant individual. The picture I saw of the fossil was nothing like that. Your lizard has all four limbs and otherwise looks like a pretty functional lizard. I'll see if I can find it so you can see what I'm talking about. It might be awhile, though.

[forsnax5]

An excellent site for reviewing current knowledge about flight and its origins:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/enter.html

[Senator Bedfellow]

One possible answer is that there is some slight advantage to proto-wings. Another possible answer is that maybe there's no disadvantage to proto-wings, meaning that they could exist by themselves, and thereby provide a sort of springboard for more developed wings later on - wings that do confer an advantage.

[SalukiLawyer]

I got a page not found error.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" The problem is this. This lizard is an end result. There is no reason to think it is on the way to bird-hood."

Never said it was. Organisms aren't evolving *to* something. They are adapting to their environments. ALL species are *end results*. Even transitionals.

[forsnax5]

I got a page not found error.

Dang! I hate when that happens!

Try this one:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/enter.html

[JCEccles]

Same warmed over gruel. No thought at all. He's just repeating what other bigots have assured him is factual.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"But there has to be a point at the beginning where you've got this poor mutated freak with wings instead of legs, and all the other lizards are looking at it like its a Thalidomide baby or something right up to the time when, lagging behind its little brothers and sisters, it becomes lunch for a bigger lizard."

That's the X-Men way of looking at mutations. In the real world, it doesn't work that way. The population would be moving toward a proto-wing, not just an individual *sport*.

"Maybe you see a benefit to a winglet that does not involve flying at all. Surely there must be some benefit early on, right? Is the answer: "Yes, there must have been a benefit, and just because no one can imagine it doesn't mean it did not exist."

Not only can we imagine what benefit it could have, scientists have seen such benefits. The ability to glide for short distances would be an advantage. Better balance when jumping from tree to tree.

[Dimensio]

So what's wrong with it, exactly? Perhaps you could point out a few errors.

[BMCDA]

If you give me that, then asking what survival benefit a lizard who had sprouted a little wing received is a reasonable question.

Well, dinosaurs aren't really lizards but that aside they didn't "sprout" little wings.
Wings didn't have to "sprout" since they are nothing else but modified forelimbs that weren't used for locomotion.
Feathered forelimbs can be used to enhance maneuverability and so they convey an advantage even if they cannot be used to fly. This can still be observed in flightless birds like ostriches.

And this is how evolution usually proceeds: new structures don't develop de novo but are co-options of already existing ones.

[BMCDA]

That's the X-Men way of looking at mutations. In the real world, it doesn't work that way. The population would be moving toward a proto-wing, not just an individual *sport*.

Exactly! There seems to be a common misconception that "wings" and "arms" resp. "forelegs" are completely different structures. So first the arms have to disappear completely before wings can sprout.

[Antonello]

I've asked this before, but late in threads. Maybe someone can help me. On one of these threads someone posted a picture of a lizard fossil with a little wing coming out where is front legs should be, thus proving that lizards evolved into birds. Maybe, maybe not. What I want to know is this: is there any explanation through natural selection that describes how mutant liabilities like little wings instead of legs improves survival? Lizards are cool. Birds are cool. Lizard-birds can't run, and they can't fly.

You might find this essay interesting.