Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum How Many

I'm looking for a ballpark answer:
How many "beneficial" mutations would it take to form something like the echo-location system of a dolphin?

Couldn't you have simply put this in the other thread? Do you have to clutter the entire forum with this?

The answer is we don't know - and neither do you.

Is this another attempt at the ol' argument from complexity, trilobyte?

"I can't see how this can happen, therefore it didn't happen."

If you follow the biological and geological evidence, it leads you to the answer. Because you can't imagine something without having investigated the evidence does not mean you couldn't imagine it after investigating the evidence.

"The answer is we don't know"

I fugured that much....but you guys claimed it happened...but you don't now.

Oh well.

So much for the religion of evolutionISM

Because we don't know everything is no reason to assume we can't know anything, trilobyte. Go do some research on a dolphin's echolocation system yourself. Be a big boy.

I have...and found evolutionISM lacking.

Dolphins are incredible animals which exhibit an intricate communication and detection system in the form of underwater sonar. Using specialized mechanism in the nasal passages just below the blowhole enables them to emit short, pulse-type sounds. The clicks are beamed forward, with the oily melon serving as an acoustic lens and the bony forehead as a reflector. As mentioned above these clicks are used as a form of underwater sonar. Using these sonar clicks they are able to detect objects underwater by using ?echolocation? in which the sounds are reflected off solid surfaces back to their ?sensitive ears? which are in the area of their lower jaw, known as an "acoustic window." Inside is a specialized fatty tissue which connects to the inner ear. The jawbone itself is hollow, and filled with an oily fluid that also conducts sound efficiently. Inside the dolphins inner ear, an extra large number of nerve cells help account for this animals ability to hear such a wide-range of frequencies. By interpreting these echoes, dolphins can distinguish the direction, distance, speed, size, shape and even the density of an object.

The problem is, how did this incredibly -irreducible complex system evolve. Just the evolution of the sonar transmitting portion boggles the mind...not to mention the receiving section.
1)How would the system develope with a blowhole in the middle of the forehead 20-25 MY ago?
2) What function would the echo-location serve without a functioning oily mellon?
3) How would it produce the clicks without the specialized nasal mechanism functioning properly?
4) How did the dolphin evolve the ability to receive the sonar through its jawbone?
5) How did the jaw bone evolve to be filled with oil?
6)What good was the receiving system when the echo transmitting system wasn?t completely evolved?
7) Why evolve the transmitting section if the receiving jawbone section wasn?t completely evolved either?

How many RARE mutations were required to complete this echo-location system?

Next we have to connect both systems to the brain. Then again why would the brain connect to a system that doesn?t function, or should I say couldn?t function in its uncomplete evolutionary stages?



Apparently according to evo theories some sort of land animal like the Mesonyx evolved over time into the Cetacean we see swimming around in our oceans today.

During this so-called evolution process the echo-location developed while the nose moved up the forehead and became a blowhole on the top of the head.

From what I read they use specialized mechanism in the nasal passages just below the blowhole which enables them to emit short, pulse-type sounds. The clicks are beamed forward, with an oily melon serving as an acoustic lens and the bony forehead as a reflector. With out any of these features the echo-location system is useless.

The question is, what good was the forehead reflector when the nose/blowhole was evolving and advancing upward through the forehead region?

It seems as if these two features would have interfered and crashed into each other during their so-called evolution.

troll, you have never done an honest day's research on any subject relating to evolution.

Again, I believe trilobyte can be answered without need for insult.

First, for trilobyte, I am a believer, and if you check other posts of mine, you'll find that I support Genesis as a viable description of the creation based on actual research (Please, don't argue this here, there is a thread for that).

Now, the problem is that there is room for intelligent design among evolution. More importantly, evolution can exist without contending with the bible, even to say evolution is a random or natural selection process does not disprove the bible or Genesis. (Except, of course, the claim that mankind is the effect of evolution).

As for your dolphin example, and admittedly, this is hypothetical and circumstantial, but if you simply need an explanation that shows how a dolphin can exist as it does today, and have echo location, then I can give you an example that can explain it.

First off, whether it was originally a land dwelling or ocean dwelling creature is fairly irrelovent. At some point, it was an ocean dwelling creature, we know this because it is one today.

Second, water, especially salt water, greatly hinders vision, especially at depths. So increased sensitivity in forms other than vision increase the liklihood of survivability. Thus, those who developed the ability to sense and interpret sounds bouncing off of objects no matter how near or far, are more likely to suvive and reproduce.

Once the ability to sense such "echos" becomes a part of their existance, then the ability to produce sounds that can be detected by their ability to sense them creates even greater survivability.

The idea may seem complicated, but we are talking about an estimated 5 billion years of existance for this planet. Look at where mankind has gotten on its own in only 4000 or 6000 years (not in evolution terms, but just the function of our own efforts). We're talking a period of time 1 million times as long as recorded human history.

"Again, I believe trilobyte can be answered without need for insult."

If trilobyte wants to be answered without insult, he needs to quit being insulting. Creationism is not science. It's myth. ID is not science. It's pretend science.

Trilobyte, stop getting your information from the He-Man Science Hater's Club and pretending this was a subject on your mind for a long time.

You're a typical creationist debater. As soon as you realize your argument holds no water, you leap to another subject without acknowledging you didn't know what you were talking about in your original argument. I wouldn't be surprised if you've convinced yourself that you WON the argument about mutation rates and probabilities.

Prove you know something. So far the evidence leads to you being ignorant of this subject.

Thge funny thing is, is that soilguy accuses me of being ignorant....YET...has failed to answer my questions.

trilobyte: "Thge funny thing is, is that soilguy accuses me of being ignorant....YET...has failed to answer my questions."

The thing is that soilguy is pretty frank about what he knows and doesn't know. When he doesn't know, he doesn't just make up answers. That's a degree of intellectual integrity that you have yet to manifest.

Trilobyte wrote:
"Thge funny thing is, is that soilguy accuses me of being ignorant....YET...has failed to answer my questions."

You are ignorant. Willfully and painfully so. Take a look at your original question at the top of this thread:

"How many "beneficial" mutations would it take to form something like the echo-location system of a dolphin?"

It demonstrates a complete and total lack of comprehension of evolution and basic biology.

Welcome back Dan. Missed your posts.

Blacknad.

Civility is not reached by punching back while waiting for the other to extend a hand in kindness.

Good to see you too Blacknad.

Trilobyte. I notice no evolution-deniers added to TheFallibleFiend's post called "An Interesting Paper on Evolution" on the Science Forum. The paper could help you understand all your problems regarding dolphins. It explains genes are the result of a complex interplay between the strands of DNA. Genes don't exist in a vacuum. I'd be very interested in any comments you might care to make regarding the article.

OGGB,

Trilobyte isn't looking for common ground, or to make friends with hell-bound science nerds. In his long ~argument~ regarding mutations and probabilities, at first I tried to get to the bottom of his "misunderstanding." It then dawned on me that the bottom of his misunderstanding was a profound lack of knowledge of very basic biology.

Having had much experience with creationist zealots, there is every reason to believe that trilobyte's only purpose for being here is to spread the false notion that the theory of evolution is profoundly flawed, instead of it being one of the most well-backed, far reaching theories in all the sciences.

He is not here to learn, he is not here to debate. He is on a mission from God which requires him to be deceitful in order to sell ignorance. I try to avoid insults, but when I call him ignorant of his chosen topic of debate, I'm stating a fact that he and most of the participants here know is true.

Civility is one thing, but responding to a salesman of deceit and ignorance with kindness just ain't gonna happen with me.

"Civility is not reached by punching back while waiting for the other to extend a hand in kindness."

I expect you to give the same lecture to him. I've tried to be friendly. In general I *am* friendly and civil - not because trilobyte deserves it, but because that's the sort of person I am.

Trilobyte wants the right to be obnoxious with impunity, and my response is purely disgressionary on my part - though I recognize (and have no choice but to do so) the right of the moderators to modify or delete my posts.

soilguy is is not Trilobyte's "profound lack of knowledge of very basic biology."

Rather it is his willfull desire to prosletyze. He has made a conscious decision to stake out a position no matter the reality.

In short ... he is a fanatic.

That answers the question I asked, somewhere in these many threads, "Why would someone choose to debate a subject about which he knows nothing?"

And more importantly, when confronted with evidence of ignorance, makes a conscious decision to maintain that ignorance rather than step from the darkness into the light.

Well there you go.

Indeed my comments have been, and are, for both sides of this argument. But it is the greater endeavor that resists temptation with kindness.

Daniel 4
Therefore, O king, be pleased to accept my advice: Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed. It may be that then your prosperity will continue.

Proverbs 11
A kind man benefits himself, but a cruel man brings trouble on himself.

1 Thessalonians 5
Hold them all in the highest regard in love because of their work. Live in peace with each other. And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, be patient with everyone. Make sure that nobody pays back wrong for wrong, but always try to be kind to each other and to everyone else.

OGGOB this may come as a shock to you but this is a science forum.

If you wish to quote religious scripture why don't you quote from the Q'ran and Bhagavad-gita.

However as long as you like biblical quotes here's one for you.

Genesis 19:8
" Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof."

Perhaps you can explain why you trust in a book that considers it good to give virgins to a mob to be raped.

DA Morgan,
Why don't you try to understand the context of the event. You know, who was inside of the house, who the people outside of the house were...what the demands of hospitality towards one guest called for, etc... before you open your mouth and continue to look even more foolish.

I understand perfectly well the context.

Are you saying that the definition of what is moral changed? What was good then is now evil? That ethics are situational? That perhaps next year the political climate will once again make it permissible to rape virgins?

Well at least we now know where you stand on the matter and I do feel so foolish. ROFLOL!

...where does it say they would RAPE the virgins? Tell me Morg, why do you feel the need to ad to the text?

Are you that insecure?

Then again you seemed to lie when you claimed you understand the context....why is that? Do you thrive on lying?

Your foolishness level is increasing rapidly.

Trilobyte now asks:
"...where does it say they would RAPE the virgins?"

When hours before he wrote:
"Why don't you try to understand the context of the event."

Which is it? Your statements can not be reconciled. How does the petard feel?

(the last was a reference to Shakespeare's Hamlet I hope all will recognize). ROFLOL!

Bumped for DA Morgan to answer the question.

Which question?