Not really politics, but Evolution... (cont. a thread)
- 12-26-2005, 01:41 PM
- 12-26-2005, 02:11 PM
To respond to the eye thing: There is no advantage to evolving only 1 part or non-functional parts of an irreducibly complex system such as an eye. All systems must be in place simultaneously to function and therefore gain some sort of advantage in the natural selection model. Like the mousetrap example. Without all the parts of the mousetrap working together as a whole it is useless to catch mice. Try building one without a base or a spring or a trigger or a hammer and you will find you have a useless invention. Now apply this to all the parts of the human eye. Retina, cone, lens and so on and so on. IMHORecent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
- 12-26-2005, 03:46 PM
Originally Posted by bpmartyr
12-26-2005, 04:50 PM
This is simply not true. A light sensitive spot that can distinguish light from dark can orient an organism. What you are saying is true of the complex eye, but no one is suggesting that the complex eye came into existence as it is.Originally Posted by bpmartyr
12-26-2005, 05:30 PM
What is not true about it and why?Originally Posted by canadian champ
Nobody said a light sensitive spot could not orient an organism.
What I am saying about the complex eye is that it is irreducibly complex and must have came into existance as it is.
12-26-2005, 09:43 PM
I disagree. It did not have to come into existance as is, and I described an alternate method in a previous post.Originally Posted by bpmartyr
12-26-2005, 10:31 PM
So how could the light sensitive cell be reduced to a simpler form? It must be reduced if it is to have evolved.
12-26-2005, 11:07 PM
In a previous post you state: "You are asking the wrong questions, "What are they adapting to? What necessitates the eye?"Originally Posted by canadian champ
As I said before, the mutations are random and if they confer an advantage to that organism, selective pressures (such as survival, prey avoidance, sexual selection, etc) can select for it and thus it may become a main stay in the environment. Nothing neccesitates the eye, but being able to distinguish light from dark is an advantage for many creatures. Certain fish that live in total darkness do not have functional eyes. Why? If random mutations caused the development of sight, this creature would not have any advantage over blind fish. Thus, everntually this mutation will be weened out.
Assuming this to be true, I stated earlier that there are no advantages to the organism to keeping only partial parts of the irreducibly complex whole. A light sensitive spot is one thing but to say that the spot then formed a rod, which gave no advantage and then a cone, again no advantage, and so on and so on for all the intricate parts and process that make up the human eye seems to be a bit of a stretch of the imagination. If what you say is true, these individual parts would have been weened out by natural selection long before they could have eventually come together and become somehow beneficial to the organism.
I have never seen a plausable example of the "alternate method" of which you speak. Enlighten me.
And please understand, I do not want to "argue" this. I enjoy debating it and appreciate everyones willingness to do so without "strawman" tactics and non sequitur or ad hominem posts.
12-27-2005, 02:06 AM
Keep in mind im not trying to be a perv in this post.
When we are talking about neccesity, what neccessitates a penis? "We" were reproducing before as single cells just fine. Why change?
Everything about our genitals would have to come into being simultaneosly. What would neccesitate testicles if you dont have a penis? And a penis and testicles would not form if there were not a mode of transportation for the "goods".(not to mention that the testicles do more than just produce sperm) And a vas defferens is not going to form if there is not a penis and testicles.(there are many more complex parts but I have proved my point without mentioning them). And also what is so unique about the genitals which is part of why I brought them up is that the male and female genitals go together perfectly. They have to have come to be perfectly to function in both the male and the female. And there is no such thing as an animal or a human without genitals completely intact. period
As said earlier "everything would have to come into existance perfectly at once."
12-27-2005, 02:25 AM
Also some funny things evolutionists say without realizing what they are doing.
A "Law" is something that has to be enforced.
The "Law of Gravity" is enforced by God.
So if you choose to believe in evolution I would suggest you drop the "Law" part and just call it Gravity.(otherwise you contradict yourself)
(Yet we can,for the lack of a better word,"escape" this "Law" with faith and walk on water or float in the air........if we have faith that is.
Also you all (from what I have seen) call yourself "Human Beings."
A "Being: was, is, and will be for eternity. As soon as a "Being" "isn't", it is obviously not a Being. (so i guess you could say that sentence i just typed "doesn't work").
So again if you choose to believe in evolution I would suggest that you drop the "Being" part and just call yourself a "Human" or homosapien.(agian if you dont you contradict yourself)
12-27-2005, 02:37 AM
And I saw no suggestion for a mechanism of how this happened in your posts. Yes, the ability to tell light from dark would confer an advantage to some species over others. And yes, I would say it's most likely possible that a basic method of doing so could have evolved through natural selection and evironmental pressure. How it went from that basic structure to a more advanced one isn't explainable. Yes, varying forms of the eye exist which would suggest it developed over time. But the jump from light sensitive cells to the complex organ most animals have today is a big one and not one that can necessarily be accounted for by random mutation and natural selection over time. Possibly so? Yes. Probably so? Yes. But until how it is so is proven, perhaps Darwinists could show a little more grace to those who question the idea. Going from the ability to tell light from dark to mutations that produce the varying forms of the eye is a very big leap, and one that can't necessarily be proven by looking at the activity of bacteria in a dish.Originally Posted by canadian champ
Which is all moot anyway, as far as arguing with me personally. I don't doubt evolution happens, I'm just saying its mechanisms and therefore its status as proven fact are a little shakier than most admit. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that a lot more studying is needed to see what in fact does happen. Simply applying the same theory of simple organisms to complex ones and saying the timeframe has to be stretched out isn't enough in my opinion. Countless versions of mutations have been observed in nature, in humans and other species, brought about by random events, radiation exposure, etc. Why hasn't one single example confered an advantage, why hasn't one single mutation been beneficial? What causes the surge of mutation and new species that seems to appear regularly in the fossil record? Random mutation over time and natural selection in response to environmental pressure don't have any special characteristics that would seem to lead to anything other than slow, even evolution over time. The fossil record that we have doesn't seem to show this.
Some of my favorite columnists said it best:
"The main problem I have with people arguing for Darwinian evolution – by which I mean the theory that all current species share a common ancestor – is that they very often treat a certain fact as evidence for evolution even though they rely on the theory of evolution in the first place to arrive at this judgment. To avoid misunderstanding: I am not accusing the average scientist of making up data or of presenting a faulty chain of reasoning (although this may happen too). Rather, I am saying that a scientist will state a true fact in support of evolution, even though this fact is consistent with non-evolutionary theories." - Bob Murphy
"One difference between faith and science is that science allows with reasonable grace the questioning of theory. A physicist who doubts, say, the theory of general relativity will be expected to show good cause for his doubt. He won’t be dismissed in chorus as delusional and an enemy of truth.
"By contrast, he who doubts the divinity of Christ, the prophethood of Mohammed, or the sanctity of natural selection will be savaged. It is the classic emotional reaction of the True Believer to whom dissent is not just wrong but intolerable. Which is unfortunate. If the faithful of evolution spent as much time examining their theory as they do defending it, they might prove to be right, or partly right, or discover all manner of interesting things heretofore unsuspected." - Fred Reed
"Now, I consider the evidence that 1) all of the creatures living on the Earth today evolved, over many, many millions of years, from a common ancestor, to be about as conclusive as we can ever expect an empirical case to be. Furthermore, I think there is little cause to doubt that 2) random mutation and natural selection do take place, or that their effects can transform the character of living forms across generations. But Neo-Darwinism asserts something far stronger than simply the conjunction of those two propositions, namely, that 3) life is nothing more than the chance outcome of random mutation and natural selection, and that evolution can be completely explained on the basis of those two mechanisms. The support for 3) is much, much thinner than is that for 1) or 2). And, I think if you examine the arguments typically presented by Neo-Darwinists, you will discover that they repeatedly offer evidence for 1) or 2) as if it were evidence for 3), probably, I suspect, because they have confused the joint assertion of 1) and 2) with the assertion of 3) themselves." - Gene Callahan
12-27-2005, 02:57 AM
The problem with irreducable complexity is that something with a purpose always has to be used to demonstrate the example. For example, the mousetrap has a purpose, every piece was designed for a specific reason. While a portion of our eye has a purpose in its current context that doesn't mean that was always its purpose, or that it couldn't have been used for something else in the past, or that a different less developed version of it wasn't used for something in the past. Irreducable complexity has more merrit I think in probability. What is the probability that so many mutations and changes over time, that so many seperate and distinct pieces of an organ could be developed randomly and yet come together in such a functional and complex relationship? The most common answer is that it happened, therefore it can't be that improbable. The same could be said of winning the lottery, it has to be viewed in context though.Originally Posted by bpmartyr
And despite assertions that this is explained, it isn't. Yes, varying forms of the eye have been seen over time. This would suggest some development. However, the evolution of a specialized group of cells for telling light from dark to even the most basic example of a current eye can't be explained. How did the vitreous humor evolove? How did the lens evolve? How did the optic nerve and the brain's ability to distiguish between so many different wavelengths evolve? Micro evolution can explain how something becomes more and more specialized over time, but not how it can transform from something simple to something massively complex, almost completely different from its original form. It can explain why a species might shrink or grow in size. It can explain why certain colors of animal might be more likely to survive and breed. It can explain how the eye gets better over time. It can't explain how the complex organ itself came into being.
Canadian and Bean claim that people who question this don't take the timeframe into account or don't understand this or that. I would say they don't realize the seeming enormity and complexity of what they are claiming and the proof that such a claim would require. We'd need a little more than an incomplete fossil record to prove this.
12-27-2005, 03:10 AM
Exactly. Proof is claimed but never presented. How did cones, rods, tears, the muscles that focus the lens, the various layers of tissue, the cornea, the iris, the nerve connections, the systems in the brain that make use of this sensory data, etc., evolve? Everything about the eye would have had to evolve. Evolutionists claim nothing simply popped into existence as is. However, that is exactly what they are saying. Unless it is shown that all these complex pieces can evolve over time and through natural selection, that is from simpler forms of the eye we get all the various modern complex parts through these processes, then some of them will literally have to have poofed into existence through random mutation, have been recognized through natural selection as useful, and then incorporated into the existing sight system, either in their current role or in another role until each particular part 'found' its current role.Originally Posted by bpmartyr
The probability of something like this happening not only with the eye but with every specialized organ we see in every species today seems astronomical. Now, it seems to have happened that way in my opinion. Unlike other people who have evolution as their world view I just don't deny that the problem of how it happened is fairly enormous, and can't simply be solved by drawing phyllogeny trees that are really nothing but guess work.
12-27-2005, 04:47 AM
The problem isn't proving that the eye evolved from light sensitive organisms, but proving the mechanism. And, you're asking how...This was addressed in my first post, this is where many people get confused. They can prove we evolved as primates, but they cannot prove how we broke off into different primate branch.
And, intelligent design doesn't do much for the eye (since we're on topic). If it were designed intelligently, it would be as flawed as it is. here is a nice little excerpt:
"Another way to respond to the theory of intelligent design is to carefully examine complex biological systems for errors that no intelligent designer would have committed. Because intelligent design works from a clean sheet of paper, it should produce organisms that have been optimally designed for the tasks they perform. Conversely, because evolution is confined to modifying existing structures, it should not necessarily produce perfection. Which is it?
The eye, that supposed paragon of intelligent design, offers an answer. We have already sung the virtues of this extraordinary organ, but we have not considered specific aspects of its design, such as the neural wiring of its light-sensing units. These photoreceptor cells, located in the retina, pass impulses to a series of interconnecting cells that eventually pass information to the cells of the optic nerve, which leads to the brain.
An intelligent designer, working with the components of this wiring, would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality. No one, for example, would suggest that the neural connections should be placed in front of the photoreceptor cells—thus blocking the light from reaching them—rather than behind the retina. Incredibly, this is exactly how the human retina is constructed. . .
A more serious flaw occurs because the neural wiring must poke directly through the wall of the retina to carry the nerve impulses produced by photoreceptor cells to the brain. The result is a blind spot in the retina—a region where thousands of impulse-carrying cells have pushed the sensory cells aside....
None of this should be taken to suggest that the eye functions poorly. It is a superb visual instrument that serves us exceedingly well.... The key to the intelligent design theory . . . is not whether an organ or system works well but whether its basic structural plan is the obvious product of design. The structural plan of the eye is not."
12-27-2005, 05:21 AM
True, but without a mechanism the claim is is nothing more than an observation that seems to fit the facts as we know them. The problem there is that the facts can fit other ideas too, some more plausible than others obviously. There are plenty of problems with ID from a logical standpoint. But even a lunatic can come up with something interesting every now and then. Irreducable complexity used not as inference for a designer but as a statement on general probability is an interesting question. What evolution seems to say is that every single complex organic system that exists is the product of random mutation and incorporation or weening of those mutations over time. A lot of time. I just don't think that's enough, not to explain how a single celled organism became the varied life we see around us today, all plants and all animals. It is what the evidence suggests but there just seems to be a major piece or pieces missing somewhere. I don't think a creator is necessary, but I also don't think a random series of events can necessarily be all that's behind life as it exists today, not of the nature that's currently put forward.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
How about a multitude of creators though? Not in terms of gods but of the species themselves. What role does the relative intelligence of each species play in evolution? Given the fact that humans aren't exactly the most wonderfully suited animals for living in the wild, I'd say this is an unaddressed question. Our young are weak, our senses are poor, our bodies are delicate, our defenses are poor, our upright posture leaves our vital and reproductive organs exposed, we have an unfortunate habit of killing our own kind in vast numbers relatively frequently, etc. It would seem an ill suited or at least odd resume for the most dominant species in the history of this planet.
All true and good. I just think Darwinists are a bit ridiculous in their assertions of how solid evolution is. As I said to Bean, "We know it happens just not how it happens," sounds too much like "The Lord works in mysterious ways" to me. Does the theory seem to fit observable fact so far? Yes. That doesn't mean it's the only idea that can fit those facts. And while ID assumes a lot and puts forward conclusions that aren't necessary based on the evidence, that doesn't mean Darwinists couldn't be a little more open to criticism rather than derriding everyone who has the slightest disagreement with the theory as a religious zealot and borderline lunatic. I mean in one sentence evolution is compared to gravity regarding levels of certainty, but in the next it's admitted that gravity can actually be tested and observed in the here and now and macro evolution of complex organisms can't. Observed facts that are consistent with a theory don't necessarily prove the theory, especially when the conclusion is already presumed to be known.And, intelligent design doesn't do much for the eye (since we're on topic). If it were designed intelligently, it would be as flawed as it is. here is a nice little excerpt:
And broad support of the scientific community doesn't mean anything in the end. Scientists are human, and just as fallible as any others. I'm sure we all know what most of them think of steroid use, does that broad, shared opinion make it true? Or, do their preconceived notions about steroid use make them rather selective as to how evidence is selected and evaluated? Some, hell most I've seen, of the studies supposedly 'proving' liver toxicity of oral steroids involve megadosing over ridiculous periods of time. Do the same thing with any drug and you'll likely get results showing toxicity. But few if any of those scientists are yelling to take Tylenol or Advil off store shelves, but would likely **** an electon microscope if steroids were more widely available, even if only by prescription.
If a scientist came out and said "We know steroids melt your liver, we're just not sure as to how yet," would you just take that on faith? That's my take on a lot of people who support evolution. They believe it but actually haven't given much though to it and what it implies. And that's just basically replacing one religion with another, and even if it's called 'science' for most people it's just as much based on faith as Christianity.
12-27-2005, 05:28 AM
Not really. We knew for millenia that fragile objects break under less force than rigid objects but we didn't know why.Originally Posted by CDB
Again, you can easily prove that an action causes and effect or that something preceeded another without understanding the mechanism**. In this case, take anadrol, watch tumors develope consistently over time, conclude anadrol causes liver dysfunction and even liver tumors.If a scientist came out and said "We know steroids melt your liver, we're just sure as to how yet,"
And, to the rest of it, OF COURSE there are plenty of reasonable explainations as to the origins of the universe, etc, and I honestly believe that supernatural powers are a reasonable answer.
The whole purpose of this thread was to show that its not even disputed that evolution has occured, its just many of the mechanims of evolution that are being debated over. It wasn't supposed to be about the origins of the universe or anything like that.
**That is, if you can accept 99.9...9% probability as proof, otherwise, nothing is for certain.
12-27-2005, 08:24 AM
Have you studied anything about the sex pilli on bacteria in your biology classes yet. While they are very very primative compared to our gentials they do share a common function, to take in and share different genetic material.
Originally Posted by Whiskey Steve
12-27-2005, 08:59 AM
But that mechanism is key to explaining a lot about the process. How some objects are more rigid than others, or only rigid in one way, but will crumble or break when pressure or a shearing force is applied in another way. Without the mechanism all you have is observation.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
Odd how a discussion this long errupts over something that's basically agreed upon. Would you agree, though, that a lot of people take evolution on faith the same way they take religion on faith, without having the slightest clue as to what's involved? I guess my main problem with evolution isn't with the theory itself, but those who expound on it in public and think their literal belief in the process, without understanding it, is somehow superior than someone's similar belief in creationism. Chosing to worship 'science' is no different than worshipping God in my opinion. In the way of many religious people, believers in evolution refuse to admit any possible alternatives.In this case, take anadrol, watch tumors develope consistently over time, conclude anadrol causes liver dysfunction and even liver tumors.
And, to the rest of it, OF COURSE there are plenty of reasonable explainations as to the origins of the universe, etc, and I honestly believe that supernatural powers are a reasonable answer.
The whole purpose of this thread was to show that its not even disputed that evolution has occured, its just many of the mechanims of evolution that are being debated over.
I doubt my own existence at times, so I'm hard to convince of anything.**That is, if you can accept 99.9...9% probability as proof, otherwise, nothing is for certain.
12-27-2005, 01:01 PM
Some good postings guys. Keep it up, I like it!
12-27-2005, 01:42 PM
Not to offend anyone (seriously) but I have not gone into great depth in my study of evolution. (Again no offense) But why would I, when I believe in another explanation that has no holes in it? I study evolution the same way would study Phrenology. But to answer your question, no, I have not. That is why I have remained (for the most part) out of this thread (even though I caused it, lol).Originally Posted by Matthew D
I guess you could call me closed minded. But did Edison (actually Tesla, but he was murdered and his ideas where stolen) keep searching for a material to use that would not burn in a light bulb once he found one?....I believe I have found the truth and until I find a flaw in it(i do not believe there is one) I need not search further.
I think science's only purpose is to improve our quality of life. But with the blessings it brings it also brings curses, for example:the machine gun(to save lives, lol) and nuclear missels.
Again no offense. Im just throwing out some thoughts for you.
12-27-2005, 01:56 PM
12-27-2005, 01:57 PM
12-27-2005, 02:09 PM
Yes Edision and Tesla both keep trying to find answers about things.. that is the nature of science and the reason I mentioned sex pilli on bacteria is that they serve the same funcition as genitals in higher organisms.. a way of transferring gentic material from one organism to another.. Steve, no offense but if you don't know anything about the subject, then why wade into the middle of it? Science's mission is our attempt to explain what is going on around us in the universe.. that is the accepted definition of science..
While I know a bit about Phrenology I would not wade into a discussion of it without first doing a ton of study about it..
12-27-2005, 02:14 PM
gees, sorry bro. you asked me a question and I explained my reasoning. And I do not have a vast knowledge of Evolution theory so I have stayed out of this thread.....and i will continue to stay out of it. (easy, easy, i meant no offense I just offered my thoughts).....
and using Telsa as an analogy was a bad idea and i knew someone would call me on it..... anywho
why are you defending phrenology...lol
12-27-2005, 04:19 PM
Paradise Lost, just after the great fling down I believe. Satan is the ultimate individualist in my opinion. I don't really belive in God, not in the Judeo-Christian sense so don't think I'm committing a sin by using him as an example of good. I love the idea that he refused to bow down to anyone, even though his actions led to him paying the ultimate price. But then again, even if you are a believer in Judeo-Christian faith, maybe even Satan can be redeemed eventually.Originally Posted by Whiskey Steve
I had a very brief fling with satanism when I was young. Literal mock God kind of satanism. I realized two things: one, when it comes to women there's healthy pale and just plain pale; and two, defining yourself in opposition to something makes you an automatic loser, because what you're rebeling against is in the end still defining your actions.
12-27-2005, 04:51 PM
You make some beautiful points.Originally Posted by CDB
And I think it is because of that philosophy that when you become a 13th(i think) level Mason they "reveal" to you that satan is the Christ. (thats just what I have heard)
buy anywho, im out
(I am not calling you a mason btw,, im just saying what I think members might find interesting)
12-27-2005, 06:19 PM
If you don't believe in God then you can't believe in sin eitherOriginally Posted by CDB
Without God there is only good and evil as it is perceived and defined by each individual, and even then they may only be defined as what is convenient and inconvenient. God is the arbiter of absolutes. Without Him, it's all relative.
12-27-2005, 09:58 PM
If you stick to a strict " rules of the opposite " philosophy then by natural progression you will eventually become what you oppose ....but you have to admit it is great fun to play the devils advocate( not the movie) at parties, especially when the other people don't realise your playing opposites with them.Originally Posted by CDB
12-27-2005, 10:15 PM
Please refer to your last statement (3rd quote)Originally Posted by CDB
I agree to a degree, and yes, I'm disgusted by people who start claiming they know science and start trashign religion when they know nothing of either. Its just plain stupid.Odd how a discussion this long errupts over something that's basically agreed upon. Would you agree, though, that a lot of people take evolution on faith the same way they take religion on faith, without having the slightest clue as to what's involved? I guess my main problem with evolution isn't with the theory itself, but those who expound on it in public and think their literal belief in the process, without understanding it, is somehow superior than someone's similar belief in creationism. Chosing to worship 'science' is no different than worshipping God in my opinion. In the way of many religious people, believers in evolution refuse to admit any possible alternatives.
And, there is definitely an element of faith in a lot of science based works, but in most cases (and in my case) you have to have "faith" that 99.9...9% is enough to claim proof. Otherwise, NOTHING is for certain.
They can prove with as close as you can get to 100% certainty we've evolved from organism x into y and z, and even including the mechanism of evolution won't increase the odds much because we wont' "know" it happened unless we can witness it, and even then, our eyes are the most deceiving of our senses. So, we never "know" anything, but we have a level of confidence that's infinitely higher in our assertions about science and evolution than people do in regards to things like god's existence and the creation of adam and eve, etc.
I don't have any problem believing you on this statement, haha. But, if I may make a suggestion....Please put the Matrix back on the shelf nowI doubt my own existence at times, so I'm hard to convince of anything.
12-28-2005, 09:00 AM
No Matrix here my friend, just a ****load of LSD and philosophy courses when I was young.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
Similar Forum Threads
- By Konvicted in forum Powerlifting/StrongmanReplies: 25Last Post: 09-11-2008, 02:24 AM
- By Outside Backer in forum General ChatReplies: 3Last Post: 10-26-2005, 05:33 PM
- By Guido in forum AnabolicsReplies: 15Last Post: 08-01-2005, 05:14 PM
- By JTrans in forum General ChatReplies: 2Last Post: 11-15-2004, 10:27 PM
- By WannaGro in forum AnabolicsReplies: 15Last Post: 10-13-2004, 04:26 PM