Why didn't animals evolve wheels?

[Brian Peacock]

Just in case you're not being rhetorical,

I'm being Socratic.

the shark is perfectly adapted for its niche - it doesn't have to be any smarter than it is to be the consummate lone apex predator that it is.

So why did humans evolve a complex brain? They were well adapted to their ecological niche too.

You've already had an answer to that: we are evolved beings. Now you only need to understand what evolution is in order to understand how redundant that question is.

So why haven't all other creatures evolved towards the same superior pattern?

Because evolution (by natural selection as Jim points out) is a goaless processes. The point isn't to be 'superior': if there is a point it is merely that a species survives to pass on its genes. There is no ultimate end-point or aspirational thrust towards a 'superior pattern' - the superior pattern is just the one that, through mutation, ends up enhancing survivability within a given niche amid a certain set of environmental circumstances. Change those environmental circumstances and that so-called 'superior pattern' ends up counting for very little. Just ask a dinosaur.

Orcas and dolphins on the other hand are social mammals which hunt through communication and cooperation, so it seems reasonable to suppose that animals like this probably benefit from enough smarts to develop a theory of mind and a communication schema by which they can relate to other pod members and pool information, and where developing more smarts significantly enhances survivability over time within a particular niche. Cali's the one to ask really. Him and the fishes go back a long way.

And sharks wouldn't be a better apex predator if they were social animals with cognitive and communications abilities?

Now you only need to understand what adaptation to an ecological niche means to understand why this question is also redundant.

I'm asking you to explain how it is that almost all other creatures on the planet have evolved from something else in 40 million years, but sharks have not. Random mutational chance would suggest that there would be lesser-evolved and more-evolved sharks around in the continuum of shark evolution. But there aren't, are there?

It's easy to misunderstand evolution is one considers where we are now to be some kind of ultimate or desired fixed point or end. This is not the case of course: all creatures are subject to evolutionary drivers all the time - even humans - because all creatures inhabit a place within the environment.

Now when we think of sharks we usually think of the big, bitey, open water predators, and yes, with that image in mind, we might assume that the class (a group of creatures that share a common root branch on the evolutionary tree) to which sharks belong includes many species that could easily be thought of as more or less evolved for that role. However, that's not a helpful way to think about evolution. One member of that class, the Skate for example, is far more poorly equipped for the role of big, bitey, open-water predator than another class mate, say, the Tiger Shark, but the Tiger Shark in turn is less well equipped for the role of a sandy bottom feeder. The determining factor here is not which is the more- and which is the less-evolved creature, the determining factor is just the environment, the place of different creatures within it, and the ability of mutations to meet the challenges of that environment and to secure and/or enhance the survivability of a species.

I shudder to think what the course of ocean navigation by humans would have been like if sharks banded together and worked in concert. Sharknado my ass...Didn't somebody make a movie about genetically enhanced sharks escaping a research facility and wreaking havoc?

It seems to me that random mutation over 40 million years would have produced a strain of more intelligent sharks. It did so to humans in what, 4 million years?

Hmm. The so-called Socratic thrust of your point belies some basic misunderstandings about evolution. I'd recommend 'What Evolution Is' in the Science Masters series for a comprehensive overview.

If I wanted to read a book, I'd read a book. I'm interested in having you explain.[/quote]
If you're earnest in your desire to learn about evolution then I'd genuinely encourage you to go learn about it. It is pretty amazing stuff after all. I mean, like, properly amazing.

Adopting your usual 'Socratic' role of professional disputer and fault-finder, while challenging what is actually being said to you on the basis of your own intuitions, will not alas get you very far, and will perhaps only prone you to entrenching your misconceptions and misunderstandings. Evolutionary theory cannot be argued into of out of existence 'Socratically'. The bodies of knowledge which comprise the Theory of Evolution are deep and diverse but they are not beyond common wit and are supported by a vast amount of rigorous 'out-there' science. Fundamental to learning about anything of this sort is acknowledging and accepting that someone like Jim is a far more reliable source of information than one's own intuition. So even if you take 'Socratic' issue with what I have to say on this matter at least pay attention to what Jim tells you--this is meat and potatoes for a pedagogue of his calibre--and in the meantime why not arm yourself with some proper info - you know, read a book or two or check out some reliable internet resources etc?

[Seth]

If you're earnest in your desire to learn about evolution then I'd genuinely encourage you to go learn about it. It is pretty amazing stuff after all. I mean, like, properly amazing.

Adopting your usual 'Socratic' role of professional disputer and fault-finder, while challenging what is actually being said to you on the basis of your own intuitions, will not alas get you very far, and will perhaps only prone you to entrenching your misconceptions and misunderstandings. Evolutionary theory cannot be argued into of out of existence 'Socratically'.

The purpose of Socratic argument is not to argue anything out of existence, it's merely to examine the subject using a specific method of question and answer. The degree of actual knowledge of the interlocutor is irrelevant to the value of the discussion and the learning on the part of both the participants to the discussion as well as those who may be observing the debate.

Also, it's a way of improving the rhetorical skills of the student by critically examining his or her claims, thereby forcing them to give more careful consideration to what they say or write.

[Brian Peacock]

I am not your student, so you can drop that bollocks and just ask.

[Seth]

I am not your student, so you can drop that bollocks and just ask.

We are all students, unless you are claiming the perfect knowledge of godhood, but in this case, consider the ill-informed lurkers to be OUR students. I question, you answer, they learn.

In that vein, here's another question for you: Is it possible that DNA has been manipulated directly, with intelligent intent and design, to "improve" or somehow change species?

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Is it possible that DNA has been manipulated directly, with intelligent intent and design, to "improve" or somehow change species?

I take it you mean in the evolutionary past of Earth's natural biota (by intelligent aliens), rather than the tentative but real steps taken in recent years by genetic engineers to make genetic changes in a variety of current organisms.

The short answer is that there is no evidence that any such changes had been made, and that the nature of both the genome and phenotype of all species currently examined is consistent with the broad theory of evolutionary change via natural selection and random genetic drift.

One of the best lines of evidence in this regard is the degree to which both the genome itself, and the developmental processes of building an organism are highly inefficient, at least by some measures. The genome itself is littered with the genetic debris of the past - a functioning organism could be made with vastly less genetic material, and it would not contain features such as the way that the vas deferens is forced to loop to an "unnecessary" degree because of the evolutionary history of that particular organ. When organisms are carefully examined, we see precisely the features that an evolutionary process would produce if it were blind to future goals, and unable to start a design from a clean slate, but instead forced to work with a genetic collage of past evolution.

[JimC]

Getting back to the thread title, there seems to be 2 strands of thought in the thread to date, to which I will add a very tentative third.

1. That the anatomical problems of developing a functional, powered wheel equivalent are simply too hard, in that the nerve and circulatory supply to such a wheel organ would be extraordinarily difficult. (on the macro scale, at least - rotating flagella at the sub-cellular level are molecular machines rather than organs)

2. That a wheeled organism is biologically feasible, but would be at a selective disadvantage compared to limbs on the vast majority of uneven surfaces prevalent in the environment, and so has never evolved.

The third possibility is that a wheeled organism could evolve, and, at least in a few environments, could prosper, but that by chance it simply has not happened as yet on Earth...

[cronus]

A larger planet with more gravity would make many more flat environments on which wheeled life could live long and prosper. Maybe it is a characteristic of super-worlds to evolve wheeled life? They are more common than little worlds like Earth I've read.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

Is it possible that DNA has been manipulated directly, with intelligent intent and design, to "improve" or somehow change species?

I take it you mean in the evolutionary past of Earth's natural biota (by intelligent aliens), rather than the tentative but real steps taken in recent years by genetic engineers to make genetic changes in a variety of current organisms.

You're getting ahead of yourself. Answer the question: "Is it possible that DNA has been manipulated directly, with intelligent intent and design, to "improve" or somehow change species?"

The short answer is that there is no evidence that any such changes had been made,

And you know that how, exactly? Is it possible that such genetic changes could be made without leaving obvious traces?

and that the nature of both the genome and phenotype of all species currently examined is consistent with the broad theory of evolutionary change via natural selection and random genetic drift.

Must I remind you that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, particularly in light of the fact that it is a proven scientific fact that intelligence can indeed directly manipulate DNA to create changes to an organism, including changes that are persistent in the progeny of the changed creature?

What about a gross reset of planetary genetics that all but eliminates one particular evolutionary path in favor of another? Is that possible?

One of the best lines of evidence in this regard is the degree to which both the genome itself, and the developmental processes of building an organism are highly inefficient, at least by some measures. The genome itself is littered with the genetic debris of the past - a functioning organism could be made with vastly less genetic material, and it would not contain features such as the way that the vas deferens is forced to loop to an "unnecessary" degree because of the evolutionary history of that particular organ. When organisms are carefully examined, we see precisely the features that an evolutionary process would produce if it were blind to future goals, and unable to start a design from a clean slate, but instead forced to work with a genetic collage of past evolution.

And how does science differentiate between random genetic drift and genetic debris and an intentional but subtle intelligent manipulation of genetic structure that might have taken place, oh, say, 150 million years ago? Is it possible that the original genetic design of, let's say mammals, was "clean" of this genetic debris, but that subsequent genetic drift dirtied up the genome in the intervening ages?

[JimC]

Your "intentional but subtle intelligent manipulation of genetic structure" is nothing more than the equivalent of laughable theistic argument that a deceitful and malicious god deliberately buried fossils in ancient strata to test the faith of his gullible adherents...

Basically, Seth, go and educate yourself on genetics and evolutionary theory, possibly by taking 4 years to do an honours degree on biology before you can even pretend to be asking serious questions in this area of science. Otherwise, shut the fuck up, and stop embarrassing yourself by your displays of ignorance...

[Brian Peacock]

Is it possible that DNA has been manipulated directly, with intelligent intent and design, to "improve" or somehow change species?

The DNA of livestock has been directly manipulated with an intent to "improve" by selective breeding for millennia, and genetically modified crops have been similarly, well, genetically modified (the clue is in the name). Somehow i don't think this is what Seth's aim at though.

Is it possible that such genetic changes could be made without leaving obvious traces?

...

Is it possible that the original genetic design of, let's say mammals, was "clean" of this genetic debris, but that subsequent genetic drift dirtied up the genome in the intervening ages?

Ah, the Tolerist Socratic Fallacy strikes again: If Seth can imagine it then it might be true, and it's up to everyone else to prove otherwise.

In a gene-centred view of evolution the imaginable is undermined by the observable every time.

Seth, go and educate yourself on genetics and evolutionary theory, possibly by taking 4 years to do an honours degree on biology...

Or just stop pussy-footing around and go the whole hog: join a seminary.

[Seth]

Your "intentional but subtle intelligent manipulation of genetic structure" is nothing more than the equivalent of laughable theistic argument that a deceitful and malicious god deliberately buried fossils in ancient strata to test the faith of his gullible adherents...

Is it? I thought it was a simple question of a fundamentally scientific nature. You're the one loading it up with religious meaning and trying to dodge it, Mr. Religious Atheist Person.

Basically, Seth, go and educate yourself on genetics and evolutionary theory, possibly by taking 4 years to do an honours degree on biology before you can even pretend to be asking serious questions in this area of science.

Ever here of a thing called "The First Amendment?" Fuck off, I'll ask any inconvenient question I like.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up, and stop embarrassing yourself by your displays of ignorance...

You're the one resorting to personal attacks instead of reason, so you're the one embarrassing yourself, not me, Mr. Pseudo-intellectual Atheist Guy.

Answer the question or shut the fuck up.

[Seth]

Is it possible that DNA has been manipulated directly, with intelligent intent and design, to "improve" or somehow change species?

The DNA of livestock has been directly manipulated with an intent to "improve" by selective breeding for millennia, and genetically modified crops have been similarly, well, genetically modified (the clue is in the name). Somehow i don't think this is what Seth's aim at though.

So, does this mean that the answer to the question is "yes?" I'll take it as a yes unless you indicate otherwise, okay?

Is it possible that such genetic changes could be made without leaving obvious traces?

...

Is it possible that the original genetic design of, let's say mammals, was "clean" of this genetic debris, but that subsequent genetic drift dirtied up the genome in the intervening ages?

Ah, the Tolerist Socratic Fallacy strikes again: If Seth can imagine it then it might be true, and it's up to everyone else to prove otherwise.

Did I ask you to prove anything? I asked a simple question of biology and evolution. Are you unable to answer the question, or merely unwilling?

In a gene-centred view of evolution the imaginable is undermined by the observable every time.

And is a "gene-centered view of evolution" the only possible view of evolution, or, as I asked before, is it possible to alter genes deliberately, using intelligent design, to achieve a specific type of organism and in doing so leave no obvious trace of that manipulation in the evolutionary future?

Seth, go and educate yourself on genetics and evolutionary theory, possibly by taking 4 years to do an honours degree on biology...

Or just stop pussy-footing around and go the whole hog: join a seminary.

Talking about pussies, you guys epitomize the evasive pussies of "science" who won't even answer simple, rational, scientific questions about your system of religious beliefs.

Answer the question please: Is it possible that such genetic changes could be made without leaving obvious traces?

And since we know the answer to the fundamental question of whether DNA can be intelligently designed to achieve a particular goal is yes, as you admit above, here's the next question: What level of intelligence and manipulative ability is required to perform such manipulations?

[JimC]

We have answered the question, Seth.

It's just that you can't understand the answer.

[Seth]

We have answered the question, Seth.

It's just that you can't understand the answer.

No you haven't you've studiously avoided doing so. Why don't you just provide the one-word answer required to the following question:

"is it possible to alter genes deliberately, using intelligent design, to achieve a specific type of organism and in doing so leave no obvious trace of that manipulation in the evolutionary future?"

And then a substantive and rational answer to this question:

"What level of intelligence and manipulative ability is required to perform such manipulations?"

[Jason]

Sigh. I'll try to whack this, though my biology knowledge is woefully inadequate and I'll probably blunder it.

Short answers: Yes it is possible, in fact 'vestigial' genes are practically unavoidable because a gene often expresses more than one thing in a phenotype

We have the intelligence and the ability - it's best and most easily done through either artificial selection via selective breeding or artificial selection via artificial environment - though direct genetic manipulation (actually programming in ACTG) is possible and becoming more practical as time goes on.

Is time travel possible? Because if it is we should have already gone back in time and rewritten our own genetic codes a billion billion times by now..

I hope I didn't fuck that up too badly.