Evolution? How?

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
All that the Theory of Evolution says is:

1. On the average, animals better suited to their environment tend to survive longer and have more chance to produce offspring.
2. Every now and then a new trait is introduced by accident, almost always for the worse, but occasionally for the better.
3. The consequence of (1) and (2) above is that in huge populations over eons, there is a gradual trend towards greater functionality.

Which part of this don't you agree with? It's almost self-evident, once stated.

Ah, Brandon. If only it were that benign.

Evolution postulates much more, as you are aware.

Far from the modest claim of "greater functionality" , evolutionists claim that one creature develops into a whole different creature, given enough time.

There is nothing more to evolution than what I stated.

These changes can become great over time. When enough time has passed that the improvements in a species make it quite a bit different, it is reasonable to call it a new species. It's just a reasonable definition.

In wide-eyed innocence again, Brandon, you softpedal.

If two reptiles exhibit a few different characteristics, and on that basis taxonomists want for definition sake to call one reptile something different , a new "species" of reptile is born.

The idea that a reptile developed into a bird, for instance, is something altogether different.

When you whisper:

Quote:
These changes can become great over time
(emphasis mine)

then, you again try to minimize the import of your own position because evolution insists not only the possibility, but the DEFINITE occurence on numerous occasions that one creature supposedly did develop into a completely different creature.

Why are you trying to softsoap the evolutionary position?

I resist your characterization of my motives. The forces identified in my post result in gradual improvement of functionality over time. Over huge amounts of time, you have a single celled organism developing into a wombat, or an ape, or a man. A scientist doing classification can look at the development of one line and define that between dates A and B you have one species and between B and C another. The fact that the changes result from a combination of natural selection and mutation, and the fact that they are gradual, doesn't mean that they cannot be profound given enough time.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
All that the Theory of Evolution says is:

1. On the average, animals better suited to their environment tend to survive longer and have more chance to produce offspring.
2. Every now and then a new trait is introduced by accident, almost always for the worse, but occasionally for the better.
3. The consequence of (1) and (2) above is that in huge populations over eons, there is a gradual trend towards greater functionality.

Which part of this don't you agree with? It's almost self-evident, once stated.

Ah, Brandon. If only it were that benign.

Evolution postulates much more, as you are aware.

Far from the modest claim of "greater functionality" , evolutionists claim that one creature develops into a whole different creature, given enough time.

There is nothing more to evolution than what I stated.

These changes can become great over time. When enough time has passed that the improvements in a species make it quite a bit different, it is reasonable to call it a new species. It's just a reasonable definition.

In wide-eyed innocence again, Brandon, you softpedal.

If two reptiles exhibit a few different characteristics, and on that basis taxonomists want for definition sake to call one reptile something different , a new "species" of reptile is born.

The idea that a reptile developed into a bird, for instance, is something altogether different.

When you whisper:

Quote:
These changes can become great over time
(emphasis mine)

then, you again try to minimize the import of your own position because evolution insists not only the possibility, but the DEFINITE occurence on numerous occasions that one creature supposedly did develop into a completely different creature.

Why are you trying to softsoap the evolutionary position?

I resist your characterization of my motives. The forces identified in my post result in gradual improvement of functionality over time. Over huge amounts of time, you have a single celled organism developing into a wombat, or an ape, or a man. A scientist doing classification can look at the development of one line and define that between dates A and B you have one species and between B and C another. The fact that the changes result from a combination of natural selection and mutation, and the fact that they are gradual, doesn't mean that they cannot be profound given enough time.

Hi Brandon,

Please do not misunderstand. It's not your motives I was commenting on, so much as your emphasis. It just seems to me that it's a massive[/i] understatement to say that evolution is 'a gradual trend toward greater functionality' when in fact it postulates wholesale and repeated reorganization of the entire organism into a completely different creature.

A taxonomist might assume evolution and so attempt to determine how (that is, in what sequence) one creature descended from another, but there is no direct evidence that this took place.

Indeed some evolutionists are very straightforward about this, such as:

Quote:

Phylogenetic trees are a convenient way of visually representing the evolutionary history of life. These diagrams illustrate the inferred relationships between organisms and the order of speciation events that led from earlier common ancestors to their diversified descendants.

(emphasis mine)
see http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html#fig1

And some are not. The absence of fossils of any particular organism from any particular location at any postulated time (dates can be very subjective in this area since a type of circular reasoning is sometimes employed. The date of the fossil is "placed " by the strata it is found in . The strata is "dated " by the fossils found therein.) does not give evidence that the organism did not exist at that time and place. However this is often the inference that is made.

So in your example of the taxonomist, just because he doesn't find fossils of both creatures for the period A to B and the period B to C does NOT give evidence that these organisms did not live contemporaneously in both time periods.

And of course, assuming that mutation can move an organism toward greater functionality is fighting against very great odds since most mutations are either harmful or neutral in their effect.

But evolutionists postulate that every step along the way the line of organisms that leads from microbes to man "won the lottery" beating the long odds against cumulative beneficial mutations and so, advanced the species.

0 Replies

Brandon,

BTW I would be interested to hear your impression of the halos site that I provided the link to.

It is fairly new information to me and I am interested in hearing an opinion that may not coincide with my own.

0 Replies

The negative mutations tend to die out, the occasional ones that confer some advantage tend statistically to spread through the gene pool. Over immense lengths of time, this process produces greater and greater functionality. One may look at the progression of functionality in one line and arbitrarily declare that a species exists between two points in time. If you're going to talk about errors in the classification of fossils, I insist that you give at least one concrete example, and point out what, specifically the logic error is.

0 Replies

Re: I know you are a creationist, but you can read..., right

real life wrote:

pyedogpuck wrote:
Stalactites and stalagmites evolve over billions of water drops. Unfortunately our wee little brains don't function over such fields of time and we prefer framing our reality in comfy terms.

Um......sure about that?

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/speleotherms-stalagmites-stalactites.htm

Interesting pics

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/stalactites.html
Creationists sometimes point to some very rapid accumulations which superficially resemble the calcium carbonate formations in caves.
For example, on the mortared brickwork of old forts and places of that sort, formations which look to the naked eye like stalactites and stalagmites sometimes form in less than one hundred years. However, those formations are composed of gypsum, which is a salt of calcium sulfate. Unlike calcium carbonate, gypsum is moderately soluble in water, which means that transport and recrystallization can take place much more rapidly (White, 1976, p.304). There is a whole class of cave deposits called evaporite minerals which consist of those minerals which dissolve readily in water. As might be expected, these formations are ephemeral when compared to the carbonates which form all the really large and impressive cave formations. The chemistry of all this is not particularly complex and is very well understood.
(Loftin, 1988, p.23)
Here's some more information. This point is particularly important since creationists love to point out such examples.
Many people have found that stalactites forming on concrete or mortar outdoors may grow several centimeters each year. Stalactite growth in these environments, however, bears little relation to that in caves, because it does not proceed by the same chemical reaction. Although cement and mortar are made from limestone, the same rock in which the caves form, the carbon dioxide has been driven off by heating. When water is added to these materials, one product is calcium hydroxide, which is about 100 times as soluble in water as calcite is. A calcium hydroxide solution absorbs carbon dioxide rapidly from the atmosphere to reconstitute calcium carbonate, and produce stalactites. This is why stalactites formed by solution from cement and mortar grow much faster than those in caves. To illustrate, in 1925, a concrete bridge was constructed inside Postojna Cave, Yugoslavia, and adjacent to it an artificial tunnel was opened. By 1956, tubular stalactites 45 centimeters long were growing from the bridge, while stalactites of the same age in the tunnel were less than 1 centimeter long.

P

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon,

BTW I would be interested to hear your impression of the halos site that I provided the link to.

It is fairly new information to me and I am interested in hearing an opinion that may not coincide with my own.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/lorence_collins/polonium.html

I have to say it's too deep for me.
P

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

The negative mutations tend to die out, the occasional ones that confer some advantage tend statistically to spread through the gene pool. Over immense lengths of time, this process produces greater and greater functionality.

One of the most obvious problems with this idea is that often, even mutations that are supposed to confer some advantage in the final product actually convey NO advantage initially since they only supposedly account for a small part of a complex structure (an eye, an ear , etc) or worse convey an initial DISadvantage because they reduce the benefit of a formerly beneficial structure while not yet realizing the supposed benefit of an eventual (thousands of years later?) development. Example the jawbone-to-ear story.

So why are these mutations spread throughout the gene pool when they convey no advantage and may cause disadvantage? Just luck?

0 Replies

We don't know what humans had to survive during the past thousands of years. Our present biology is probably at the stage where our transition has slowed down as a consequence of environmental settlements. Most of the land mass used to be connected at one time, and changes in the geology and geography has settled down to a slower pace of change with the present formations.

0 Replies

This is off topic, my posts in this thread usually are, but what is the longest thread in Able2Know's history? Is this the longest?

0 Replies

There are longer ones, but not as emotionally charged as this one. LOL

0 Replies

LOL

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The negative mutations tend to die out, the occasional ones that confer some advantage tend statistically to spread through the gene pool. Over immense lengths of time, this process produces greater and greater functionality.

One of the most obvious problems with this idea is that often, even mutations that are supposed to confer some advantage in the final product actually convey NO advantage initially since they only supposedly account for a small part of a complex structure (an eye, an ear , etc) or worse convey an initial DISadvantage because they reduce the benefit of a formerly beneficial structure while not yet realizing the supposed benefit of an eventual (thousands of years later?) development. Example the jawbone-to-ear story.

So why are these mutations spread throughout the gene pool when they convey no advantage and may cause disadvantage? Just luck?

It's not a problem in the slightest. Mutations which confer no advantage do not usually come to dominate the gene pool. Probably virtually never. Traits which do confer an advantage do, although the advantage may be small.

0 Replies

Anyone fancy a little science?

There is a science called population genetics, and it has mathematical formulae for how quickly favorable genetic changes can spread throughout a population of sexually reproducing creatures. From these formulae, Nilsson and Pelger concluded that the 1829 steps could happen in about 350,000 generations.

In real life, an eye could evolve a little more quickly than that, or more slowly. It would depend on how much the specific creatures were being pressured to change, and on whether vision was relevant to their lifestyle.

If one year equals one generation, then a fairly good eye could evolve in maybe a third of a million years. It is thought that animal life has been on earth for at least 600 million years. That is certainly enough time for eyes to have evolved many times over.

In fact, taxonomists say that eyes have evolved at least 40 different times, and and possibly as many as 65 times. There are 9 different optical principles that have been used in the design of eyes and all 9 are represented more than once in the animal kingdom. Why so many? Well, because there was time.

quoted from here without permission:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html

The argument from irreducible complexity is dead. Let's move on.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

There are longer ones, but not as emotionally charged as this one. LOL

Yeh, we have quantity as well as quality Wink

Our thread is much better than those other threads (even though I've never read the others Wink

)

0 Replies

Here is just another question I have....what exactly is the advantage in humans of having complex emotions?

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Here is just another question I have....what exactly is the advantage in humans of having complex emotions?

I don't know.

But remember, due to simple variation (and lack of culling), lots of things arise in a population without imparting an advantage.

Another thread I started a while ago... asks some of these questions.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
The negative mutations tend to die out, the occasional ones that confer some advantage tend statistically to spread through the gene pool. Over immense lengths of time, this process produces greater and greater functionality.

One of the most obvious problems with this idea is that often, even mutations that are supposed to confer some advantage in the final product actually convey NO advantage initially since they only supposedly account for a small part of a complex structure (an eye, an ear , etc) or worse convey an initial DISadvantage because they reduce the benefit of a formerly beneficial structure while not yet realizing the supposed benefit of an eventual (thousands of years later?) development. Example the jawbone-to-ear story.

So why are these mutations spread throughout the gene pool when they convey no advantage and may cause disadvantage? Just luck?

It's not a problem in the slightest. Mutations which confer no advantage do not usually come to dominate the gene pool. Probably virtually never. Traits which do confer an advantage do, although the advantage may be small.

That's exactly the point.

When a mutation which does not yet confer an advantage shows up (for instance, one of many mutations/ genetic changes which would be necessary for a complex structure. An eye, for instance) how is it said that this useless mutation hangs around for generations and generations and generations until another and another and another mutation/ genetic change take place (luckily it occurs each time in the same line of descent among this organism's population) to put all the pieces of this complex structure together in such a way (crude and unrefined as yet but at least a beginning) to start to convey at least SOME benefit to the organism?

0 Replies

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Here is just another question I have....what exactly is the advantage in humans of having complex emotions?

The fact that the answer is complicated or unknown doesn't mean that there isn't a good answer. Some elementary relationships are known, such as fear for protection and love for mating. Any implication that just because we can't see the advantage there isn't one is baloney. Humans don't know everything yet.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
The negative mutations tend to die out, the occasional ones that confer some advantage tend statistically to spread through the gene pool. Over immense lengths of time, this process produces greater and greater functionality.

One of the most obvious problems with this idea is that often, even mutations that are supposed to confer some advantage in the final product actually convey NO advantage initially since they only supposedly account for a small part of a complex structure (an eye, an ear , etc) or worse convey an initial DISadvantage because they reduce the benefit of a formerly beneficial structure while not yet realizing the supposed benefit of an eventual (thousands of years later?) development. Example the jawbone-to-ear story.

So why are these mutations spread throughout the gene pool when they convey no advantage and may cause disadvantage? Just luck?

It's not a problem in the slightest. Mutations which confer no advantage do not usually come to dominate the gene pool. Probably virtually never. Traits which do confer an advantage do, although the advantage may be small.

That's exactly the point.

When a mutation which does not yet confer an advantage shows up (for instance, one of many mutations/ genetic changes which would be necessary for a complex structure. An eye, for instance) how is it said that this useless mutation hangs around for generations and generations and generations until another and another and another mutation/ genetic change take place (luckily it occurs each time in the same line of descent among this organism's population) to put all the pieces of this complex structure together in such a way (crude and unrefined as yet but at least a beginning) to start to convey at least SOME benefit to the organism?

You're misrepresenting what we say totally. We say that an eye cannot have evolved unless at every step of the process there was more advantage than at the previous step. Maybe it began with a patch of slightly light sensitive skin, so that on a good day the creature could tell the difference between high and low illumination.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
real life wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
The negative mutations tend to die out, the occasional ones that confer some advantage tend statistically to spread through the gene pool. Over immense lengths of time, this process produces greater and greater functionality.

One of the most obvious problems with this idea is that often, even mutations that are supposed to confer some advantage in the final product actually convey NO advantage initially since they only supposedly account for a small part of a complex structure (an eye, an ear , etc) or worse convey an initial DISadvantage because they reduce the benefit of a formerly beneficial structure while not yet realizing the supposed benefit of an eventual (thousands of years later?) development. Example the jawbone-to-ear story.

So why are these mutations spread throughout the gene pool when they convey no advantage and may cause disadvantage? Just luck?

It's not a problem in the slightest. Mutations which confer no advantage do not usually come to dominate the gene pool. Probably virtually never. Traits which do confer an advantage do, although the advantage may be small.

That's exactly the point.

When a mutation which does not yet confer an advantage shows up (for instance, one of many mutations/ genetic changes which would be necessary for a complex structure. An eye, for instance) how is it said that this useless mutation hangs around for generations and generations and generations until another and another and another mutation/ genetic change take place (luckily it occurs each time in the same line of descent among this organism's population) to put all the pieces of this complex structure together in such a way (crude and unrefined as yet but at least a beginning) to start to convey at least SOME benefit to the organism?

You're misrepresenting what we say totally. We say that an eye cannot have evolved unless at every step of the process there was more advantage than at the previous step.

That is my point. The first, second, third and so on mutations don't necessarily convey an advantage at every step. It could even be perceived as a disadvantage as in the Jawbone-to-ear story. The jawbone keeps receding until it becomes a bone in the middle ear. The shrinking jawbone surely must have become a liability at some point, making it much more difficult for many, many generations of the creature to feed themselves adequately.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Maybe it began with a patch of slightly light sensitive skin, so that on a good day the creature could tell the difference between high and low illumination.

Yeah maybe but maybe not.

Is evolution at this point reduced to simple guessing?

When the first light sensitive skin cell supposedly appeared, was there an optic nerve to carry light-generated stimuli? Was there an area of the brain that could interpret it? If not, what advantage did it confer?

Since we're guessing let's ask again could it be a possible disadvantage? Would uninterpreted additional data just show up as brain noise producing a confusing effect rather than a benefit? (What would happen if the human ear were fine tuned to other frequencies and could suddenly hear xrays and gamma rays coming from the sun?)

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know