the self replicating watch argument

[stevevw]

The skin or eyes will do nothing without connections of nerves and connections to the brain so that something caan be felt and interpreted. Otherwise you may as well heat a rock becuase you will get little reaction. All this needs to be in place at the same time for it to work. I think there is an over simplification of how things actually work and what is involved to make it work.

 

[Speedwell]

The skin or eyes will do nothing without connections of nerves and connections to the brain so that something caan be felt and interpreted. Otherwise you may as well heat a rock becuase you will get little reaction. All this needs to be in place at the same time for it to work. I think there is an over simplification of how things actually work and what is involved to make it work.

Yeah, it's called the "nervous system" and it was in place already.

 

[USincognito]

The skin or eyes will do nothing without connections of nerves and connections to the brain so that something caan be felt and interpreted. Otherwise you may as well heat a rock becuase you will get little reaction. All this needs to be in place at the same time for it to work. I think there is an over simplification of how things actually work and what is involved to make it work.

Do scallops respond to stimulus? Jellyfish? Sunflowers?

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, it's called the "nervous system" and it was in place already.

Thank God it was otherwise evolution would have to explain how that occured.

 

[USincognito]

Thank God it was otherwise evolution would have to explain how that occured.

Evolution does explain "how that occurred". The human nervous and optical systems are not new, novel or unique. They are just an iteration of other Hominid, primate and mammal nervous and optical systems which are all pretty much alike. Mammal nervous and optical systems are a subset of vertebrate nervous and optical systems.

 

[stevevw]

Do scallops respond to stimulus? Jellyfish? Sunflowers?

So what are you saying. That somehow these things prove the evolution through natural selection from simple to complex life. I think you are making some pretty big assumptions here.

 

[stevevw]

Evolution does explain "how that occurred". The human nervous and optical systems are not new, novel or unique. They are just an iteration of other Hominid, primate and mammal nervous and optical systems which are all pretty much alike. Mammal nervous and optical systems are a subset of vertebrate nervous and optical systems.

Are you saying that because we can find creatures with similar nervous and optical systems that natural selection must have created them. Thats a pretty big assumption. Natural selection is good at the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest. It is good at maintaining the same but not making the gain. In fact it may not even be good at maintain the same. selection can introduce harmful mutations into an already good and fine tuned working system and undermining it.

 

[Speedwell]

How and where did you learn about evoution

Are you saying that because we can find creatures with similar nervous and optical systems that natural selection must have created them. Thats a pretty big assumption. Natural selection is good at the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest. It is good at maintaining the same but not making the gain. In fact it may not even be good at maintain the same. selection can introduce harmful mutations into an already good and fine tuned working system and undermining it.

.How and where did you learn about evolution?

 

[USincognito]

So what are you saying. That somehow these things prove the evolution through natural selection from simple to complex life. I think you are making some pretty big assumptions here.

I always love seeing So's Law validated.

What I am saying is that beings with much simpler systems react to stimuli. There's no requirement for a eyes, optic nerves or a brain. Thus acting as if human vision is the only way to perceive and respond to stimuli is incorrect.

Also:
1. Nothing is ever proven in science so avoid using "prove" in a scientific context.
2. The evolution of life from more simple to more complex forms is supported by both the fossil record and genetic analysis.
3. We can know, because of that evidence, that response to stimuli evolved in very early and very simple beings and life has merely evolved more sophisticated (from our perspective) ways of perceiving and responding to it.

 

[USincognito]

Are you saying that because we can find creatures with similar nervous and optical systems that natural selection must have created them.

No. I'm not.

Thats a pretty big assumption.

No, this is a big assumption.

Natural selection is good at the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest. It is good at maintaining the same but not making the gain.

Trite platitudes in rhyme are still trite platitudes.

In fact it may not even be good at maintain the same. selection can introduce harmful mutations into an already good and fine tuned working system and undermining it.

No. Selection actually helps remove harmful mutations while keeping the beneficial ones in most cases. Oh, and most systems in living beings are not fine tuned. They're jury rigged.

 

[AV1611VET]

I always love seeing So's Law validated.

QV please:

It's Sod's Law. Sod's law - Wikipedia

 

[Meowzltov]

I think you misunderstand. On what basis have you decided that the available evidence for evolution is insufficient?

I think you have misunderstood me. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. It is a fact that all life as we know it today evolved from single celled organisms. It is the theory of evolution, the "what is the driving force behind evolution" theory, that all of this happened because of Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations and Gene Flow, which is insufficient to explain life as it is.

 

[Meowzltov]

I think you misunderstand. On what basis have you decided that the available evidence for evolution is insufficient?

For some reason I can't edit my post, so let me elaborate in this second post. Again, that life evolved is a fact. The question is what is the driving force behind it. There are, in my mind different theories.

1. That evolution is driven only by Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations and Gene Flow. This is the present TOE. I think it is insufficient to explain life as we know it today.

2. That evolution is driven solely by God. This is ridiculous. We know that Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations and Gene Flow play a part.

3. That there are as yet, other factor(s) in addition to Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations and Gene Flow. The other factor(s) could be something natural, or could be God. If it is God, there are several ways it could work:

• God could be intervening in a direct supernatural way
• God created the laws of nature, meaning that the "something natural," even Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, Mutations and Gene Flow, can be credited to God.
• God could have, when creating the universe, created special laws so weak they are as yet undetectable by us, to create a bias in the universe towards the creation of life and the evolution of sentient beings. I suppose this would also be classified as "natural," although it is certainly more direct than the former possibility.

 

[Meowzltov]

I don't think you can say there is absolutely overwhelming evidence that life evolved from one celled organisms. Some say it was the other way around. To be honest I don't really know what happened back then. The evidence is not clear. You can make assumptions based on patchy evidence but I do not think we can confidently say what happened step by step. Also it is a big assumption to say that Neo Darwinian evolution was the cause of that process. The evidence actually shows that evolution by natural selection was not involved and was incapable of evolving complex life. There was also a high level of complexity very early on and evolution could not have had time to evolve gradually through a step by step process. So if anything it seems that there was a code already in place that directed the course of life even if it was from a single ancestor.

When I was 26 and working on my Bachelor degree, I was a creationist. I knew only a modest amount about evolution. In particular, I was ignorant of the vast wealth of transitional forms. I thought there really weren't any. I listened a lot to what Drs. Gish and Morris had to say, even though I had my doubts about them -- it made me nervous that only angry Bible bashers debated them while credible scientists had nothing to do with them (aka didn't take them seriously enough to debate).

I enrolled in an Anthropology course, and we began learning about the fossils that were supposed to be linked to human ancestry. In my mind, they could clearly be grouped into either human or ape. Even the Australopithecines could be considered walking apes if you stretched things a bit. Until we came to Homo Habilis. I was absolutely unnerved. Ape? Human? I couldn't decide. Even scientists had debated the issue before assigning genus homo due to his better tool making skill. And then it struck me that if scientists had debated the issue, that is what you would expect for a transitional form.

That morning when I left for school, I had been a creationist. When I got home, I believed in evolution. The dominoes fell for a long time. When they finished falling, God had survived. Evolution was not an atheist belief.

So look at fossils like Homo Habilis. Look at whale evolution. Even creationists admit to "microevolution." The ONLY difference between micro and macro evolution is TIME. If you have an ancient earth, it is only a matter of time until you have enough small differences evolved that you have a new species. So you might want to look into the evidences for an old earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

That morning when I left for school, I had been a creationist. When I got home, I believed in evolution.

Had to git them grades up, did you?

 

[Meowzltov]

Had to git them grades up, did you?

Really? Is that the best answer you could come up with? A personal attack on my honesty?

 

[AV1611VET]

Really? Is that the best answer you could come up with? A personal attack on my honesty?

???

Not really.

I'm just wondering how a creationist can maintain good grades ... if that's what you did ... in college?

You seem to be a good example of someone who doesn't need to defect from creationism to evolution in order to keep his/her grades up.

But ... of course ... if your belief in creationism was interfering with your academic performance, I would like to know.

 

[Meowzltov]

???

Not really.

I'm just wondering how a creationist can maintain good grades ... if that's what you did ... in college?

You seem to be a good example of someone who doesn't need to defect from creationism to evolution in order to keep his/her grades up.

But ... of course ... if your belief in creationism was interfering with your academic performance, I would like to know.

My grades were perfectly fine as a Creationist. The professor didn't care that I was a creationist. I could answer questions about Australopiticus without believing it was a human ancestor. For example there might be a question, "Scientists believe that Australopithicus lived approximately ____ years ago." It doesn't ask how many years *I* think. It asks about what Scientists think. I have no problem answering that question, and the professor is happy with my truthful answer. Similarly with, "Why do scientists believe that Lucy walked upright?" or "What environment did Lucy live in?"

I once got an A on a paper where I compared a satire on cannibalism by Jonathan Swift to abortion. After class my professor asked me if I really believed that abortion for stem cells was a form of cannibalism (I do). She thought I was just writing it to be shocking. But she gave me an A because it was well written.

Good professors will do that.

 

[AV1611VET]

My grades were perfectly fine as a Creationist.

Fair enough.

My assumption was wrong, and I apologize.

You have a good testimony that one doesn't have to jump ship in order to get good grades.

 

[Kylie]

So what are you saying. That somehow these things prove the evolution through natural selection from simple to complex life. I think you are making some pretty big assumptions here.

Given that we have examples of numerous different kinds of eyes that show a progression from very simple eyes to the complex eyes of Humans, yes, these things are very strong evidence for evolution through natural selection from simple to complex life.