Evolution? How?

Intrepid wrote:

What is the name of the old book that says voodoo is true? I would be interested in reading it since voodoo is a very interesting topic.

Your post is just a time waster. You know as well as I do that I'm talking about the Bible, and that I meant magic, rather than vodoo literally.

Yes I read it. What makes any cells stand out enough to interperet the light differently?

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Yes I read it. What makes any cells stand out enough to interperet the light differently?

Well, your entire body is covered with light-sensitive cells. Your skin can detect heat radiation, can it not? What is this radiation? Infra-red light. It is easy ( for me, anyway) to see how a small mutation could lead infra-red sensitive cells to become more sensitive to shorter wavelengths of light. Also, photons of certain wavelengths are absorbed by certain pigments/chemicals, affecting the chemistry of the cell in a manner that the brain may detect.
P

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

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?)

We're guessing, but what we're not guessing about is that in order for a trait to appear, there must be a pathway to it such that at every step, there is more advantage than at the last step. You are hardly in a position to criticize potential weaknesses in a deduction, since you then turn around and accept an ancient text as the authority on the nature of the world with nothing more than at most a few arguments of plausibility.

If there were a patch of light sensitive skin, perhaps it could function initially along the normal pathways for tactile sensations, and specialized neural handling evolved only later.

Hmmm. If you don't believe in evolution then you may not be allowed to question it?

So in order to question evolution, are you saying that you first must believe in it? Do I understand your position correctly? Only true believers are allowed to doubt?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

What is the name of the old book that says voodoo is true? I would be interested in reading it since voodoo is a very interesting topic.

Your post is just a time waster. You know as well as I do that I'm talking about the Bible, and that I meant magic, rather than vodoo literally.

Um, why don't you say what you mean for the benefit of those who do not realize that you use words that you do not mean to say what you really mean. Kind of a waste of time, no?

Pauligirl wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Yes I read it. What makes any cells stand out enough to interperet the light differently?

Well, your entire body is covered with light-sensitive cells. Your skin can detect heat radiation, can it not? What is this radiation? Infra-red light. It is easy ( for me, anyway) to see how a small mutation could lead infra-red sensitive cells to become more sensitive to shorter wavelengths of light. Also, photons of certain wavelengths are absorbed by certain pigments/chemicals, affecting the chemistry of the cell in a manner that the brain may detect.
P

In a general sense, all types of light/radiation whether it is visible light, infra-red, ultraviolet, xrays, gamma or any other may have some effect on any cells of your body, whether exterior (skin) or interior (organs). All cells are "sensitive" to these types of waves in the sense that, yes , they do react in some manner when exposed to them.

This is very far indeed from proving the 'some exterior cells of a primitive animal were so effected by visible light that the cell sent signals to the animal's brain which proved to be so beneficial to the organism to such an extent that this organism and it's subsequent descendants were better able to survive and thrive in their environment than any others of their species.''

In other words, just because the skin of your arm can tan or feel heat doesn't mean that it can generate an eye, step by step, in the skin of your descendants over a long period of time. If it could, and indeed some posters have asserted that evolution has produced just this sort of result dozens of times.....how come we don't see many creatures with quarter and half evolved eyes growing in various parts of their bodies, like say in the back of the head where it would be a real advantage, or in the hand so you could see around a corner just by reaching around it?

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

What is the name of the old book that says voodoo is true? I would be interested in reading it since voodoo is a very interesting topic.

Your post is just a time waster. You know as well as I do that I'm talking about the Bible, and that I meant magic, rather than vodoo literally.

Um, why don't you say what you mean for the benefit of those who do not realize that you use words that you do not mean to say what you really mean. Kind of a waste of time, no?

Sounds like gibberish to me. Why do people "in the right" have to put gibberish in their posts?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

What is the name of the old book that says voodoo is true? I would be interested in reading it since voodoo is a very interesting topic.

Your post is just a time waster. You know as well as I do that I'm talking about the Bible, and that I meant magic, rather than vodoo literally.

Um, why don't you say what you mean for the benefit of those who do not realize that you use words that you do not mean to say what you really mean. Kind of a waste of time, no?

Sounds like gibberish to me. Why do people "in the right" have to put gibberish in their posts?

I don't know why you do that. Only you can answer that.

About the possible origin of life.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051013084725.htm

real life wrote:

Pauligirl wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Yes I read it. What makes any cells stand out enough to interperet the light differently?

Well, your entire body is covered with light-sensitive cells. Your skin can detect heat radiation, can it not? What is this radiation? Infra-red light. It is easy ( for me, anyway) to see how a small mutation could lead infra-red sensitive cells to become more sensitive to shorter wavelengths of light. Also, photons of certain wavelengths are absorbed by certain pigments/chemicals, affecting the chemistry of the cell in a manner that the brain may detect.
P

In a general sense, all types of light/radiation whether it is visible light, infra-red, ultraviolet, xrays, gamma or any other may have some effect on any cells of your body, whether exterior (skin) or interior (organs). All cells are "sensitive" to these types of waves in the sense that, yes , they do react in some manner when exposed to them.

This is very far indeed from proving the 'some exterior cells of a primitive animal were so effected by visible light that the cell sent signals to the animal's brain which proved to be so beneficial to the organism to such an extent that this organism and it's subsequent descendants were better able to survive and thrive in their environment than any others of their species.''

In other words, just because the skin of your arm can tan or feel heat doesn't mean that it can generate an eye, step by step, in the skin of your descendants over a long period of time. If it could, and indeed some posters have asserted that evolution has produced just this sort of result dozens of times.....how come we don't see many creatures with quarter and half evolved eyes growing in various parts of their bodies, like say in the back of the head where it would be a real advantage, or in the hand so you could see around a corner just by reaching around it?

Near the beginning of life on Earth, in a world of totally blind creatures, a patch of cells that would enable you to tell the illumination level somewhat might be helpful. Probably decently developed eyes were already present in the first creatures which came up on dry land. I'm only guessing. The story of the evolution of eyes could be different, for all I know. I just know that a trait cannot develop unless there is an evelutionary path to it such that every step of the path is more advantageous than the previous step. Plants seem to gain some benefit just from a minor ability to detect light. Some flowers find it helpful, apparently, to be able to turn and face the sun, close at night, etc.

That doesn't necessarily mean that these molecules assembled themselves from dead chemicals into complex, intricate and finely balanced living beings, does it?

In other words, just because the skin of your arm can tan or feel heat doesn't mean that it can generate an eye, step by step, in the skin of your descendants over a long period of time. If it could, and indeed some posters have asserted that evolution has produced just this sort of result dozens of times.....how come we don't see many creatures with quarter and half evolved eyes growing in various parts of their bodies, like say in the back of the head where it would be a real advantage, or in the hand so you could see around a corner just by reaching around it?

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

What is the name of the old book that says voodoo is true? I would be interested in reading it since voodoo is a very interesting topic.

Your post is just a time waster. You know as well as I do that I'm talking about the Bible, and that I meant magic, rather than vodoo literally.

Um, why don't you say what you mean for the benefit of those who do not realize that you use words that you do not mean to say what you really mean. Kind of a waste of time, no?

Sounds like gibberish to me. Why do people "in the right" have to put gibberish in their posts?

I don't know why you do that. Only you can answer that.

This is mere sophistry. This post of yours is gibberish or seems so:

"Um, why don't you say what you mean for the benefit of those who do not realize that you use words that you do not mean to say what you really mean."

Which of mine is? You are being disingenuous. A childish "I know you are, but what am I?" is hardly a good advertisement for your point of view.

Quote:

That doesn't necessarily mean that these molecules assembled themselves from dead chemicals into complex, intricate and finely balanced living beings, does it?

Yes it does. But not in the time frame of tribal mythology.

http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html

Let's be clear about what you are claiming. So if you put organic molecules together long enough, are you claiming that it is a given that they WILL ALWAYS assemble themselves into a living creature?

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:

About the possible origin of life.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051013084725.htm

Hi Xingu,

Re: your linked article NASA Discovers Life's Building Blocks Are Common In Space

All of the 'building blocks' for life are on Earth, too.

That doesn't necessarily mean that these molecules assembled themselves from dead chemicals into complex, intricate and finely balanced living beings, does it?

Yes it does. But not in the time frame of tribal mythology.

http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html

Let's be clear about what you are claiming. So if you put organic molecules together long enough, are you claiming that it is a given that they WILL ALWAYS assemble themselves into a living creature?

It may very well be if the environmental conditions are right. No one knows for sure. That's what nice about science; they're honest and open-minded enough to admit they don't know.........

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Pauligirl wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Yes I read it. What makes any cells stand out enough to interperet the light differently?

Well, your entire body is covered with light-sensitive cells. Your skin can detect heat radiation, can it not? What is this radiation? Infra-red light. It is easy ( for me, anyway) to see how a small mutation could lead infra-red sensitive cells to become more sensitive to shorter wavelengths of light. Also, photons of certain wavelengths are absorbed by certain pigments/chemicals, affecting the chemistry of the cell in a manner that the brain may detect.
P

In a general sense, all types of light/radiation whether it is visible light, infra-red, ultraviolet, xrays, gamma or any other may have some effect on any cells of your body, whether exterior (skin) or interior (organs). All cells are "sensitive" to these types of waves in the sense that, yes , they do react in some manner when exposed to them.

This is very far indeed from proving the 'some exterior cells of a primitive animal were so effected by visible light that the cell sent signals to the animal's brain which proved to be so beneficial to the organism to such an extent that this organism and it's subsequent descendants were better able to survive and thrive in their environment than any others of their species.''

In other words, just because the skin of your arm can tan or feel heat doesn't mean that it can generate an eye, step by step, in the skin of your descendants over a long period of time. If it could, and indeed some posters have asserted that evolution has produced just this sort of result dozens of times.....how come we don't see many creatures with quarter and half evolved eyes growing in various parts of their bodies, like say in the back of the head where it would be a real advantage, or in the hand so you could see around a corner just by reaching around it?

Near the beginning of life on Earth, in a world of totally blind creatures, a patch of cells that would enable you to tell the illumination level somewhat might be helpful. Probably decently developed eyes were already present in the first creatures which came up on dry land. I'm only guessing. The story of the evolution of eyes could be different, for all I know. I just know that a trait cannot develop unless there is an evelutionary path to it such that every step of the path is more advantageous than the previous step. Plants seem to gain some benefit just from a minor ability to detect light. Some flowers find it helpful, apparently, to be able to turn and face the sun, close at night, etc.

Since we're guessing I'll grant that your guess is a possibility. Also possible is that the ability to perceive light without distinguishing the source or cause of the light could be a DISadvantage just as easily as it could be an advantage.

If light is "seen" by a creature and it reacts by moving toward the light without knowing what is in that direction, it could move itself into the path of predators. Thus "a little knowledge" could just as easily prove a disadvantage rather than an advantage.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

What is the name of the old book that says voodoo is true? I would be interested in reading it since voodoo is a very interesting topic.

Your post is just a time waster. You know as well as I do that I'm talking about the Bible, and that I meant magic, rather than vodoo literally.

Um, why don't you say what you mean for the benefit of those who do not realize that you use words that you do not mean to say what you really mean. Kind of a waste of time, no?

Sounds like gibberish to me. Why do people "in the right" have to put gibberish in their posts?

I don't know why you do that. Only you can answer that.

This is mere sophistry. This post of yours is gibberish or seems so:

"Um, why don't you say what you mean for the benefit of those who do not realize that you use words that you do not mean to say what you really mean."

Which of mine is? You are being disingenuous. A childish "I know you are, but what am I?" is hardly a good advertisement for your point of view.

Sophistry? Disingenuous? Poppycock! You started out by making a comment that was, in my opinion, untrue and flawed. I asked you about it in, perhaps a somewhat sarcastic manner, and you replied that I should have known what you meant even though you used different words than what you should have used to make it sensible. Then, you tell me that I am spouting gibberish. You speak of voodoo when you mean something else and the reader is supposed to know what you actually meant? ..... booga, booga!