If you think so. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how to empirically determine whether or not something is "irreducibly complex". Can you tell me?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why evolution doesn't work.
- Thread starter Risen Tree
- Start date
If you think so. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how to empirically determine whether or not something is "irreducibly complex". Can you tell me?
troodon
Be wise and be smart
- Dec 16, 2002
- 1,698
- 58
- 40
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
That's not what I found. If you look here there are many different levels of complexity of eyes in the animal kingdom. If an eye can be simpler than the one that human's have than the human eye is not irreducibly complex.
Upvote
0
But see, then again they are looking at the light sensitivie cells as being complete from cell birth which we still dont know how cells originated from. I've gotten into similiar discussions with people about the origin of cells and how it's possible for DNA to form a cell body with vacules, nucliae, and robosomes etc etc. The cell body/houseing always got me. They refered me to an protein layer that develped on rocks and when got wet it became gel like and the dna liked it so it grabbed it. But that doesnt seem to make much sense seeing as how organisms cannot genetically evolve (so far as far as facts go) if they need other parts to survive. All would have ot be present upon the growth of the cell. Kinda like how we humans start with Stem cells and those develope into organisms. I like how he demonstrates all the different types of eyes. But who's to say they are more primative than ours? We in fact have primative eyes compared to the hawk but then again each organism serves a function on this planet. So far I havent seen an progression but rather genetic digression when it comes to all life forms different types of eyes. It seems there are more genetic flaws as the years progress. In each of the organisms and they types of eyes I'm glad he listed the type of photo sensitive cells required. It still proves that although complex on the cellular level, each component of the eyes' is cellularly dependant on the other in its developing (from birth of the organism) to it's full developed state (adult organism). Thus, Irreducible Complexity still holds ground. I really could have simplified that but on 2 hours of sleep its easy to ramble. 
Sincerely,
Lord-Rashid
Sincerely,
Lord-Rashid
Upvote
0
Aradia
Regular Member
Huh. Irreducible complexity you say? I hope you don't honestly believe that the human body is irreducibly complex.
My body's been reduced through splenectomy.
Anyone want to raise your hands if you've had your tonsels removed?
Any appendectomy patients around?
And, not that this has anything to do with irreducible complexity, but has anyone found a physiological need for the female ******** yet, aside from sexual stimulation? Seems like it could be reduced right out of the body without too great an impact on propagation of the species. Oh, sorry, I guess it did have something to do with irreducible complexity.
Yeah, they're trite arguments. So's the topic. But keep trying. It's nice to get New Blood(tm).
My body's been reduced through splenectomy.
Anyone want to raise your hands if you've had your tonsels removed?
Any appendectomy patients around?
And, not that this has anything to do with irreducible complexity, but has anyone found a physiological need for the female ******** yet, aside from sexual stimulation? Seems like it could be reduced right out of the body without too great an impact on propagation of the species. Oh, sorry, I guess it did have something to do with irreducible complexity.
Yeah, they're trite arguments. So's the topic. But keep trying. It's nice to get New Blood(tm).
Upvote
0
"Intelligent Design" advocates are mediocre scientists and even worse theologists. They cling to this silly idea because of bad theology. Somehow they feel the need to fundamentally change evolution in some way, though even they admit it counts for 99% of all life.
The mousetrap thing is not only a bad analogy, click here to see that it has been refuted. This is an example of a reducibly complex mousetrap.
The ID proponents may have contributed one thing to science: modern biologists recognize that some structures are irreducibly complex if built in a linear fashion, one mutation at a time. (The eye is not one of these). However, evolution does not always work that way. Click here to check out a page that describes different ways that evolution can work..
The mousetrap thing is not only a bad analogy, click here to see that it has been refuted. This is an example of a reducibly complex mousetrap.
The ID proponents may have contributed one thing to science: modern biologists recognize that some structures are irreducibly complex if built in a linear fashion, one mutation at a time. (The eye is not one of these). However, evolution does not always work that way. Click here to check out a page that describes different ways that evolution can work..
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
17th April 2003 at 11:22 PM Lord-Rashid said this in Post #296
Take away any component of the Mouse Trap and it fails to work[/I].
Actually, Kenneth Miller took away two components of a mousetrap and it worked perfectly: as a tieclip!
This illustrates one route of Darwinian evolution: exaptation of another function. Unfortunately for Behe, he apparently never read the chapter "Objections to the Theory" in the 6th edition, or he would have found this. But then, Behe did the worst literature search I've ever seen. He missed entire disciplines, such as Comparative Immunology, that would have given him the evolutionary route of one of his supposedly IC systems: the immune system.
Lets look at the Esophogus: Without the Cilia it ceases to be an Esophugus and thus fails and dies.
Look at sponges and barnacles. They have a primitive "esophagus" but without cilia. Very functional.
Lets take the Human eye for example. It contains thousands of different and unique organs and cells which are dependant yet reliant on one another so that if one fails to exist then the whole organ of teh eye would fail. Thus, the eye could not have evolved since there is no room for mutations or errors.
1. It's not thousands. Look at the book Climbing Mt. Improbable for all the intermediate functional steps in the evolution of the eye. They still exist in living organisms.
2. Individuals with mutations or errors that reduced function were eliminated by natural selection. Actually, the eye is one of the easier organs to devise a step-by-step direct path of Darwinian evolution, since any small improvement will be useful.
If you find a site with a lot of details and more examples than the ARN.org site then you'll see that talkorigins.org is pretty off. It was a good try though. Oh, and Irreducible Complexity is a fact.
IC as a statement that it is a structure that can't be made by Darwinian evolution is not a fact. IC as a statement that it requires intelligent design is not a fact. IC as a statement of a system where removal of one component destroys function may be a fact.
I doubt that the profusion.com site gave this paper that refutes the first statement of IC: A Classification of Possible Routes of Darwinian Evolution
Richard H. Thornhill and Daviud W. Uussery J. theor. Biol. (2000) 203, 111-116
available online at http://www.idealibrary.com or http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html
If you want, we can go thru this paper step by step to show that the first claim of IC is false.
As for the second claim, Behe does that himself.
"Let me inject a note of caution: some systems require several pieces but not ones that need to be closely matched. For example, suppose you were walking in the woods and came across an old log, where the wind had blown a tree branch onto it, and the branch was perpendicular to the log. Here you have an irreducibly complex system -- a lever and a fulcrum. If there were a boulder nearby, you possibly could use the lever and fulcrum to move it. So some systems require several parts but not closely matched ones." Michael Behe, Intelligent design theory as a tool for analyzing biochemical systems in Mere Creation, Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design edited by William A. Dembski, 1998, page 179
An IC system by chance and not ID. Of course, once you have the IC system, even Behe's strawman version of Darwinian evolution will add complexity and make the parts well-matched.
Take away any component of the Mouse Trap and it fails to work[/I].
Actually, Kenneth Miller took away two components of a mousetrap and it worked perfectly: as a tieclip!
This illustrates one route of Darwinian evolution: exaptation of another function. Unfortunately for Behe, he apparently never read the chapter "Objections to the Theory" in the 6th edition, or he would have found this. But then, Behe did the worst literature search I've ever seen. He missed entire disciplines, such as Comparative Immunology, that would have given him the evolutionary route of one of his supposedly IC systems: the immune system.
Lets look at the Esophogus: Without the Cilia it ceases to be an Esophugus and thus fails and dies.
Look at sponges and barnacles. They have a primitive "esophagus" but without cilia. Very functional.
Lets take the Human eye for example. It contains thousands of different and unique organs and cells which are dependant yet reliant on one another so that if one fails to exist then the whole organ of teh eye would fail. Thus, the eye could not have evolved since there is no room for mutations or errors.
1. It's not thousands. Look at the book Climbing Mt. Improbable for all the intermediate functional steps in the evolution of the eye. They still exist in living organisms.
2. Individuals with mutations or errors that reduced function were eliminated by natural selection. Actually, the eye is one of the easier organs to devise a step-by-step direct path of Darwinian evolution, since any small improvement will be useful.
If you find a site with a lot of details and more examples than the ARN.org site then you'll see that talkorigins.org is pretty off. It was a good try though. Oh, and Irreducible Complexity is a fact.
IC as a statement that it is a structure that can't be made by Darwinian evolution is not a fact. IC as a statement that it requires intelligent design is not a fact. IC as a statement of a system where removal of one component destroys function may be a fact.
I doubt that the profusion.com site gave this paper that refutes the first statement of IC: A Classification of Possible Routes of Darwinian Evolution
Richard H. Thornhill and Daviud W. Uussery J. theor. Biol. (2000) 203, 111-116
available online at http://www.idealibrary.com or http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html
If you want, we can go thru this paper step by step to show that the first claim of IC is false.
As for the second claim, Behe does that himself.
"Let me inject a note of caution: some systems require several pieces but not ones that need to be closely matched. For example, suppose you were walking in the woods and came across an old log, where the wind had blown a tree branch onto it, and the branch was perpendicular to the log. Here you have an irreducibly complex system -- a lever and a fulcrum. If there were a boulder nearby, you possibly could use the lever and fulcrum to move it. So some systems require several parts but not closely matched ones." Michael Behe, Intelligent design theory as a tool for analyzing biochemical systems in Mere Creation, Science, Faith, and Intelligent Design edited by William A. Dembski, 1998, page 179
An IC system by chance and not ID. Of course, once you have the IC system, even Behe's strawman version of Darwinian evolution will add complexity and make the parts well-matched.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Yesterday at 02:11 AM Lord-Rashid said this in Post #303
But see, then again they are looking at the light sensitivie cells as being complete from cell birth which we still dont know how cells originated from[/I].
Yes, we do. They are modified skin cells. Look at paramecium, which have a light-sensitive spot on the cell membrane composed of proteins which, in modified form, are also present in retinal cells.
I've gotten into similiar discussions with people about the origin of cells and how it's possible for DNA to form a cell body with vacules, nucliae, and robosomes etc etc. The cell body/houseing always got me. They refered me to an protein layer that develped on rocks and when got wet it became gel like and the dna liked it so it grabbed it.
Go to http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html and see how membranes form spontaneously from proteins which, in turn, form spontaneously from amino acids.
I like how he demonstrates all the different types of eyes. But who's to say they are more primative than ours?
A simple cup without a lens isn't more primitive than our eye with the lens?
We in fact have primative eyes compared to the hawk
The hawk has better resolution but is basically the same type of eye we have. All vertebrate eyes are very similar in structure.
But see, then again they are looking at the light sensitivie cells as being complete from cell birth which we still dont know how cells originated from[/I].
Yes, we do. They are modified skin cells. Look at paramecium, which have a light-sensitive spot on the cell membrane composed of proteins which, in modified form, are also present in retinal cells.
I've gotten into similiar discussions with people about the origin of cells and how it's possible for DNA to form a cell body with vacules, nucliae, and robosomes etc etc. The cell body/houseing always got me. They refered me to an protein layer that develped on rocks and when got wet it became gel like and the dna liked it so it grabbed it.
Go to http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html and see how membranes form spontaneously from proteins which, in turn, form spontaneously from amino acids.
I like how he demonstrates all the different types of eyes. But who's to say they are more primative than ours?
A simple cup without a lens isn't more primitive than our eye with the lens?
We in fact have primative eyes compared to the hawk
The hawk has better resolution but is basically the same type of eye we have. All vertebrate eyes are very similar in structure.
Upvote
0
No. Last time I asked that question (about irreducible complexity), someone referred me to a 25-page document which didn't really address the question I asked (and I found that out after spending the better part of an hour going over it). Instead, I'd rather you did the legwork and point to a specific article which addresses the question.
And btw, happy birthday!
edit: After reading lucaspa's posts, my original question could, in fact, be answered depending on how you define "irreducible complexity". A better question might be, "How do you empirically determine something is the product of an intelligent designer?".
Of course, the answer to that question might very well be, "because it demonstrates irreducible complexity". In which case you have to go back to answering my original question of how you determine empirically something is irreducibily complex. And, depending on how you define "irreducible complexity" this could be answered. But depending on the definition, it may not be enough to infer an intelligent being as a cause.
I guess the answer I'm really looking for is a mechanism by which an intelligent being could effect such design.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Pete, you don't need the last point -- the specific manufacturing process.
Behe defines IC as: "By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning." Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg 39
"By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is, by definition nonfunctional." Behe, DBB, pg39
"The first step in determining irreducible complexity is to specify both the function of the system and all system components. An irreducibly complex system will be composed of several parts, all of which contribute to the function of the system. ... The second in determining if a system is irreducibly complex is to ask if all the components are required for the function." Behe goes on to affirm that all the components are required for the function. Finally, Behe discusses that irreducibly complex systems have no physical precursors. This is his third criteria. Behe, Darwin's Black Box pg 42-45
Now, it is that last criteria that is important for Behe's real claim: that IC systems can't be produced by Darwinian evolution. No precursors.
Now, Behe has suffered from several problems. The first is that his declared IC systems have been shown not to be IC based on his second criteria: the systems in other organisms are missing one or more of the components and still function.
The second is that Behe admits that rudimentary IC systems can form by chance. That provides the precursor to "well-matched" with natural selection providing the matching.
The most serious problem is that Behe chose a strawman version of natural selection. He picked one sentence and criteria Darwin published in Origin and took that as the only way "small, successive changes" could occur. In actuality, there are at least 4 routes of Darwinian (natural) selection, with combinations of more than one route possible. IC structures can't be reached by one of them. But they can be reached by the other 3 and combinations of the 4.
So, the real claim here is falsified.
Next post I'll talk about how we do determine that an artifact is an artifact.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Criteria for deciding if an entity is an artifact.
You are walking through a forest and you come across a 4 ft stick and a 4 ft spear lying side by side. To make it even more obvious, the spear has a smoothed polished wooden shaft and a bronze point but both the stick and wooden shaft are oak. Now, the obvious inference is that the spear is "designed". But how do you reach that inference?
I submit that you decide the spear is "designed" because it requires manufacturing processes unavailable in the forest. The forest may have copper and tin deposits, and you can even see them at the surface, but there is no possible way the processes in the forest could have combined them into bronze and then shaped the resultant metal into a spearhead. Likewise, the forest could have produced a straight oak stick, but no possible way to have rounded , smoothed, and polished it. Nor is there any process in the forest that could have attached the spearhead firmly to the shaft.
Not only this, but there is a clear "gap" between the capability of the forest and the spear. There are no intermediates between the stick and spearshaft or the copper and tin deposits and the spearhead.
This case has no intermediates. But we can imagine a case where there is. Next to a stream you come across a sharp, jagged rock and a smooth, round rock of the same mineral. Are you justified in concluding the round rock was designed? No. Why? Because you can watch the erosion process of the stream and find intermediates between jagged and round.
Now, for ID substitute "universe" for forest. What they are looking for is gaps in the processes of the universe such that those processes could not produce some of the entities in the universe. They want the manufacturing to be done elsewhere using processes unavailable to the universe. ID is required to be anti-evolution because that is the manufacturing process for biological organisms. It must say that Darwinian evolution is incapable of making biological organisms or at least parts of those organisms. ID requires an offsite manufacturing process.
You are walking through a forest and you come across a 4 ft stick and a 4 ft spear lying side by side. To make it even more obvious, the spear has a smoothed polished wooden shaft and a bronze point but both the stick and wooden shaft are oak. Now, the obvious inference is that the spear is "designed". But how do you reach that inference?
I submit that you decide the spear is "designed" because it requires manufacturing processes unavailable in the forest. The forest may have copper and tin deposits, and you can even see them at the surface, but there is no possible way the processes in the forest could have combined them into bronze and then shaped the resultant metal into a spearhead. Likewise, the forest could have produced a straight oak stick, but no possible way to have rounded , smoothed, and polished it. Nor is there any process in the forest that could have attached the spearhead firmly to the shaft.
Not only this, but there is a clear "gap" between the capability of the forest and the spear. There are no intermediates between the stick and spearshaft or the copper and tin deposits and the spearhead.
This case has no intermediates. But we can imagine a case where there is. Next to a stream you come across a sharp, jagged rock and a smooth, round rock of the same mineral. Are you justified in concluding the round rock was designed? No. Why? Because you can watch the erosion process of the stream and find intermediates between jagged and round.
Now, for ID substitute "universe" for forest. What they are looking for is gaps in the processes of the universe such that those processes could not produce some of the entities in the universe. They want the manufacturing to be done elsewhere using processes unavailable to the universe. ID is required to be anti-evolution because that is the manufacturing process for biological organisms. It must say that Darwinian evolution is incapable of making biological organisms or at least parts of those organisms. ID requires an offsite manufacturing process.
Upvote
0
The part about not having precursors seems to include the built-in assumption that each functional component of an IC system arose solely for use within that system. As you mentioned earlier, this is not necessarily the case with some so-called IC systems.
Again, this is precisely why I would like to see a demonstration of the mechanism required to effect design. So far, the ID crowd seems to be still stuck on trying to figure out what constitutes design in the first place. But with no proposed mechanism, how can they infer that the design is a product of an intelligent being?
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Today at 01:10 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #314
The part about not having precursors seems to include the built-in assumption that each functional component of an IC system arose solely for use within that system.
That is the strawman version of Darwinian evolution I mentioned. Behe doesn't realize exaptation from another function is a route of natural selection. Behe quotes Darwin:
"If it could be shown that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modificationsm my theory would absolutely break down" DBB pg 39. (pg 154 of the 6th edition of Origin).
As you can see, Behe does mean within the system. But he has not considered that Darwin, in other passages, may have realized the inadequacy of this route alone.
Again, this is precisely why I would like to see a demonstration of the mechanism required to effect design. So far, the ID crowd seems to be still stuck on trying to figure out what constitutes design in the first place. But with no proposed mechanism, how can they infer that the design is a product of an intelligent being?
Pete, you don't need to know the manufacturing process to know you are looking at an artifact. When the first tools were found at Olduvai and other localities, we didn't know how they were made because that is a lost technology. Some archeologists/anthropologists reconstructed the technology. Even today, we are not certain of the exact manufacturing process for the great pyramids. But we don't need that to know they are artifacts.
The confusion about what constitutes "design" in ID circles is because they are looking only at the organisms or entity. As I noted, you have to look at both the entity and the environment. We inferred that the stone tools at Olduvai were artifacts because there was no process in the environment at Olduvai that could have produced those rocks (tools).
The problem for ID is that there is a process in the environment to produce the designs we see in biological organisms -- natural selection. But IDers ignore that and want to infer design only from the organisms themselves.
There is also a confusion when IDers use the word "design". What they mean is that there is an unsaid prepositional phrase after "design" - "by an intelligent entity". Evolutionists also say biological organisms are designed -- by natural selection.
So, what IDers are really saying is that organisms are manufactured artifacts. Not simply "designs" on a blueprint, but actually manufactured elsewhere and placed on the planet. Like Paley's watch on the heath. See? In Paley's example we infer the watch is "designed" because there is no process on the heath to make one. It had to be manufactured elsewhere and placed on the heath. But even Paley downplayed the other necessity for the inference: the environment.
The part about not having precursors seems to include the built-in assumption that each functional component of an IC system arose solely for use within that system.
That is the strawman version of Darwinian evolution I mentioned. Behe doesn't realize exaptation from another function is a route of natural selection. Behe quotes Darwin:
"If it could be shown that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modificationsm my theory would absolutely break down" DBB pg 39. (pg 154 of the 6th edition of Origin).
As you can see, Behe does mean within the system. But he has not considered that Darwin, in other passages, may have realized the inadequacy of this route alone.
Again, this is precisely why I would like to see a demonstration of the mechanism required to effect design. So far, the ID crowd seems to be still stuck on trying to figure out what constitutes design in the first place. But with no proposed mechanism, how can they infer that the design is a product of an intelligent being?
Pete, you don't need to know the manufacturing process to know you are looking at an artifact. When the first tools were found at Olduvai and other localities, we didn't know how they were made because that is a lost technology. Some archeologists/anthropologists reconstructed the technology. Even today, we are not certain of the exact manufacturing process for the great pyramids. But we don't need that to know they are artifacts.
The confusion about what constitutes "design" in ID circles is because they are looking only at the organisms or entity. As I noted, you have to look at both the entity and the environment. We inferred that the stone tools at Olduvai were artifacts because there was no process in the environment at Olduvai that could have produced those rocks (tools).
The problem for ID is that there is a process in the environment to produce the designs we see in biological organisms -- natural selection. But IDers ignore that and want to infer design only from the organisms themselves.
There is also a confusion when IDers use the word "design". What they mean is that there is an unsaid prepositional phrase after "design" - "by an intelligent entity". Evolutionists also say biological organisms are designed -- by natural selection.
So, what IDers are really saying is that organisms are manufactured artifacts. Not simply "designs" on a blueprint, but actually manufactured elsewhere and placed on the planet. Like Paley's watch on the heath. See? In Paley's example we infer the watch is "designed" because there is no process on the heath to make one. It had to be manufactured elsewhere and placed on the heath. But even Paley downplayed the other necessity for the inference: the environment.
Upvote
0
lucaspa,
Just a question for you. Is it possible that there are additional as-of-yet-undiscovered natural mechanisms for producing "design" within biological organisms? Or are we at a point where we can rule that out as being a possibility?
Just a question for you. Is it possible that there are additional as-of-yet-undiscovered natural mechanisms for producing "design" within biological organisms? Or are we at a point where we can rule that out as being a possibility?
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Pete, it's always possible we have overlooked something. That's one reason science is tentative. For instance, if someone could find an organ or trait in a species that exists solely for the benefit of another species, then that trait couldn't have been designed by natural selection. Therefore there would have to be another mechanism.
The ID argument (go back to Behe because he states it perfectly) is that it is not possible for natural selection to make biological designs. Where we are now with the Thornhill and Ussery paper is that it is possible for the various routes of natural selection to make all designs.
I haven't found any other way to get design other than the algorithm of Darwinian selection. Humans use Darwinian selection to design. We do the process in our minds: we make variations with our imagination, and then test those variations in the environment of what the design parameters are, and pick the best variations, then make more variations on those, etc. until we have a design that we are willing to manufacture.
Even typing these sentences is a product of Darwinian selection extending back to when we were babies. Babies make random noises, then select those noises which get a response from the adults around them. Later we select words and grammar again based on the environment of the other people around us, keeping the variations that give a positive response and discarding those that get a negative response. Even later this process is extended to spelling and grammar in written language.
As far as I can tell, Darwinian selection is the only way to get design. If it turns out that a deity made a species, that deity still designed it in its "mind" by Darwinian selection. That's one reason why I concluded that ID isn't about "design", but about manufacture.
Upvote
0
"Last time I asked that question (about irreducible complexity), someone referred me to a 25-page document which didn't really address the question I asked ("
LOL welcome to my world.
LOL welcome to my world.
Upvote
0
What's up baby, I'm new too.
It is also my understanding that evolution is based upon chance or probability. Now, true, there is something called "natural selection" that is a part of evolution, but it's not evolution itself.
"Naturation selection" is the filtering of genes through generations due to the conditions in an environment. NS (NS=natural selection) can result in a general change of a species' appearance, resistance to disease, hair color, skin color, etc. However, natural selection cannot result in the changing of one species to another (we humans will not turn into some super robo human race simply by natural selection, which happens around us daily).
Evolution is the changing of a species due to mutation, not NS. (but yes, the proliferation of this change is due to NS)
One problem I see with evolution is the time required for it. Just look at us humans. Look how different we are (different and equal, mind you)! If you think these thousands upon thousands of differences happens from mutation, I think you need to think about a few things. Of course, let me bring these things to the table.
Mutations occur by blind luck (or misfortunate, as in the case of CF). For this multitude of mutations to occur, there must be many many years of isolation to occur, years I don't think were there to begin with.
For mutations to proliferent, the newly mutated useful gene must be needed (for NS to take place). If NS doesn't take place, then the change will not become widespread. If the change does not become widespread, the species will acquire the change as a whole, thus no change will happen. Now my question to you is this, how do "small" changes like the shape of an ear, or the shape of one's lips come to be common to one race of us humans? What are the chances that this change will manifest itself as a mutation and create a new race just by luck!? How come we haven't seen a useful human mutation yet?! (I hope there isn't one documented... that would just destroy my argument)
My not-so-humble-opinions is this, that God, by whatever means he deemed necessary, put us on this earth as a race of people. However, he also gave us this gift called DNA, which allowed us to adapt to our environments using genes ALREADY IN OUR GENE POOLS (no mutation needed).
Now, it's true, mutations happen all the time, but tell me one that has helped the human race that we know of. Bacteria mutate all the time, but those can't be considered changes towards order. Those are changes of entropy (in the direction of disorder), even if they are helpful to their survival.
This also has lead me to believe that there is an end, proof that God isn't going to let us hang down here forever. If all the changes/mutations that happened to our race are negative, we're all going to end up disease ridden and feeble at birth. Not that that's how he's going to end it that way, but this truth points out the fact that our existance is finite. He has plans (or had plans, or will have plans, or something far far beyond our capabilities of logic, if you get my drift).
"Naturation selection" is the filtering of genes through generations due to the conditions in an environment. NS (NS=natural selection) can result in a general change of a species' appearance, resistance to disease, hair color, skin color, etc. However, natural selection cannot result in the changing of one species to another (we humans will not turn into some super robo human race simply by natural selection, which happens around us daily).
Evolution is the changing of a species due to mutation, not NS. (but yes, the proliferation of this change is due to NS)
One problem I see with evolution is the time required for it. Just look at us humans. Look how different we are (different and equal, mind you)! If you think these thousands upon thousands of differences happens from mutation, I think you need to think about a few things. Of course, let me bring these things to the table.
Mutations occur by blind luck (or misfortunate, as in the case of CF). For this multitude of mutations to occur, there must be many many years of isolation to occur, years I don't think were there to begin with.
For mutations to proliferent, the newly mutated useful gene must be needed (for NS to take place). If NS doesn't take place, then the change will not become widespread. If the change does not become widespread, the species will acquire the change as a whole, thus no change will happen. Now my question to you is this, how do "small" changes like the shape of an ear, or the shape of one's lips come to be common to one race of us humans? What are the chances that this change will manifest itself as a mutation and create a new race just by luck!? How come we haven't seen a useful human mutation yet?! (I hope there isn't one documented... that would just destroy my argument)
My not-so-humble-opinions is this, that God, by whatever means he deemed necessary, put us on this earth as a race of people. However, he also gave us this gift called DNA, which allowed us to adapt to our environments using genes ALREADY IN OUR GENE POOLS (no mutation needed).
Now, it's true, mutations happen all the time, but tell me one that has helped the human race that we know of. Bacteria mutate all the time, but those can't be considered changes towards order. Those are changes of entropy (in the direction of disorder), even if they are helpful to their survival.
This also has lead me to believe that there is an end, proof that God isn't going to let us hang down here forever. If all the changes/mutations that happened to our race are negative, we're all going to end up disease ridden and feeble at birth. Not that that's how he's going to end it that way, but this truth points out the fact that our existance is finite. He has plans (or had plans, or will have plans, or something far far beyond our capabilities of logic, if you get my drift).
It's a bit jumpy, but I hope you can read my chicken scratch.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
