Evolution theory: How can an ability be lost during evolution?


#1

Humans can’t balance on one feet with both eyes closed but monkeys and apes can.
If natural selection is true, then those who can’t balance have a disadvantage competing with those who can. why those humans can balance was extincted not those who can’t balance


#2

Or the recruitment of something to a new use. Humans spend very little time in trees, but the common ancestors of primates did live in trees.

We, as primarily terrestrial (and aquatic) organisms, have gained the ability to run swiftly, to walk for long distances and to swim (apes drown if they fall in deep water), while we have lost the ability to brachiate through the trees (too big and our shoulder joint is now modified for throwing rather than swinging).

Throwing has become a valuable trait. Many sorts of wild animals, familiar with humans, move off when they see a human bend over. It suggests that a missile will be on the way shortly.


#3

[quote=abcdefg]Humans can’t balance on one feet with both eyes closed but monkeys and apes can.
If natural selection is true, then those who can’t balance have a disadvantage competing with those who can. why those humans can balance was extincted not those who can’t balance
[/quote]

I am about to ask a stupid question. By balancing on one foot, do you mean in a tree or on a branch? Or do you mean just standing still with one leg up?


#4

Not being able to balance on one foot with my eyes closed has so far in my life not proved to be a disadvantage to survival.


#5

[quote=abcdefg]Humans can’t balance on one feet with both eyes closed but monkeys and apes can.
If natural selection is true, then those who can’t balance have a disadvantage competing with those who can. why those humans can balance was extincted not those who can’t balance
[/quote]

Umm, I can balance on one foot with both eyes closed…does this mean I’ll be going extinct?? :eek:


#6

[quote=Lady Cygnus]Umm, I can balance on one foot with both eyes closed…does this mean I’ll be going extinct?? :eek:
[/quote]

This is why I asked for futher clarification. I can balance on one foot with my eyes closed.Should I be investing in a banana farm?:ehh:


#7

Should this turn out to be a true survival skill, you will both be in good shape.


#8

A interesting ability that we have lost is our body’s ability to synthesize vitamin C. Human DNA contains a non-functioning version of a gene that would allow us to produce vitamin C.

Presumably, the mutation/alteration of this gene occurred at a stage when vitamin C was plentiful in the diet, so that it did not immediately kill those animals with the bad version of the gene with scurvy.


#9

[quote=deb1]This is why I asked for futher clarification. I can balance on one foot with my eyes closed.Should I be investing in a banana farm?:ehh:
[/quote]

Ah, I missed your earlier post (probably because I was busy running to the center of my office to attempt this feat :stuck_out_tongue: ). I suppose doing it in a tree would take a little more skill and, although I used to be pretty good at tree climbing, I don’t remember ever attempting this.


#10

[quote=Catholic2003]A interesting ability that we have lost is our body’s ability to synthesize vitamin C. Human DNA contains a non-functioning version of a gene that would allow us to produce vitamin C.

Presumably, the mutation/alteration of this gene occurred at a stage when vitamin C was plentiful in the diet, so that it did not immediately kill those animals with the bad version of the gene with scurvy.
[/quote]

That’s a neat website! One of my friends told me that we lost our ability to process vitamin C and he insists that we need to take much more than the recommened dosage. I’m not so sure about that, but I usually take a double dose.


#11

Humans did not evolve from apes and monkeys. Humans, apes and monkeys each evolved from common primate ancestors.

Another common example of a “lost trait” is the loss of eyes in some cave dwelling fish and reptiles. A trait passes on to future generations when it gives a selective advantage to the bearer, or also fails to give a selective disadvantage to the bearer.


#12

To deb1: it means standing still on the ground with one leg up.

To Catholic2003: Good one. I’m wondering why those with a functioning gene have been extinct.

[quote=Lady Cygnus]Umm, I can balance on one foot with both eyes closed…does this mean I’ll be going extinct?? :eek:
[/quote]

I have to find the “scientist” then.


#13

[quote=abcdefg]To Catholic2003: Good one. I’m wondering why those with a functioning gene have been extinct.
[/quote]

They aren’t extinct. If you have a dog or a cat, it has the functioning version of the gene. In fact, the existence of the functioning version of the gene in these animals is what led to the prediction and subsequent discovery of the non-functioning pseudogene. Only humans, primates, and guinea pigs have the non-functioning version.


#14

[quote=zian]Humans did not evolve from apes and monkeys. Humans, apes and monkeys each evolved from common primate ancestors.

[/quote]

Not to take the thread off-subject, but humans (in evolutionary thinking) did in fact evolve from apes – not the currently existing species of chimpanzees or gorillas, of course, but apes of a different type nonetheless.

If humans didn’t evolve from an ape species, then what exactly did they evolve from? A lemur? :slight_smile:


#15

[quote=Catholic2003]Only humans, primates, and guinea pigs have the non-functioning version.
[/quote]

Humans are primates, see the Tree of Life. We share some errors in the vitamin-C pseudogene with all other primates. One way of tracing the relationship between primates is to look at the accumulation of errors in pseudogenes like this one.

Guines Pigs are not primates, and they have a different set of errors in their vitamin-C pseudogene.

Losing this gene was not a problem because early primates (and Guinea Pigs) had enough vitamin-C in their diets to compensate.

[quote=Ahimsa]Not to take the thread off-subject, but humans (in evolutionary thinking) did in fact evolve from apes – not the currently existing species of chimpanzees or gorillas, of course, but apes of a different type nonetheless.
[/quote]

Depending on your definition of “ape”, humans are themselves apes (see here): primates with relatively large brains, no tail, the ability to brachiate and a tendancy to walk on two legs rather than four. Lemurs and monkeys have tails and run along the top of branches on four legs. Apes hang below branches by their arms.

Getting back to the topic of losing traits, lemurs and monkeys use their tails for balance when running along branches. Since apes hang below, balance is less important and the tail was no longer needed. This meant that losing the tail was an advantage as less resources had to be expended to build an adult body. Tree Sloths from South America are another case in point - they hang below branches and do not have tails.

rossum


#16

Evolution and natural selection are bunk. We did not “Evolve” from any other species. No species has ever evolved from another. There are two places to look for verification of the Theory of Evolution: the fossil record and breeding experiments with animals. If the Evolution theory is correct, the fossil record should show innumerable slight gradations between earlier species and later ones. Even Darwin was aware, however, that the fossil record of his day showed nothing of the sort, and not only mentioned this is his book, he devoted an entire chapter to it entitled “The imperfection of the fossil record”.

The fossil record still shows exactly what it showed in Darwin’s day-that species appear suddenly in a fully developed state and change little or not at all before disappearing… Paleontologist Stephen Stanley writes that “the fossil record does not convincingly demonstrate a single transition from one species to another.” The scientific evidence shows that “Evolution” has never occurred, not even once, ever.

Since we do not see species changing into other species in the fossils, the only other place to look is breeding experiments. But here the evidence also goes against Evolution. Breeders can change the color of a pigeon or the size of a cow to some degree, but they can only go so far. In fact, all breeders have the same experience: If they try to go too far in one direction, the animal or plant in question either becomes sterile or reverts back to the original type. If you have a thousand-point mutation in the genes of a fruit fly, a statistical impossibility, it is still a fruit fly. Modem genetics shows that DNA programs a species to remain stubbornly what it is. There are minor fluctuations around a norm, but nothing more. Dogs remain dogs; fruit flies remain fruit flies, chimps remain chimps, humans remain humans.

All the major body plans we see today in animals and insects appeared at once in the Cambrian era, a fact which does not fit Evolution’s model. Many species like the lungfish, various reptiles, and numerous insects have not changed at all in over 300 million years despite major shifts in their environment, which flatly contradicts the theory of Evolution.

A biologist who works at the American Museum of Natural History summed the situation of evolutionary theory today: "We know that species reproduce, that there are different species now than there were a hundred million years ago, and that there are species here now that were here a hundred million years ago. Everything else is propaganda.’

It was recently discovered that the earliest “modern man” and the (currently accepted) most advanced “ancestor” that Evolutionists try to connect actually co-existed. This rules out evolution as impossible, period.

Much o fthis information is from an exellent article right here on Catholic Answers called “the death of Darwinism”. Look it up.


#17

shelby << Much of this information is from an exellent article right here on Catholic Answers called “the death of Darwinism”. Look it up. >>

I’ve seen it, bad article, just about all the information in it is wrong. I prefer Jimmy Akin’s take on evolution. And my evidence for evolution summary is quite good.

Of course Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil record is a more reasonable approach for a Christian to take. And don’t forget Cardinal Ratzinger’s International Theological Commission 2004 statement and his Commentary on Genesis:

“We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the ‘project’ of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary — rather than mutually exclusive — realities.” (Cardinal Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI, from In The Beginning…)

Phil P


#18

shelby << There are two places to look for verification of the Theory of Evolution: the fossil record and breeding experiments with animals. >>

Actually, there are at least seven major areas of evidence but who’s counting: (1) unique universal phylogenetic tree of life, (2) transitional forms and the fossil record, (3) past history of vestiges / atavisms, (4) evidence from embryology, (5) biogeography and global distribution of species, (6) anatomical and molecular paralogy / analogy, (7) molecular sequence evidence. And these seven major areas of evidence point to one conclusion, to quote Cardinal Ratzinger’s International Theological Commission:

“Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.” (Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, paragraph 63)

Do read a book, I hear they’re good (books that is). :thumbsup:

Phil P


#19

shelby << Dogs remain dogs; fruit flies remain fruit flies, chimps remain chimps, humans remain humans. >>

And whales with legs remain whales with legs.You forgot one. His name is Ambulocetus, and his closely related friends.

Q: How do we know that Ambulocetus is an early form of whale? A: Ambulocetus’ teeth and skull structure shows that it is a whale. Many other fossils have been found showing early whales with varying sizes of leg and tail (e.g. Pakicetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, and the already well known Basilosaurus). The teeth of all of them, including those which were fully aquatic, are very similar, as are their ear structures. Whales separate their ears from the skull – they “float” in a region of fat. To get sound to the ear, modern whales have a partially hollow jaw that is filled with a special type of fat. When sound waves hit the jaw they are conducted through the fat to a thin bone connection to the ear from the back of the jaw. This thin bone connection has a characteristic “S” shape that is totally unique to the whales, and has proved to be so remarkable to paleontologists over the last two decades. Ambulocetus already had the S-shaped ear bone and had jaws that would have been packed with sound-conducting fat, despite the fact that they seemed to live mostly on land. This implies that the strange way of hearing had initially evolved not for hearing underwater, but for some other purpose (e.g. sensing prey on land).

From my transcript of the 1997 Firing Line Creation-Evolution debate

Phil P


#20

[quote=abcdefg]Humans can’t balance on one feet with both eyes closed but monkeys and apes can.
If natural selection is true, then those who can’t balance have a disadvantage competing with those who can. why those humans can balance was extincted not those who can’t balance
[/quote]

Are you saying that a monkey has an advantage because it can balance on one foot with its eyes closed?

When was the last time you saw a monkey foraging for food or mating balanced on one foot with it eyes closed?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.