Leaf Camoflage

[Hespera]

Well, the very distant ancestors of the venus fly trap probably didn't have such highly developed traps. Early venus fly traps were probably a little sticky or something, and as the crappier (or less sticky) traps started getting weeded out of the population, the better traps started to dominate. Slowly they began to develop tactile responses to stimuli (to close the trap). Also, one random mutation wouldn't generate a perfect trap. It probably happened over a very very long time, with little increments along the way.

Again, just speculation. I would like to read a paper on the evolutionary history of the trap and see if anybody knows how it developed.

I am no botanist but I did study some comparative vertebrate anatomy and got interested in poisonous snakes.

You might look at a rattlesnake- highly toxic poison, long folding hypodermic needle type fangs. Wos... how did THAT "just happen"?

We dont have a fossil sequence, but we do have living snakes that have teeth and saliva glands (that is what the poison is, a toxic saliva) in several intermediate stages from your harmless garter snake up to the vipers.

Here goes! I used to catch garter snakes and wondered why the bite from their tiny teeth would bleed so much. Found out there is some anticoagulant property to the saliva. Interesting.

There are "rear fanged" snakes with slightly enlarged teeth at the back, where the saliva gland opens. And slightly toxic saliva. (apparently some people allergic react to even a garter snake bite!) A snake trying to swallow a frog or mouse that is struggling will be better off if the saliva helps kill it.

Then you find rear fanged snakes with longer teeth and a groove, a fold in the enamel that lets the saliva be ducted more efficiently.

There are other snakes with a reduced number of teeth in the front of the maxillary bone and the grooved fangs closer to the front.

Also with the fangs now at the front, with only two tooth sockets left in the shortened maxillary.

The fangs have a deep groove that is folded shut now. A cross section of the tooth shows that it is enamel on the inside of the poison duct and plain as can be it is simply folded inside.

All this time the poison has been getting more and more effective.

Some of them rotate the maxillary to fold the long fangs up out of the way when the mouth is shut. The maxilarry on any snake is loose and movable, thats part of how they eat. In others like a cobra, the fangs are short and dont fold up.

Some evolutionary sequences are difficult to see how they happened.
Actually there is a whole lot of things we have not figured out about the world around us. heck.. at the time of the American Revolution people still thought there was an undiscovered continent in the south pacific. Sent out expensive expeditions looking for the imaginary "terra australis".

There are evolutionary sequences that are easy to see how they went though, and they point out ideas about how other things may have happened.

 

[70x7]

Some people just cant get calculus explained to them either! You could try to explain it for 200 years and they still wont get it!

"first off how does the organism even know to turn into a leaf for protection in the first place?, how does it even know that leaves exist or what they look like ,to be able to turn into one?"

that is a false question. The insect knows nothing. But out of all the billions that are hatched every season, if some have an advantage, even a very small one, they will survive and reproduce better. That is so obvious that surely nobody will deny it.

It is also obvious that climate and other conditions have changed over the years. An insect "perfectly" adapted to one set of conditions wont be 'perfect" if it gets colder, hotter, wetter or drier, or it cant eat a new plant that has arrived. In fact, they might just all die off.... as has happened to a lot of organisms.

So God would have to keep doing new special creations over and over and over.... or he could let his critters do a bit of adjusting on their own, dont you think?

What if some grew thicker fur, or maybe white fur to match this new cold stuff that comes more and more each year. Out of a batch of puppies you get black,white, brown.... what if only the white ones survive?


To say that animals cant change according to which ones survive best would be to say that there have always been toy poodles.

not necessarily directed at you, but anyone....yours just happen to the quoted one (you lucky dog you )

So, what keeps the puppies from being blue or green or red? Ive never seen or heard of one, but they must be around. I mean this is all random mutation so eventually that has to come up right?

How about those insects? Thankfully for the natural selection the leaf shaped ones survived, but what about the ones who looked like bullseye targets or that mutated with flashing strobes on them? We are constantly living in a change of evolution so there has to be some of those around somewhere too. What about the ones with elephant trunks!!!

What I am saying is that in order for evolution to be "true" there needs to be evidence of it occuring. There should be animals (or people!!) that lay dead everywhere as the result of a failed evolution. In fact, those should out number the living examples by multiples because evolution is in fact chance (..random remember). We all know the odds of winning the lottery, so how are the chances of winning it repeatidly for millions of years?

What is causing all the random changes in animals/plants/people/etc? Evolution, logically speaking, had to have come from something, but before there was something, there was nothing so how does that work? Does that mean if I hold my empty hand out for millions and billions of years, than eventually my car keys will form themselves? That would also take for granted that the random mutations fell in line the first time around. Mathmatically speaking, I should have had bunches of things form in my hand before I got what I needed.

If evolution is all based on random mutations then why is it only limited to living creatures? Afterall, its just random molecules and atoms forming together in the first place, so why hasnt my desk grown a 5th table leg? Why are "dead" objects not affected by these mutations?
Maybe inanimate objects are smarter than we are because they dont have death! My coffee table will not age or die and one day it will randomly mutate into walking around the living room!!!.......if only the natural selection of ANOTHER coffee table doesnt destroy it first.

 

[atomweaver]

not necessarily directed at you, but anyone....yours just happen to the quoted one (you lucky dog you )

So, what keeps the puppies from being blue or green or red? Ive never seen or heard of one, but they must be around. I mean this is all random mutation so eventually that has to come up right?

Wrong.

How about those insects? Thankfully for the natural selection the leaf shaped ones survived, but what about the ones who looked like bullseye targets or that mutated with flashing strobes on them? We are constantly living in a change of evolution so there has to be some of those around somewhere too. What about the ones with elephant trunks!!!

So, to boil down your objections; you don't see gross macroscopic changes in organisms happen in a single generation, therefore you find evolution to be implausible.

What I am saying is that in order for evolution to be "true" there needs to be evidence of it occuring. There should be animals (or people!!) that lay dead everywhere as the result of a failed evolution.

Two things; 1) Most fatal genetic mutations sort out at conception, not at some point in a fully-grown individual's life... (which is why the modern conservative "life begins at conception" position is vastly more morbid than natural selection ever dreamed of being... but I digress.) Instead of looking for a wealth of fully-grown-and-then-dead genetic mutants, look instead at species' success rates at conceiving offspring.
2) ~99% of all species which have ever existed are now extinct, so in a sense, you have your body count right there.

In fact, those should out number the living examples by multiples because evolution is in fact chance (..random remember).

Only mutation locations are random (heck, even mutation rates are pretty easily calculable). Natural selection is deterministic and decidedly non-random...

We all know the odds of winning the lottery, so how are the chances of winning it repeatidly for millions of years?

What are the odds of the water in a puddle having the exact same shape as the hole that was there before the rain? You're determining the odds of the shape of the water, absent the hole its in, and declaring that shape to be an impossibility. FAIL.

What is causing all the random changes in animals/plants/people/etc?

Causes of mutation, in case it was a serious question, and not a segue into nonsense.

Evolution, logically speaking, had to have come from something,

Oops. Never mind the above link...

but before there was something, there was nothing so how does that work?

Careful, that applies to God, too. If before there was Something there was Nothing (note the Capital "N"), where did God come from?

Does that mean if I hold my empty hand out for millions and billions of years, than eventually my car keys will form themselves?

Nope, although please feel free to give it a try...

That would also take for granted that the random mutations fell in line the first time around.

Why? Or rather, why not the 457th time around? What's so special about the first time (that's not a personal question ;-)?

Mathmatically speaking, I should have had bunches of things form in my hand before I got what I needed.

OK, and you're probably right. So I'll ask again Say every 100 years, you get ten simple "things" in your magical hand... and in 100,000 years, one of those things looks almost exactly like your car keys. What was so special about the first "thing" again..?

If evolution is all based on random mutations then why is it only limited to living creatures?

For evolution, you need both an imperfect replicator, and a means of passing on heritable traits.

Afterall, its just random molecules and atoms forming together in the first place,

What? No, its not "just random molecules and atoms forming together", mutations only matter in an evolutionary sense when they affect genetic material.

so why hasnt my desk grown a 5th table leg? Why are "dead" objects not affected by these mutations?

Table; not an imperfect replicator, no heritable traits... therefore no evolution.

Maybe inanimate objects are smarter than we are because they dont have death! My coffee table will not age or die and one day it will randomly mutate into walking around the living room!!!.......if only the natural selection of ANOTHER coffee table doesnt destroy it first.

You're funny. Ignorant... but funny.

 

[70x7]

I am very impressed by your patience in attempting to disect each point that was made!

Although most of the responces are non-sensical and are more of an attempt to discret in anyway possible, one in particular did catch my attention and ironically it is probably the hardest to answer and hardest to understand.

"but before there was something, there was nothing so how does that work?"
​

"Careful, that applies to God, too. If before there was Something there was Nothing (note the Capital "N"), where did God come from?"

That answer is NOT the same thing. The question does not even make sense in the fact that God is not in the same category as creation. He cannot and was not created. He IS. To have a beginning, one must have an end to compare it to. God has no end as He is eternal. No end...no beginning. God cannot die nor can He be created. Something cannot come from nothing. Everything in existance had to have come from something and therefore nothing could have never existed. That was and is and is to come, is God.

 

[Hespera]

not necessarily directed at you, but anyone....yours just happen to the quoted one (you lucky dog you )

So, what keeps the puppies from being blue or green or red? Ive never seen or heard of one, but they must be around. I mean this is all random mutation so eventually that has to come up right?

How about those insects? Thankfully for the natural selection the leaf shaped ones survived, but what about the ones who looked like bullseye targets or that mutated with flashing strobes on them? We are constantly living in a change of evolution so there has to be some of those around somewhere too. What about the ones with elephant trunks!!!

What I am saying is that in order for evolution to be "true" there needs to be evidence of it occuring. There should be animals (or people!!) that lay dead everywhere as the result of a failed evolution. In fact, those should out number the living examples by multiples because evolution is in fact chance (..random remember). We all know the odds of winning the lottery, so how are the chances of winning it repeatidly for millions of years?

What is causing all the random changes in animals/plants/people/etc? Evolution, logically speaking, had to have come from something, but before there was something, there was nothing so how does that work? Does that mean if I hold my empty hand out for millions and billions of years, than eventually my car keys will form themselves? That would also take for granted that the random mutations fell in line the first time around. Mathmatically speaking, I should have had bunches of things form in my hand before I got what I needed.

If evolution is all based on random mutations then why is it only limited to living creatures? Afterall, its just random molecules and atoms forming together in the first place, so why hasnt my desk grown a 5th table leg? Why are "dead" objects not affected by these mutations?
Maybe inanimate objects are smarter than we are because they dont have death! My coffee table will not age or die and one day it will randomly mutate into walking around the living room!!!.......if only the natural selection of ANOTHER coffee table doesnt destroy it first.

i think that when a person has to use sarcasm and deliberately ridiculous questions it is a sign they are unwilling / unable to talk seriously. Esp the bit about the coffee table. Lets be adults here?

i see your post here already got a serious answer. Perhaps you would be willing to look at it in the spirit that it was offered.

Most of what you say, and your if/then sequences show you really dont know enough about the subject to even know a sensible question.

One word you use, "random". I dont think you udnerstand it at all. Let me give you an example of how undirected random movement actually will bring order out of chaos.

Brownian movement of ions in a solution is about as disorganized as you can get. But... here are precise crystals forming out of the solution. Just from all those little things bumping about randomly. God does not push each little piece into place does he?

You are aware as everyone is that there are subtle differences among individuals, human and otherwise. Perhaps you know too that a dark skin gives protection from UV, and that dark skinned peoples are found around the equator. The very pale skinned ones come from the far north, where that skin type gives an advantage. Anyone too light skinned who showed up... in the natural variation among people...in equatorial Africa, tribal society, would be dead from skin cancer.... so.... what do you think will happen? Selective breeding works on dogs but not on people?


Anyway... i guess you are determined not to understand it but what you dismiss as "random molecules and atoms forming together" is not at all the way things work. Perhaps you should take a chemistry course. None of that evolution stuff there, just how things really do work right there for you to see. Do this, and, 'poof' you have thousands of these perfect little geometrical design carbon nanotubes. Cool! You can tell the prof that it didnt really happen because it couldnt have. Go ahead.

 

[70x7]

^shesh. A little sarcasm goes a long way doesnt it!!!!!

 

[plindboe]

not necessarily directed at you, but anyone....yours just happen to the quoted one (you lucky dog you )

So, what keeps the puppies from being blue or green or red? Ive never seen or heard of one, but they must be around. I mean this is all random mutation so eventually that has to come up right?

If you take random to mean "everything is equally likely" then I see where your misunderstanding stems from. There is plenty of good material to read across the internet if you want to gain a better understanding of what mutations are. Don't get your info from Hollywood movies.

How about those insects? Thankfully for the natural selection the leaf shaped ones survived, but what about the ones who looked like bullseye targets or that mutated with flashing strobes on them?

There's alot more to be selected for than camouflage alone. Nature is very complex, and no doubt you will end up confused if you don't realize that. Unique patterns and light emission can have the selective benefit that members within the species will have an easier time to find and attract each other, or in the case of "eyes", might scare of some potential predators. But of course predators can also take advantage of easily noticable patterns and/or light emission, and there will be an energy cost in producing pigments and/or luminescense. What we end up with a multitude of counterdirectional selective pressures, and the direction that evolution will take, will depend on the nature and abundance of the species in question, the nature and abundance of the predators, the nature and abundance of nutrients, and what potential there is in the existing genetic makeup.

We are constantly living in a change of evolution so there has to be some of those around somewhere too. What about the ones with elephant trunks!!!

Like, elephants? Or are you still talking insects?

What I am saying is that in order for evolution to be "true" there needs to be evidence of it occuring.

There's plenty. You just have to open your eyes and mind, instead of denying indiscriminately whenever you encounter a piece of information you don't like. Confirmation bias is a dangerous thing, if you're interested in the truth.

There should be animals (or people!!) that lay dead everywhere as the result of a failed evolution. In fact, those should out number the living examples by multiples because evolution is in fact chance (..random remember).

Have you never heard of decomposition before? Here's something you can try: Go out in a forest and try to find a dead animal lying on the ground. Go home, and return a week later. Is it still there? If so, does it look the same as the first time you saw it?

We all know the odds of winning the lottery, so how are the chances of winning it repeatidly for millions of years?

Here's another thing you can try. Take a deck of cards. Shuffle them. Now, pick cards, one by one, and place them next to each other in the order they were picked. So what is the chance that the 52 cards you drew would end up in that exact order? Here's how it's calculated -> 1 in 52x51x50x49x48x47x46..... etc. Will you be astonished when you discover that the probability is ~1.24x10E-68? If you are, then I'm not surprised you find evolution unlikely.

What is causing all the random changes in animals/plants/people/etc?

Mutations are caused by imperfect repair and replication mechanisms, and when they happen during gamete production they will be passed on to the offspring. There is tons of stuff to read on the internet, if you're interested in a better understanding.

Evolution, logically speaking, had to have come from something, but before there was something, there was nothing so how does that work?

Scientific knowledge goes back to the Big Bang, and stops there. Is that what your question is about? If you want to know what caused the BB, then you won't find any answers, as there are none available. Alot of people convince themselves they know the answers to the question, usually filling the hole with their favorite supernatural belief system.

Does that mean if I hold my empty hand out for millions and billions of years, than eventually my car keys will form themselves? That would also take for granted that the random mutations fell in line the first time around. Mathmatically speaking, I should have had bunches of things form in my hand before I got what I needed.

Why do you say such nonsense? If you're trying to convince others, I suggest making some valid points instead.

If evolution is all based on random mutations then why is it only limited to living creatures? Afterall, its just random molecules and atoms forming together in the first place, so why hasnt my desk grown a 5th table leg? Why are "dead" objects not affected by these mutations?

Maybe inanimate objects are smarter than we are because they dont have death! My coffee table will not age or die and one day it will randomly mutate into walking around the living room!!!.......if only the natural selection of ANOTHER coffee table doesnt destroy it first.

Dead objects don't reproduce. Dead objects don't inherit. Dead objects don't mutate. All these things are requirements for evolution to happen.

Peter

 

[Hespera]

Originally Posted by 70x7

If evolution is all based on random mutations then why is it only limited to living creatures? Afterall, its just random molecules and atoms forming together in the first place, so why hasnt my desk grown a 5th table leg? Why are "dead" objects not affected by these mutations?

Maybe inanimate objects are smarter than we are because they dont have death! My coffee table will not age or die and one day it will randomly mutate into walking around the living room!!!.......if only the natural selection of ANOTHER coffee table doesnt destroy it first.
​

Dead objects don't reproduce. Dead objects don't inherit. Dead objects don't mutate. All these things are requirements for evolution to happen.

Peter



I wonder if our original poster 70X7 could tell us if he can see that any of his ideas, like the one about the mutating coffee table have been addressed.

I think its necessary for someone to concede a point when its appropriate.

Otherwise no sense in continuing a discussion.

 

[plindboe]

I wonder if our original poster 70X7 could tell us if he can see that any of his ideas, like the one about the mutating coffee table have been addressed.

I think its necessary for someone to concede a point when its appropriate.

Otherwise no sense in continuing a discussion.

I doubt he was interested in a discussion. He just wanted to ridicule, so when he was faced with serious counter arguments it was time to skedaddle.

I'd love to understand the psychology behind such behaviour. I suspect it has to do with a fervent certainty in anti-evolution ideas, combined with the subconscious knowledge that he's unable to carry out a serious and openminded discussion about it. Hence he has to keep the debate as low as possible, by distorting and ridiculing, thereby provoking people to reply in kind.

Peter

PS.Welcome to the board, btw. I've enjoyed your posts so far.

 

[atomweaver]

I doubt he was interested in a discussion. He just wanted to ridicule, so when he was faced with serious counter arguments it was time to skedaddle.

Probably true. My habit is to treat a first time poster as if they were serious about the questions they raised, even "red and green puppy" type questions. They might be trying to ridicule, or they might just be that ignorant about evolution. Best not to make any assumptions on the internet...

Yanyways, 70x7 looks to be a post n' runner... *shrug*

I'd love to understand the psychology behind such behaviour. I suspect it has to do with a fervent certainty in anti-evolution ideas, combined with the subconscious knowledge that he's unable to carry out a serious and openminded discussion about it. Hence he has to keep the debate as low as possible, by distorting and ridiculing, thereby provoking people to reply in kind.

You should add a weak education in biology (maybe even science in general) to the 'profile'...

PS.Welcome to the board, btw. I've enjoyed your posts so far.

Seconded!

 

[70x7]

I doubt he was interested in a discussion. He just wanted to ridicule, so when he was faced with serious counter arguments it was time to skedaddle.

I'd love to understand the psychology behind such behaviour. I suspect it has to do with a fervent certainty in anti-evolution ideas, combined with the subconscious knowledge that he's unable to carry out a serious and openminded discussion about it. Hence he has to keep the debate as low as possible, by distorting and ridiculing, thereby provoking people to reply in kind.

Peter

no, there are many things going on in each of our lives as one post does not consume any of us, but dont worry, there is no "post n run" here.
I have no desire to ridicule.

Are the examples ridiculous? Perhaps, but are they relevant? I believe so.
As the theory has presented itself, isn't it ok to think that before we were all a "coffee table" of some kind? Before life, there had to be non-life as In the beginning life was not established with the big bang. The right molecules eventually came together and after many many many years, the right chemical make up came about to actually form something (am I right?). It's like all the dust blowing and pieces coming together to form a car but what ignites the spark? what turns the key? (don't be defensive, it wasnt meant to be an absurd example).
For us to get where we are at, would take an improbability. To get it and consistantly get it right throughout the ages of time without failure is mindblowing and a mathmatical irresponsiblity! It is accurate to say that before there were 2, there was 1 would you agree? So is it possible that "we" survived the first mutation, ok. How about the second, then the third? Again we come upon the mathmatical improbablilites.

The other issue that really should be the basis, but is accepted is:

If you want to know what caused the BB, then you won't find any answers, as there are none available

Something cannot come from nothing. Evolution (in order to support itself) should be able to answer this question. This entire concept is only based off of living beings, but that is only half of the equation!!! The other half (the most important half) has no answer. Dismissing this key event is both irresponsible and ignorant to the entire concept of evolution itself. Obviously "evolution" cannot only apply to living beings.

 

[Hespera]

Thanks Atomweaver! I try to say something thoughtful even though I get so exasperated some times and end up being sarcastic. Which I should never do. Anyway for now this seems my main use for my education! I am stuck home with a broken leg so I get plenty of time to post stuff.

I do feel foolish making a serious response to someone who never comes back.

 

[Hespera]

no, there are many things going on in each of our lives as one post does not consume any of us, but dont worry, there is no "post n run" here.
I have no desire to ridicule.

Are the examples ridiculous? Perhaps, but are they relevant? I believe so.
As the theory has presented itself, isn't it ok to think that before we were all a "coffee table" of some kind? Before life, there had to be non-life as In the beginning life was not established with the big bang. The right molecules eventually came together and after many many many years, the right chemical make up came about to actually form something (am I right?). It's like all the dust blowing and pieces coming together to form a car but what ignites the spark? what turns the key? (don't be defensive, it wasnt meant to be an absurd example).
For us to get where we are at, would take an improbability. To get it and consistantly get it right throughout the ages of time without failure is mindblowing and a mathmatical irresponsiblity! It is accurate to say that before there were 2, there was 1 would you agree? So is it possible that "we" survived the first mutation, ok. How about the second, then the third? Again we come upon the mathmatical improbablilites.

The other issue that really should be the basis, but is accepted is:



Something cannot come from nothing. Evolution (in order to support itself) should be able to answer this question. This entire concept is only based off of living beings, but that is only half of the equation!!! The other half (the most important half) has no answer. Dismissing this key event is both irresponsible and ignorant to the entire concept of evolution itself. Obviously "evolution" cannot only apply to living beings.

Oh so you are there! So here we go again.


Your car example is pretty silly. Ridiculous examples really dont advance a discussion.
Try instead thinking about sand blowing and forming the mathematical predictable dunes that follow the principles of physics. Or intricate crystals forming.

Your own existence is so unlikely that it is like you won many millions of lotteries in a row. Impossible? There you are. Explain THAT!


QUOTE:>>>>>>>To get it and consistantly get it right throughout the ages of time without failure is mindblowing and a mathmatical irresponsiblity! <<<<<<<<

This is a strawman argument. Who says something was consistently "right"? What does that even mean?

"something cannot come from nothing" is also a strawman argument. Nobody is claiming that it did. Though perhaps the meaning of "something" "came from" and "nothing" could be debated. Such as what is "god"? Where did it "come from"?

Quote: >>>>>>>Dismissing this key event is both irresponsible and ignorant to the entire concept of evolution itself. <<<<<<<<<<

Do you mean by that, that nobody including you can explain the origin of the universe?

So if I cant explain the origin of the universe Its irresponsible to observe nature and explain how a river valley forms? Evolution is like that! It explains how things have changed, just by following the principles of nature AS THEY ARE. Nothing irresponsible about it, kinda strange to say there is.

Can we just get past the deal about "something cant come from nothing" at least?

 

[atomweaver]

no, there are many things going on in each of our lives as one post does not consume any of us, but dont worry, there is no "post n run" here.
I have no desire to ridicule.

Are the examples ridiculous? Perhaps, but are they relevant? I believe so.

Why would ridiculous examples derived from a parody of evolution have any relevance to the actual theory of evolution

As the theory has presented itself, isn't it ok to think that before we were all a "coffee table" of some kind?

No. The theory of evolution makes no statement or assumptions as to the origin of life. The theory of evolution only explains how life diversified. This is (in part) why there are so many theistic evolutionists.

Before life, there had to be non-life as In the beginning life was not established with the big bang. The right molecules eventually came together and after many many many years, the right chemical make up came about to actually form something (am I right?).

Most hypotheses of abiogenesis suggest that there was an accumulation of chemical reactions, rather than the "many years and then poof" angle which you suggest above...

It's like all the dust blowing and pieces coming together to form a car but what ignites the spark? what turns the key? (don't be defensive, it wasnt meant to be an absurd example).

"dust particles in a car" is the same analogy as "tornado in a junkyard makes an airplane" and both analogies suffer from a lack of detail; you are skipping steps;

For us to get where we are at, would take an improbability.

Which of the steps in the column at right, above, is(are) the improbable one(s)?

To get it and consistantly get it right throughout the ages of time without failure

Whatever made you assume that abiogenesis must exclude all errors and missteps in order to be viable? On the contrary, errors are expected and unavoidable.

is mindblowing and a mathmatical irresponsiblity!

Please then, show me the math. I find that most people who claim life is "oh so highly improbable" are usually unaware of the massive number of assumptions they make in declaring this so...

It is accurate to say that before there were 2, there was 1 would you agree?

No idea what you are trying to say...

So is it possible that "we" survived the first mutation, ok. How about the second, then the third? Again we come upon the mathmatical improbablilites.

Every generation of life survives mutation and thrives. Indeed mutation (imperfect replication) is essential to the perpetuation of life. Without mutation, a population is rendered static, and becomes extremely suceptible to extinction by virtue of its inability to respond to selective pressures. Life without mutation is the mathematically improbable proposition, here...

The other issue that really should be the basis, but is accepted is:

Something cannot come from nothing.

This is a mere assertion on your part. Back it up. Is God something? If God is something, where did God come from? And please, if we're going into the philosophical side of this debate, come up with something a bit more substantive than "that's different, God is eternal". Occam's razor shreds such propositions to bits...

Evolution (in order to support itself) should be able to answer this question.

You have yet to explain why it should. The theory of evolution is only intended to explain the diversification of species, and it explains it's subject topic with outstanding accuracy. That it fails to explain matters beyond its scope is not a problem with the theory, it is a problem with your mis-application of the theory.
The theory of gravity likewise "fails" to do a good job of explaining the structure of the atom. This is not a shortcoming of the theory of gravity, it is rather a clear indication of the fruitlessness of applying a scientific theory to something beyond it's scope.

This entire concept is only based off of living beings, but that is only half of the equation!!!

What equation? Again, please show your math.

The other half (the most important half) has no answer. Dismissing this key event is both irresponsible and ignorant to the entire concept of evolution itself.

Evolution doesn't "dismiss" life origins. Evolution has nothing to say on the topic. Do you understand the difference between these two positions?

Obviously "evolution" cannot only apply to living beings.

(Why the "laser quotes" on evolution?)

This last is quite wrong, the theory of evolution we are discussing here (the biological one) applies only to living things. There are other theories which co-opt the use of the word evolution, but they are entirely separate from this topic.

 

[plindboe]

no, there are many things going on in each of our lives as one post does not consume any of us, but dont worry, there is no "post n run" here.
I have no desire to ridicule.

Glad to hear it.

Are the examples ridiculous? Perhaps, but are they relevant? I believe so.

They are completely irrelevant, as dead objects have none of the attributes that makes living things evolve. It's like trying to dismiss the Germ Theory of Disease by saying that furniture don't cause leprosy.

Try to realize that the Theory of Evolution is a biological theory only. Like all other scientific theories, it can't and doesn't seek to explain anything outside its boundaries. The mechanisms of the theory has to do with diversity of life only, nothing more.

Many professional creationists (Hovind being an obvious example) get confused because the word "evolution" can be used in other contexts, as the word simply means "change over time". But that doesn't change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is a biological theory, explaining our current biodiversity, and nothing beyond that.

As the theory has presented itself, isn't it ok to think that before we were all a "coffee table" of some kind? Before life, there had to be non-life as In the beginning life was not established with the big bang. The right molecules eventually came together and after many many many years, the right chemical make up came about to actually form something (am I right?). It's like all the dust blowing and pieces coming together to form a car but what ignites the spark? what turns the key? (don't be defensive, it wasnt meant to be an absurd example).

You are again outside the boundaries of the TOE, as the theory can't and doesn't seek to explain the origin of life. Do you dismiss the theory of gravity because it doesn't explain how matter arose in the first place? Of course not, as that is outside of that theory's reach.

Evolution kicks in when life exists. How life came to exist is another matter. No matter how life first arose (whether by pixies, aliens, spaghetti monsters or gods), it doesn't change the fact that life evolves and has evolved. Likewise, no matter how matter first arose (whether by pixies, aliens, spaghetti monsters or gods), it doesn't change the fact that apples fall down.

That said, if you're interested in what science says about the origin of life, the abiogenesis hypotheses featured in the video below offer some interesting ideas. Again, I stress that abiogenesis is not part of the TOE, and it's no where near as well established as the TOE is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

For us to get where we are at, would take an improbability. To get it and consistantly get it right throughout the ages of time without failure is mindblowing and a mathmatical irresponsiblity! It is accurate to say that before there were 2, there was 1 would you agree? So is it possible that "we" survived the first mutation, ok. How about the second, then the third? Again we come upon the mathmatical improbablilites.

Go to the beach right now and pick up 1 grain of sand. Since there are about 10000000000000000000000 (or 10^22) grains of sand on the planet, the chance that that exact grain of sand ended up in your hand will be 1/10000000000000000000000 (or 10^-22), so practically impossible. Now, pick up 4 more grains of sand. The chance that those 5 grains of sand ended up in your hand will be 10^-110. That's so ridiculously improbable that it shouldn't happen in a million years. So if you tell me that you've just picked up 5 grains of sand, I will vehemently deny it. Such a thing is practically impossible!

Think about it.

Something cannot come from nothing. Evolution (in order to support itself) should be able to answer this question. This entire concept is only based off of living beings, but that is only half of the equation!!! The other half (the most important half) has no answer. Dismissing this key event is both irresponsible and ignorant to the entire concept of evolution itself. Obviously "evolution" cannot only apply to living beings.

You can dismiss all scientific and non-scientific theories, laws, models, explanations in the world using such argumentation. No theories, laws, models or explanations explain the cause of the Big Bang, because there's no data about it. Is the Cell Theory false because it doesn't explain the cause of the Universe? Are Kepler's laws wrong because they don't explain the cause of the Universe? Is the theory of heliocentrism wrong because it doesn't explain the cause of the universe?

Notice that each and every argument you have used throughout your post can just as easily be applied to dismiss any other theory. Shouldn't that make you think? Here's a wiki explaining confirmation bias. It might be helpful for you to consider whether it's really the evidence, or whether it's your bias, that determines what you accept and what you reject.

Another thing I suggest is for you to shed all your presumptions. Like most, if not all, creationists first joining the debates, you come armed with tons of presumptions, misunderstandings and misinformation about the theory, that you've been subjected to in your life. Of course it's never to late to learn. So read biology and learn what biology actually says, instead of listening to creationists telling you what biology says. Forget what others have told you in the past and start doing your own research and your own thinking.

Peter

 

[Hespera]

Glad to hear it.



They are completely irrelevant, as dead objects have none of the attributes that makes living things evolve. It's like trying to dismiss the Germ Theory of Disease by saying that furniture don't cause leprosy.

Try to realize that the Theory of Evolution is a biological theory only. Like all other scientific theories, it can't and doesn't seek to explain anything outside its boundaries. The mechanisms of the theory has to do with diversity of life only, nothing more.

Many professional creationists (Hovind being an obvious example) get confused because the word "evolution" can be used in other contexts, as the word simply means "change over time". But that doesn't change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is a biological theory, explaining our current biodiversity, and nothing beyond that.




You are again outside the boundaries of the TOE, as the theory can't and doesn't seek to explain the origin of life. Do you dismiss the theory of gravity because it doesn't explain how matter arose in the first place? Of course not, as that is outside of that theory's reach.

Evolution kicks in when life exists. How life came to exist is another matter. No matter how life first arose (whether by pixies, aliens, spaghetti monsters or gods), it doesn't change the fact that life evolves and has evolved. Likewise, no matter how matter first arose (whether by pixies, aliens, spaghetti monsters or gods), it doesn't change the fact that apples fall down.

That said, if you're interested in what science says about the origin of life, the abiogenesis hypotheses featured in the video below offer some interesting ideas. Again, I stress that abiogenesis is not part of the TOE, and it's no where near as well established as the TOE is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg




Go to the beach right now and pick up 1 grain of sand. Since there are about 10000000000000000000000 (or 10^22) grains of sand on the planet, the chance that that exact grain of sand ended up in your hand will be 1/10000000000000000000000 (or 10^-22), so practically impossible. Now, pick up 4 more grains of sand. The chance that those 5 grains of sand ended up in your hand will be 10^-110. That's so ridiculously improbable that it shouldn't happen in a million years. So if you tell me that you've just picked up 5 grains of sand, I will vehemently deny it. Such a thing is practically impossible!

Think about it.




You can dismiss all scientific and non-scientific theories, laws, models, explanations in the world using such argumentation. No theories, laws, models or explanations explain the cause of the Big Bang, because there's no data about it. Is the Cell Theory false because it doesn't explain the cause of the Universe? Are Kepler's laws wrong because they don't explain the cause of the Universe? Is the theory of heliocentrism wrong because it doesn't explain the cause of the universe?

Notice that each and every argument you have used throughout your post can just as easily be applied to dismiss any other theory. Shouldn't that make you think? Here's a wiki explaining confirmation bias. It might be helpful for you to consider whether it's really the evidence, or whether it's your bias, that determines what you accept and what you reject.

Another thing I suggest is for you to shed all your presumptions. Like most, if not all, creationists first joining the debates, you come armed with tons of presumptions, misunderstandings and misinformation about the theory, that you've been subjected to in your life. Of course it's never to late to learn. So read biology and learn what biology actually says, instead of listening to creationists telling you what biology says. Forget what others have told you in the past and start doing your own research and your own thinking.

Peter

Well said Peter! Now, if he can indicate that he understands / will concede even one point we will know if this is worth continuing.

 

[70x7]

sorry, I used the car irrelevant examples because my small mind cannot fathom your abilities to contemplate quantum physics. I try to dumb it down for myself.

Im glad to see that this has all raised your fancies so much!

Best response of the rebutals goes to...
"Can we just get past the deal about "something cant come from nothing" at least?"

NO!!!!!! THATS WHAT THE ENTIRE CONCEPT IS ABOUT!!!!!!!

I see Occams Razor (Contact is a great movie isn't it?) as being the answer to Creation. Not one against it. With God, the answer is so simple!!!!

Saying God is also bound to the "something before nothing" phrase is a contraction in itself. God is outside all of us and all that we know. That mind blowing concept needs to be realized before the debate can even go further. That is the basis of Creation. In the beginning there was God. PERIOD. Nothing created God. He always was, is, and ever shall be. Its like asking what the color red smells like? Smell and color do not fit together logically...just like the question of Gods orgins. (I know, its a tough concept and it blows minds, but if you think that every answer for all time can be found with what we know as humans, you are sadly mistaken).

I also know that a hardened heart is not asking for answers, but merely attempting to devalue and ridicule another.

Merry Christmas!

 

[Hespera]

sorry, I used the car irrelevant examples because my small mind cannot fathom your abilities to contemplate quantum physics. I try to dumb it down for myself.

Im glad to see that this has all raised your fancies so much!

Best response of the rebutals goes to...
"Can we just get past the deal about "something cant come from nothing" at least?"

NO!!!!!! THATS WHAT THE ENTIRE CONCEPT IS ABOUT!!!!!!!

I see Occams Razor (Contact is a great movie isn't it?) as being the answer to Creation. Not one against it. With God, the answer is so simple!!!!

Saying God is also bound to the "something before nothing" phrase is a contraction in itself. God is outside all of us and all that we know. That mind blowing concept needs to be realized before the debate can even go further. That is the basis of Creation. In the beginning there was God. PERIOD. Nothing created God. He always was, is, and ever shall be. Its like asking what the color red smells like? Smell and color do not fit together logically...just like the question of Gods orgins. (I know, its a tough concept and it blows minds, but if you think that every answer for all time can be found with what we know as humans, you are sadly mistaken).

I also know that a hardened heart is not asking for answers, but merely attempting to devalue and ridicule another.

Merry Christmas!

What is tough is for you to get the idea that there is no magic.

Or to do a bit of self evaluaiton: " also know that a hardened heart is not asking for answers, but merely attempting to devalue and ridicule another. "

You started out giving stupid ridiculous examples of things for the expresspurpose of applying mockery. Then you say you didnt, and that others are being 'defensive'. Wow.

Now look in the mirror and say those words again.." also know that a hardened heart is not asking for answers, but merely attempting to devalue and ridicule another. "



oh... on 'something cant come from nothing: you were trying to apply that concept where it doesnt apply. And no tricks of words you can pull out will make it not apply to your 'god' just as much as it does to anything else.

 

[The Barbarian]

Something cannot come from nothing. Evolution (in order to support itself) should be able to answer this question.

I guess you must be really upset with chemistry for not telling you from where atoms come.

This entire concept is only based off of living beings, but that is only half of the equation!!!

Evolutionary theory is about the way living things change over time. In science, theories are accountable only for the things they make predictions about. If you want to imagine that God poofed the first living things magically instead of the way He says in the Bible, that would also be compatible with evolutionary theory.

 

[Hespera]

I guess you must be really upset with chemistry for not telling you from where atoms come.



Evolutionary theory is about the way living things change over time. In science, theories are accountable only for the things they make predictions about. If you want to imagine that God poofed the first living things magically instead of the way He says in the Bible, that would also be compatible with evolutionary theory.

Thing is tho with the dedicated creationist, to concede even the most minor point, once they have decided tho' some alchemy that it is an integral part of their faith, to concede even one tiny detail would be to threaten with collapse their entire belief system.

If the bible says Pi=3.0 then so be it. At least in those days or with the magic cubits they used. Or something, anything. i have heard several totally different explanations all presented as bible-backed fact.