Why evolution isn't scientific

[VirOptimus]

Hello

What is this understanding that convinced you?

I’m not resposible for your education.

This conversation is over.

 

[xianghua]

You do know that people with eye problems can still have enough vision for them to survive, yes?

this is why i said: "if the eye doesnt work without it". some parts in the eye are crucial and some arent. i refer to these that are.

 

[xianghua]

Why does the requirement for several parts invalidate the skeleto-muscular system?

you cant make any limb to move without a complex system.

 

[xianghua]

Do you? You're the one making the claims here.

if we have no evidence for your claim then we have no evidence that an ic system can evolve.

 

[xianghua]

Let's try a simple, hypothetical example. Note that this is an hypothetical example, like your self-reproducing wooden robot penguin cars, so don't be asking for evidence just yet; there is evidence, but right now you don't know enough about evolution to know what it is evidence for.

Imagine a species, a population of small, antelope-like animals. Imagine that this population wanders into an area where most of its food is found on trees and tall bushes.

Now, the length of the legs of these creatures exhibit random (bell curve) distribution of variation in length. You can easily see why the survival of those variants with longer legs would be favored--they get to more of the leaves they eat for food. The same kind of randomly distributed variation occurs in the length of the neck. Those individuals with longer necks also get more food. Thus, the possibilities for any individual are: longer legs + longer neck; longer legs + shorter neck; shorter legs + longer neck and shorter legs + shorter neck. Evolution predicts that you will wind up with a creature with longer legs and a longer neck--not a creature with very long legs and a short neck or one with a very long neck and short legs (neither of which would have much survivability potential). In fact what you find in nature is the giraffe, with neck and leg length in proportion to each other to produce a functional system for reaching high food. That is because leg length and neck length evolve together, with longer leg length exerting selection pressure for longer neck length and longer neck length exerting selection pressure for longer leg length.

whats this have to do with a system that doesnt work at all if one part will remove? a creature with shorter leg will be just fine. its irrelevant to my question. think about circulatory system for instance. if you will remove the blood the creature will die. so unless you have both fluid and vessels it will do nothing.

 

[pitabread]

if we have no evidence for your claim then we have no evidence that an ic system can evolve.

It's not my claim, it's your claim. You're the one claiming that IC prevents evolution; the burden is on you to support it. So far you haven't.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

whats this have to do with a system that doesnt work at all if one part will remove? a creature with shorter leg will be just fine. its irrelevant to my question. think about circulatory system for instance. if you will remove the blood the creature will die. so unless you have both fluid and vessels it will do nothing.

But so what? eyes and circulatory systems weren't evolved by a set of finished components somehow assembling themselves into functional systems, the parts co-evolved gradually from much simpler elements.

The information to educate yourself is all freely available, for example: Evolution of the Eye; here's one from a Bible-believing Christian website: Evolution of the Circulatory System.

 

[Kylie]

this is why i said: "if the eye doesnt work without it". some parts in the eye are crucial and some arent. i refer to these that are.

Please give examples.

Do you understand that the evolution of the eye is quite well understood, and that we have examples of intermediary steps in nature?

 

[Kylie]

you cant make any limb to move without a complex system.

This does not answer the question.

Why does the fact that the skeleto-muscular system requires many parts invalidate evolution?

 

[xianghua]

But so what? eyes and circulatory systems weren't evolved by a set of finished components somehow assembling themselves into functional systems, the parts co-evolved gradually from much simpler elements.

The information to educate yourself is all freely available, for example: Evolution of the Eye; here's one from a Bible-believing Christian website: Evolution of the Circulatory System.

no. even the first step need at least 2-3 parts to be functional. so its still impossible.

 

[xianghua]

It's not my claim, it's your claim. You're the one claiming that IC prevents evolution; the burden is on you to support it. So far you haven't.

by i just showed that the evidences shows that without some parts the system doesnt work. its a fact. you on the other hand believe against this fact and say that it could happen in the past. with no evidence to support this notion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This does not answer the question.

Why does the fact that the skeleto-muscular system requires many parts invalidate evolution?

Also, are't limbs actually really quite simple.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

no. even the first step need at least 2-3 parts to be functional. so its still impossible.

Where did you get that number from?

 

[xianghua]

This does not answer the question.

Why does the fact that the skeleto-muscular system requires many parts invalidate evolution?

because it cant evolve stepwise like evolution required.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

no. even the first step need at least 2-3 parts to be functional. so its still impossible.

Well, no. For example, the first steps of eye evolution in a motile multicellular organism could be the development of a single cell that produces more (or less) of a certain chemical when the light is bright (or dim). If the nearby cilia or muscle cells that help move the organism are stimulated or inhibited by the chemical diffusing from the photoreceptor cell, its movement will change according to the incident light. This is all that's needed to provide a selective effect and potential advantage over 'blind' organisms.

More light-sensitive cells would have a greater effect, so duplicating or quadrupling the photosensitive cell would be advantageous. A better targeted distribution of the stimulating or inhibiting chemical would also be better, so extending the photoreceptor cell(s) into a simple neuron so its chemical more directly affects the motive system would have a selective advantage, and so-on.

I'm not saying this is what happened, simply that it isn't difficult to come up with plausible stepwise development scenarios.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

because it cant evolve stepwise like evolution required.

You keep making that claim. But provide NOTHING to back it up.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

because it cant evolve stepwise like evolution required.

Of course it can - if, for example, a simple tubular creature, without bone or cartilage, uses muscle cells to flex the body so it can move, stiffening a line of cells along the axis of the body can provide a springiness that stores energy and makes movement more efficient - so developing a cartilaginous spine is an advantage. If it develops limb or fin buds, stiffening them along their lengthwise axis gives them more purchase, so the same process can be used to give them cartilaginous reinforcement. If some of the muscle cells then attach to the cartilage proto-skeleton, they gain additional leverage and efficiency, and so-on. At some point, calcification some of the cartilage to make it rigid, i.e. bony, provides another level of advantage.

 

[xianghua]

I'm not saying this is what happened, simply that it isn't difficult to come up with plausible stepwise development scenarios.

but its not that easy as you think. even a simple eyespot need about 200 proteins:

Eyespot apparatus - Wikipedia

"Besides photoreceptor proteins, eyespots contain a large number of structural, metabolic and signaling proteins. The eyespot proteome of Chlamydomonas cells consists of roughly 200 different proteins"

so its not just a photoreceptor. think about this: say that you want to design a minimal light sensor to make your car move by the light. how many parts you will need to such a mission?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

but its not that easy as you think. even a simple eyespot need about 200 proteins:

Eyespot apparatus - Wikipedia

"Besides photoreceptor proteins, eyespots contain a large number of structural, metabolic and signaling proteins. The eyespot proteome of Chlamydomonas cells consists of roughly 200 different proteins"

so its not just a photoreceptor. think about this: say that you want to design a minimal light sensor to make your car move by the light. how many parts you will need to such a mission?

You're quoting a description of eyespots that have had over 3 billion years of evolution. The earliest ones would have been very simple.

 

[xianghua]

You're quoting a description of eyespots that have had over 3 billion years of evolution. The earliest ones would have been very simple.

and yet this eyespot can only detect light. so its basically the same. i also gave you this analogy: say that you want to design a minimal light sensor to make your car move by the light. how many parts you will need to such a mission?