The Skunk and the Trunk: How Do Random Mutations Account for Complexity?

[John16:2]

Now THAT is food for thought, John. Thanks for posting.

I forgot to say; polar bears are another great example of nature facilitating the need of the creature, by turning white in a snowy climate. Non arctic bears aint white.

Inherent intelligence to life that guides evolution processes physically & subconsciously. Perhaps all it needs is a radiation event to mutate the next phase of the process.

In the case of homosapiens; we can even tinker with genes apart from nature. I'm sure there've been Frankensteinian experiments we've never heard of, being classified national security info.

Check out the NASA Mars collection at www.msss.com find a link to the "worms" pictures.

All life is helped along by nature with evolving. I consider homosapiens (Adam) a genetic upgrade from homoerectus, by intervention in evolution bringing quick advances to the gene pool, which fits my Bible fine, the way I see it, with the children of Adam finding mates. For the Lord is seen with the "sons of God" of Genesis 6:2 in Job 1:6. They were also here before the cataclysm. They are the key to many questions about the deluge.

 

[LordoftheScythe]

So many questions.. and yet I know that there was no intention to hear the answer. Just think of anything that you don't understand.. WOW, it's so complex! Now go read about it, learn from others who have studied, keep an open mind, and suddenly it's not so complex!

 

[fanatiquefou]

SackLunch, for many of us who accept evolution, the answer to many of your questions is still God. It's just that we accept, through the evidence presented to us in Nature, that evolution was (and still is) God's method of creation. And evolution is something which we can find evidence for, and belongs in the realm of science, while God is entirely beyond all of this, and must be taken on faith. If you're a theistic evolutionist, then the whole thing, in my opinion, becomes really amazing and awe-inspiring. I don't believe God is any less powerful, or his creation any less worthwhile, just because I believe what science can tell me about his methods of working.

 

[futzman]

The skunk is a rather stinky animal when he wants to be. The skunk has a gland that, when activated through fear or defense, emits a foul odor over a several-mile area. If you've smelled skunk before, you know what I mean. But why does this skunk not stink all the time?

Evolution.

How did the skunk gain the intelligence and the physiological means to use this gland at the proper time?

Evolution.

Why isn't that stinky gland located in the skunk's kindney, or on his tongue?

Evolution. Anymore questions?

Now look at the trunk of the elephant. Elephants use their long, muscular trunks for a number of tasks. Not only do they use their trunks for gathering food, but they also use them to move (and remove) objects. I was amazed that after the recent Tsunamis in Indonesia, elephants were called in to help clean up the rubble and search for people. Elephants can even uproot trees with those trunks! It truly is a specialized wonder of complexity.

I am just amazed with all the complexity in nature. Even just one organ, let's say, the eye - is extremely complex. But add in the lungs, brain, kidneys, liver, blood, nervous system, heart - and what a marvel life becomes. How amazing that all of these complex systems have come together to form one human or one animal.

What are the odds that these complex systems formed randomly from random mutations? Where did the intelligence to operate all these independent systems in perfect harmony and cooperation originate? And how is it that all these systems not only complement each other, but the whole could not function properly without them?

I say it could only be explained by an intelligent designer, namely, God, who fashioned life from His own hand.

You obviously don't understand the concept of feedback. This is the key to how evolution works, SackHunch. Come back when you understand how a system incorporating feedback works. I suggest you study genetic programming to understand how feedback can produce complexity from simple, fundamental components. Now, if you can't understand how genetic programming works, then you don't have a prayer (so to speak) of understanding evolution enough to even discuss the subject.

And how about those 4400 genera of brachiopods God hated? What about those little critters?

Futz

 

[AirPo]

So many questions, so little time...

Perhaps you should try listening to the answers. You might learn something.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

It's called a presupposition. My presupposition is that God exists, and He created the heavens, the earth, and the human race directly, without using evolution as a "tool." This is the basis for my beliefs.

In fact, this is the belief of many people of faith throughout the world. So are you condemning over half the world for not believing in evolution? Are all these people just backwards ignoramuses? Or is it too much to ask that one respects another's beliefs?

Having a belief is one thing. To impress you belief on others as fact is entirely another. Most believers understand the difference. I could not care less what someone “believes”. I don’t even care if a person fails to acknowledge reality in order to maintain their beliefs. I certainly do care when a person tries to put forth their beliefs as fact and encourages others to forsake reality for the unsubstantiated promise of a happy afterlife and at the threat of eternal pain and suffering.

ID, the theological publicity propaganda machine dressed up as science for the purpose of infection public schools, is the poster child for the inability of people like you to keep their beliefs to themselves. The church should remain as far away from the state as possible lest be risk incurring another dark age and set mankind’s advancement back once again. All this talk about “Christian Soldiers” in the news going to camp to learn how to “take back America”, all this armor of god stuff, all this ID debate, it’s all evidence that religion wants nothing more than to spread itself as far and wide as possible without shame. It’s spoken about in theistic places as a real war. While I respect other people’s beliefs, don’t try and take the persecuted theist tone with me because I’m no backwoods ignoramus and can see your beliefs for what they really are.

 

[SackLunch]

Nope, and neither does evolution. Nice strawman you got there.

Well then, how is evolution fact? How is it a viable theory? Why can't evolution explain this simple question?

 

[AirPo]

Well then, how is evolution fact?

It's been observed.

How is it a viable theory?

It is supported by all the evidence.

Why can't evolution explain this simple question?

Because your question is not about anything that happens in the natural world.

 

[SackLunch]

Having a belief is one thing. To impress you belief on others as fact is entirely another. Most believers understand the difference. I could not care less what someone “believes”. I don’t even care if a person fails to acknowledge reality in order to maintain their beliefs. I certainly do care when a person tries to put forth their beliefs as fact and encourages others to forsake reality for the unsubstantiated promise of a happy afterlife and at the threat of eternal pain and suffering.

ID, the theological publicity propaganda machine dressed up as science for the purpose of infection public schools, is the poster child for the inability of people like you to keep their beliefs to themselves. The church should remain as far away from the state as possible lest be risk incurring another dark age and set mankind’s advancement back once again. All this talk about “Christian Soldiers” in the news going to camp to learn how to “take back America”, all this armor of god stuff, all this ID debate, it’s all evidence that religion wants nothing more than to spread itself as far and wide as possible without shame. It’s spoken about in theistic places as a real war. While I respect other people’s beliefs, don’t try and take the persecuted theist tone with me because I’m no backwoods ignoramus and can see your beliefs for what they really are.

I disagree with the Take Back America movement. I saw that news clip about the Christian camp, and I don't really agree with all of that. D.James Kennedy advocates this sort of thing as well, and I personally think it's sad that he has promoted secular politics from the pulpit. I am not one of "those people." However, I do uphold God and what He says in the Bible because it's my duty as a Christian to do so. Jesus tells us that if we love Him, we'll follow His commands. That's what is going on here.

Now just step back and listen to what you are saying. Let me put this in perspecitve. In your first paragraph, you say it's wrong for a person to impress on others their beliefs as fact. But isn't that exactly what you are doing? Isn't that what a number of people here are doing? You believe (and most people here it seems) in evolution, and you are putting forth evolution as fact.

In fact, I find it quite ironic that on a Christian board, so many people here nearly drop out of their socks when you mention "boo" about God creating the earth and the human race. Why is that? Oh, because it's not "science." But does that matter?

I view this forum as a debate forum. We all have differing opinions, but we must respect each other's beliefs, as much as we disagree with them.

 

[SackLunch]

It's been observed.

It is supported by all the evidence.

Because your question is not about anything that happens in the natural world.

Have you seen a monkey in the process of turning into a human being? Have you seen a fish turning into a mammal? Can you go to the zoo and see a dinosaur that is turning into a bird? That has never been observed. There is no evidence for it.

Science is about observing the natural world around us, not extrapolating sketchy data about our origins.

 

[trunks2k]

Have you seen a monkey in the process of turning into a human being? Have you seen a fish turning into a mammal?

Stop right there. Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. Seeing a monkey turn into a human being would be a complete refutation of evolutionary theory.

 

[trunks2k]

There is no evidence for it.

You don't need to directly observe evolution (even though we have) in order for there to be evidence for it. Genetics alone works quite well.

 

[AirPo]

Have you seen a monkey in the process of turning into a human being? Have you seen a fish turning into a mammal? Can you go to the zoo and see a dinosaur that is turning into a bird?

No, no, no. What's your point?

That has never been observed. There is no evidence for it.

Too bad, because if it had been observed, that would falsify evolution.

Science is about observing the natural world around us, not extrapolating sketchy data about our origins.

That's why the bibe isn't scientific.

 

[SackLunch]

Stop right there. Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. Seeing a monkey turn into a human being would be a complete refutation of evolutionary theory.

What does that mean? If you believe in evolution, then at some point in time you DID have a fish turning into a mammal, etc. Populations include individuals.

Not only do we not see this in nature, but the fossil record simply doesn't bear this theory out.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I disagree with the Take Back America movement. I saw that news clip about the Christian camp, and I don't really agree with all of that. D.James Kennedy advocates this sort of thing as well, and I personally think it's sad that he has promoted secular politics from the pulpit. I am not one of "those people." However, I do uphold God and what He says in the Bible because it's my duty as a Christian to do so. Jesus tells us that if we love Him, we'll follow His commands. That's what is going on here.

Why would god command fallible humans to evangelize for him without evidence? If god really wanted to have followers why would he just do it himself? It shouldn’t be hard for an omnipotent entity right? It only makes sense if religion has nothing to do with god and needs believers to sell it to others for the survival of the religion. Honestly, I’m not trying to simply be argumentative. This is how someone like me thinks. It doesn’t make objective sense to me. What seems far more likely is that religion is a man made system and requires man propagating it to survive.

Now just step back and listen to what you are saying. Let me put this in perspecitve. In your first paragraph, you say it's wrong for a person to impress on others their beliefs as fact. But isn't that exactly what you are doing? Isn't that what a number of people here are doing? You believe (and most people here it seems) in evolution, and you are putting forth evolution as fact.

There is a BIG difference here. Evolution is substantiated my empirical evidence. I would never teach anyone, or advocate the teaching of anything (as fact), that was not substantiated by evidence.

In fact, I find it quite ironic that on a Christian board, so many people here nearly drop out of their socks when you mention "boo" about God creating the earth and the human race. Why is that? Oh, because it's not "science." But does that matter?

Yes it does. Without the constraint of evidential substantiation people can assert anything they want to. When assertions are put forth as fact without evidence it’s a problem. When it’s done to impressionable children it’s dishonest.

I view this forum as a debate forum. We all have differing opinions, but we must respect each other's beliefs, as much as we disagree with them.

But if there is to be any meaningful debate then each side must not only substantiate their assertions but must be willing to concede that they are wrong or have no evidence for their position. If you assert something as fact then your debate opponent will expect substantiation for your assertion so that he/she may refute your basis for what you are asserting as fact. If you are asserting a mere belief then it is only honest to present it as such and admit to having no substantiation for your position (whish will consequently make it non-debatable or not allow you to refute evidence to the contrary). If you are only here to evangelize without evidence or possibility of being wrong then you are not here to debate at all.

 

[Numenor]

If you believe in evolution, then at some point in time you DID have a fish turning into a mammal, etc.

After all that's been said to him, SackLunch clearly does not have a grasp on evolution. Evolution predicts a nested-heirarchy of life. Instead of wasting your time and ours pontificating on your misconceptions of evolution, why don't you do some of your own research?

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Seriously SackLunch, If you pick one specific point relevant to C&E I will take time to honestly and rationally debate it with you. As long as you come to the table with an open mind and understanding that you may be wrong I will do the same. I will offer you as much evidence and reasoning for my position as possible and will take time to see it to conclusion. If you honestly want to discuss or debate start a thread with one specific point you’d like to discuss and I will participate seriously, respectfully and calmly. The ball is now in your court to show me (and others) than you can be a legitimate participant and are here to actually discuss and debate.

 

[Elduran]

What does that mean? If you believe in evolution, then at some point in time you DID have a fish turning into a mammal, etc. Populations include individuals.

Not only do we not see this in nature, but the fossil record simply doesn't bear this theory out.

Wow, you really have been force fed a completely warped view of evolution haven't you?

Someone is passing on falsehoods here, and I suspect that it is whoever taught Sack about evolution.

 

[trunks2k]

What does that mean? If you believe in evolution, then at some point in time you DID have a fish turning into a mammal, etc. Populations include individuals.

What you would see is the population, as a whole, changing over time. This we do see. You would not see an individual "evolving". individuals keep the same genes that they were born with. What you would see is individuals born with a slightly different genotype that causes a slightly different phenotype than the rest of the population. This genetic change will spread through the population.

This is precisely what we see in the wild.

So, you may ask, why don't we see populations of fish becoming more amphibian like? This is because evolution does not have a set path. It's not a ladder of progression from one stage to the next. What we expect to see is a population evolving to better suit it's environment. What changes that entails are not a given. The progressions we see (i.e. fish->amphibian->reptile...) are things that happened in the past. And it's unlikely that the same progression would repeat itself. We could end up with a completely new classification of living things that fork off the fish level.

 

[notto]

What does that mean? If you believe in evolution, then at some point in time you DID have a fish turning into a mammal, etc. Populations include individuals.

Not only do we not see this in nature, but the fossil record simply doesn't bear this theory out.

What do you consider a bird with teeth and a bony tail or a dinosaur with feathers and no wings? Sounds transitional to me. How about you? What 'kind' are they and what is their purpose. Why do they have characteristics of what creationists claim are different kinds never to be crossed?

Creationism, if it is a valid theory should be able to answer these simple questions.