Complexity: An argument for evolution?

Interesting thinking.... sounds like a good exhibit.

Do you feel flawed?

What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculty! in form, in moving, how express and admirable! in action, how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?

I have of late--but wherefore I know not--lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire--why, it appeareth no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours.

(just putting the cart before the horse . . . )

Great exhibit... if you get the chance it is really worth it.



Sure the human body is amazing, but that is different from being flawed or not flawed. A blood clot that stops our bleeding could be the same blood clot that kills us if it travels to our heart or brain. Our amazing immune system which fights off disease and sickness suddenly causes horrible pain in an auto-immune disorder like lupus. These may not be flaws but they sure are pretty big oversights.

God was awfully damned busy that week, give her a break . . .

I'm pretty sure that evolutionary theory has developed so much that it even has a somehow simple and very convincing argument for the complexity of the eye. I remember reading about that.

Well, you're right. There are flaws... possibly we aren't finished. Possibly the human condition is not the best place to look for higher meaning. Is it necessary to do so?

... every addition in function relies on new sytems that can go awry. I'm thinking now of my car <ahem>. I suppose, in a gross way, the same could be said for the human machine. I think I want to have a soft, delicate body... the alternative I imagine would be sort of arthopodic (but maybe I'm just not imagining hard enough).

Love it!

yeah god really was an asshole if he did create us.

For example we have sit to **** we can;t just shake our legs and it comes out our foot. If it did come out our foot wed just wipe it in some grass or on the sidewalk and itd be clean. But instead god created man without a way to wipe his ass. Instead of being nice he let Adam discover that he had to use leaves to wipe his ass. And to make matters worse god created poison ivy so he could laugh.

It also seems a mans penis was just slapped on at the end. God built man and then forgot to put in testicles so he just put em in a bag and sewed em on.

I'm not sure what you're asking here.



Doesn't this support tthe idea of evolution? New systems built on top of new systems built onto of new systems. The new system solves one problem but creates new ones in the process. Then our body needs to create another system to solve that problem... that is why things have gotten so complex.



You aren't imagining hard enough... why couldn't god create a soft delicate skin that has the same protective qualities of hard exoskeloton?

Sorry, jp, to be slow in answering you but my eyes aren't performing well today.

Uh, (comment 1) -- I don't know what I meant. Just meandering along and thinking that the perfection/or not of the body is not necessarily the best place to look for a higher power. (I'd look for that in my soul... if I have one. See below.)

(comment 2) -- I think evolution is well-supported by scientific evidence at every level and am not surprised that complex systems would imply it. Evolution is a good theory, a solid explanation for us and one that seems to be inclusive as we learn more. Anybody who doesn't think so is (in my personal opinion) allowing their religious beliefs to get in the way of knowledge. Creationism is just a pitiful excuse for people who don't really want to learn and apply science yet are unwilling to accept what scientists have learned and teach us. In other words... yes, of course, it supports evolution. I'd be shocked if it didn't.

(comment 3) -- I'm sure you are right, I'm not imagining hard enough, but I'm trying to keep my ideas within the realm of reality. There is only so much to work with here. If we want to live a long time... we'd need to look like a redwood. If we want to be able to fall several times our length and not be hurt, we need an exo-skeleton.

We are clever enough (is this evolution again?) that we have greatly extended our lifespans and are able to protect ourselves with numerous kinds of body armor. Isn't that nearly good enough?

It doesn't necessarily imply that there is not god or she (nods to Setanta) is incompetent. To me, it doesn't connect at all. Souls & religious belief on one side.... bodies and evolution on the other. This somehow seems a good spot to mention what C.S. Lewis said: "You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

Piffka... it wasn't my intention to imply there isn't a god or that she is incompetent. I was merely trying to start a discussion about how the complexity of the human body seems to favor the theory of evolution instead of creationism. I believe in a god. My idea of god isn't really close to the Biblical (capital G) God... but I do believe in something.

As a matter of fact, I also thought about starting a thread entertaining the idea of both theories being correct. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Why couldn't we have been created (we had to have come from somewhere) and then evolved from our original state? Creation and evolution.

Believing in both is, I think, is almost exactly how the Catholics have managed it... since there is doctrine that evolution is correct but cannot be used to explain the spiritual nature of humans.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm


My childhood view of God as a rather large man, all-powerful, bearded, etc. no longer feels right even as a theory. It just seems absurd. I prefer the Daoist version... there is a unity within the universe and by carrying on our lives as we know we ought, we come ever closer to full union.

The closer is that people like C.S.Lewis say that the knowledge of how we "ought" to behave is inherent because of God (God is within). I think the development of consciousness and a conscience are probably key to understanding our nature -- evolutionary speaking... but first we have to better define those things.

If there were to be found a god/goddess/God in our scientific reality... what would we do?

I have always thought that evolution strove for simplicity where it can. It burns less calories and is simply easier to maintain. I have always understood that you can see evolutions hand at work (I mean hand not in a literal sense - just an expression) when you see bones in a hand fuse and become simpler where they can.

I think this is where creationists argue that complexity is creation and not evolution. (I am not saying it is a valid argument - just that this is thier foundation)

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

TTF

Aren't sharks one of the simpler designs out there--virtually unchanged for long millenia? And they are an efficient machine.

Not to mention cockroaches, which may come to be the last survivors here.

Cockroaches and sharks seem relatively simple in design, yet dominant in their own way?

I smacked into a deer this morning and my truck sustained about 2000 worth of cosmetic damage. I just selected out a stupid deer> we need more clever deer that dont just bolt out of the field into your headlights. I can handle an armadillo but a 150 lb deer can give you a bad day.


I like to discuss that evolution is contingent upon place. Lets take bromeliad plants for example. Before Africa and south America broke away freom each other and both initially broke away from The huge landmass that was Pangea, were all bromeliad plants not the same? As the continents and islands drifted apart, we see that these plant families apparently began a morphological change so that Bromeliads along Kilimanjaro are different from those in South America and both are different from those in the Sonoran. Animal evolution worked the same way. We have to think not only WHEN did some evolutionary solution develop, but also, WHERE. Not so profound but just sit and think about all the lines of similar animals that occupy totally different landmasses. How did Old World and NEw world Monkeys differ at the outset, and how did they occupy the differing niches and lands?

Creationists do argue complexity(like the woodpeckers tongue). Yet , parallel to the woodpecker is a series of animals like anteaters that have similar tongue suspension.Howd that happen?
(the answer is in the DNA and several separate genes not in creationist gobbly gook)

Geez, Farmerman. I hit a deer several years ago. It shook me up and totalled my sub-compact car. The officer in charge remarked that there was a lot more damage than you'd expect from "such a small deer" and didn't believe I was going the speed limit. I don't believe I was, either, but I think I may have been trying to hide that fact. Glad you were in a truck and hope *you* didn't sustain any damage, cosmetic or otherwise.

Interesting point about "where" evolutionary changes occur. Would you say that applies to humans?

jus my wallet. 2850 to be exact. New bumper fender, light assembly, paint. I havent worn my points off from my last speeding citation. Oy.

I was told that this is the worst time of year as the mothers chase off the yearlings and new bucks are setting up new home ranges. Nothin like being given an ecology lesson while your truck is still all bent up.

Anybody want deer meat, I cant stand the stuff.

Ouch, and no thanks... I'm swearing off red meat.

I hit my deer in the fall. I was working for the state department of game (it is now called something else because the computer group immediately started calling them D.O.G). All the guys were avid hunters, of course, yet I was one of the first in the office to "get" a deer.

How did the first eyes look like-according to Evolution? Where they just little sensors?