Evolution just doesn't make sense

[mczerone]

That's an argument against evolution, not for it. The human eye and the cephalopod eye are remarkably similar. And yet they supposedly didn't get these from a common ancestor with such an eye. So we're supposed to believe that this remarkable organ that couldn't possibly come about by evolution, actually did two different times and came out the same way both times.

The theory of evolution does not predict this. It's an embarrassment to the theory.

Your dismissing the miraculous as a cop-out would rule out the very possibility of accepting miraculous creation from the outset. You're not even willing to engage the question of whether miracles ever have happened. You just take for granted that none ever have. You're not looking for the truth, you're playing a game.

You're assuming the consequent.

You're falsely attributing a conclusion to the opposing viewpoint.

You're painting a straw-man that "looking for natural solutions" == "assuming everything is natural/non-miraculous"

And finally, you're also not looking for truth, you're playing a game that says that "everything I currently know from biblical scholars is the truth and I'm prepared to reject or ignore any evidence to the contrary."

 

[erowe1]

You're assuming the consequent.

You're falsely attributing a conclusion to the opposing viewpoint.

You're painting a straw-man that "looking for natural solutions" == "assuming everything is natural/non-miraculous"."

It's not a straw man.

To say that appeal to the miraculous is a cop out implies that you have to explain it without appeal to the miraculous. But that's only valid if no miracle has ever happened.

In fact, any assertion that we can determine what happened in the past, going as far back in time as we want ad infinitum, by extrapolating backwards the repetetive processes that we observe today, must presuppose that no miracle has ever happened.

And finally, you're also not looking for truth, you're playing a game that says that "everything I currently know from biblical scholars is the truth and I'm prepared to reject or ignore any evidence to the contrary

What do you base this on?

 

[Theocrat]

Do Your Own Homework

You're just arguing from ignorance. Have you performed any research to answer your question? Could all of these independently evolve? Did you research the evolutionary histories of each and plot the variations in species against the passing eons? Any kind of work that would be even remotely possible to misconstrue as intellectual honesty? No?

Sounds like you started at a conclusion and then worked your way backwards, selectively choosing evidence (and I use that term lightly) that conforms to your premise, while rejecting anything that disagrees with your conclusion.

I don't need to research the evolutionary histories of each organ system because that is not the assumption that I start with when I study human organ systems. As a matter of fact, the organ systems, themselves, are self-evident that they are intelligently and purposefully created by God, due to the impossibility of the contrary. There is no way that random mutations over millions of years can develop entire, complex organ systems with the functional capabilities and structural features that we observe in the study of anatomy and physiology. It is asinine to suggest that a random process can do such a thing. It's similar to a person who looks at a computer and postulates that it could have formed itself over hundreds of years in a computer warehouse.

So, no, I don't need to figure out how evolution explains human organ systems because there is no reason to suggest that our organ systems are the results of random mutations by means of natural selection over millions of years. We don't ever observe such a phenomenon in nature, and therefore, we have no evidence of it. Essentially, what you are doing is shifting the burden of proof. It's not my job to show how evolution formed human organ systems. That is the job of the evolutionists who would believe in such nonsense. And that is my challenge to any evolutionist on these forums. Human organ systems defy evolutionism. Period.

 

[otherone]

It's similar to a person who looks at a computer and postulates that it could have formed itself over hundreds of years in a computer warehouse.

Hmmm...
I'm certain there are some people who look at a computer and due to it's complexity, and lack of observable evidence to the contrary, postulate that it could have only been formed by a bronze age deity.

 

[erowe1]

Hmmm...
I'm certain there are some people who look at a computer and due to it's complexity, and lack of observable evidence to the contrary, postulate that it could have only been formed by a bronze age deity.

What is the purpose of including the phrase "bronze age" there?

 

[robert9712000]

If you're going to post a link, read the damn article first. Perform a quick google search or try wikipedia.

These sharks are confined to warm, shallow waters where they feed on invertebrates and small fish. That's a good strategy for staying close to the sea floor and for evading predators.

Also, it isn't 'walking' in the literal sense. Toss this guy on the beach, and he'd flop around before suffocating.



You're just arguing from ignorance. Have you performed any research to answer your question? Could all of these independently evolve? Did you research the evolutionary histories of each and plot the variations in species against the passing eons? Any kind of work that would be even remotely possible to misconstrue as intellectual honesty? No?

Sounds like you started at a conclusion and then worked your way backwards, selectively choosing evidence (and I use that term lightly) that conforms to your premise, while rejecting anything that disagrees with your conclusion.

Im not arguing from ignorance.I do though have preformed opinions about the origins of life just like you do.I am looking for logical answers to how the concepts work,not the scientific evidences.

Think of it like someone trying to explain to you how a car works,he doesnt care about the science behind ratio of fuel and oxygen needed to create combustion,he wants to know that the fuel explodes from a spark plug which moves a piston which in turn moves the transmission and drive shaft thus turning the wheels.

My point in posting about the walking shark is to beg the question of which you never answered directly, Does the process of evolutionary change require the process of survival of the fittest to progress?

In my earlier post i stated how a genetic change has a 25% chance to be passed on to kin as a dominant gene and a 50% chance to be passed on as a carrier.If the mutated creature has children at the same rate as his counter species(ie brothers and sisters), then it is statistically impossible for the mutated gene to overtake the regular gene in the population unless it is a mutation which gives it a advantage and thus able to better survive to pass on its gene pool thus giving it the needed edge to outpace the unmutated segment of the population to eventually become the dominant gene.

So taking that understanding i now go back to the previous question that, can the process of evolutionary change happen without the advantage of survival of the fittest?

If it can not, then the logical question would be how can evolutionary change happen if it does not give it a advantage in survival?

Im asking questions about the basic root idea of what drives the evolutionary process.If my understanding is wrong then explain how?Im not choosing evidence,im trying to logically reason out how the concept of the evolutionary process works and what drives it.

 

[otherone]

So taking that understanding i now go back to the previous question that, can the process of evolutionary change happen without the advantage of survival of the fittest?

This has been asked and answered previously in this thread. The answer is "not necessarily". The expression, "survival of the fittest", is a soundbite that simplifies the concept of natural selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Natural selection is the gradual natural process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. It is a key mechanism of evolution. The term "natural selection" was popularized by Charles Darwin who intended it to be compared with artificial selection, which is now called selective breeding.

Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations occur in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring. Throughout the individuals’ lives, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.) Individuals with certain variants of the trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other variants. Therefore the population evolves. Factors that affect reproductive success are also important, an issue that Charles Darwin developed in his ideas on sexual selection, for example. Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives a reproductive advantage may become more common in a population (see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms. Natural selection can be contrasted with artificial selection, in which humans intentionally choose specific traits (although they may not always get what they want). In natural selection there is no intentional choice. In other words, artificial selection is teleological and natural selection is not teleological.

 

[robert9712000]

Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which evolution takes place within a population of organisms.

So ive done some looking into it,but granted ive just started,but the only other driving factor to evolution that people keep suggesting is genetic drift.I found a article here

http://www.newscientist.com/article...the-only-means-of-evolution.html#.Uhvtcn_b0yU

A line that appears to be a cop-out though is "Although the likelihood of any neutral mutation spreading by chance is tiny, the enormous number of mutations in each generation makes genetic drift a significant force."

That makes no sense,because its basically saying that genetic drift which they state "It is pure chance - some just happen to be passed on to more and more individuals in each generation.", may allow some neutral mutations to overcome its miniscule statistical chance by sheer volume and become prevalent.That explains one neutral mutation becoming a dominant gene, but using that concept to suggest that complete randomness could lead to a orderly complex being such as humans where individual organs work together seems statistically impossible.

They use the example of the lottery to explain how sheer volume can overcome the statistical odds ,but that would be for just one neutral mutation to overcome statistical odds and become the dominant gene.They go on to say though that most of the changes in complex organisms are due to genetic drift.

They suggest though that there are alot of changes that are of no beneficial consequence to reproduction rate and thus they conclude its a result of genetic drift.
As a result, most changes in the DNA of complex organisms over time are due to drift rather than selection, which is why biologists focus on sequences that are similar, or conserved, when they compare genomes. Natural selection will preserve sequences with vital functions, but the rest of the genome will change because of drift.

So with the complexity of humans that would be like winning the lottery a million times

 

[otherone]

What is the purpose of including the phrase "bronze age" there?

When was Yahweh first written about?

 

[Fred the musician]

Here's something:
Birds don't have teeth. But they do have genes that cause the growth of teeth, but these genes are dormant. If all animals were created as they are now, why put these useless genes into them?
If you x-ray a snake you'll see the remainder of legs on the skeleton. Why would they be there?

Now THAT is proof of evolution.

Besides, nobody replied to my previous post where I proved that the biblical story of creation is nonsense.

 

[willwash]

Didn't read whole thread so not sure if this has already been posted but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

They will create an environment in the software with certain attributes and a bunch of artificial organisms that reproduce. They were coded to have a random chance of mutating some random aspect of their makeup. One that I read about had a "light" source, where the better the organisms were able to detect the light, the better their chance of reproduction. Then they let the simulation run on a supercomputer--millions and billions of generations in the course of lunch hour. When they came back the organisms had evolved eyes. Yes, actual eyes. I'll do some digging and see if I can find the description

EDIT: OK, I found that reference, it's from a book in my Kindle. I'm not sure how to copy and paste, but you basically have to read the better part of the chapter anyway to understand everything anyway.

For those interested, this book is called "Darwin's Unfinished Business" and what I'm talking about is in chapter 6.

 

[Theocrat]

One Question

Didn't read whole thread so not sure if this has already been posted but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

They will create an environment in the software with certain attributes and a bunch of artificial organisms that reproduce. They were coded to have a random chance of mutating some random aspect of their makeup. One that I read about had a "light" source, where the better the organisms were able to detect the light, the better their chance of reproduction. Then they let the simulation run on a supercomputer--millions and billions of generations in the course of lunch hour. When they came back the organisms had evolved eyes. Yes, actual eyes. I'll do some digging and see if I can find the description

EDIT: OK, I found that reference, it's from a book in my Kindle. I'm not sure how to copy and paste, but you basically have to read the better part of the chapter anyway to understand everything anyway.

For those interested, this book is called "Darwin's Unfinished Business" and what I'm talking about is in chapter 6.

Who developed the evolutionary algorithm?

 

[robert9712000]

Here's something:
Birds don't have teeth. But they do have genes that cause the growth of teeth, but these genes are dormant. If all animals were created as they are now, why put these useless genes into them?
If you x-ray a snake you'll see the remainder of legs on the skeleton. Why would they be there?

Now THAT is proof of evolution.

Besides, nobody replied to my previous post where I proved that the biblical story of creation is nonsense.

I know you won't accept this,but this might be the reason God would create a gene like your saying

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

 

[Fred the musician]

If you think the writings of primitive people can convince me of anything, you're wrong... and stupid because I just proved that the bible is a lot of nonsense.

Over the last centuries the churches argued with scientists many, many times. One example: the church taught us that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Every single time the church was proven wrong. So why would that be different now?

 

[Saint Vitus]

Browsing new posts, I see threads about how atheists are smug douchebags, about how evolution doesn't make sense, and how mrryh is leaking out of icons. I didn't realize I stumbled onto the 700 club forums. Am I going to have to start making threads about weed and hookers to balance things out on here?

 

[erowe1]

the church taught us that the earth was flat

What's your basis for this claim?

 

[erowe1]

Browsing new posts, I see threads about how atheists are smug douchebags, about how evolution doesn't make sense, and how mrryh is leaking out of icons. I didn't realize I stumbled onto the 700 club forums. Am I going to have to start making threads about weed and hookers to balance things out on here?

Dondero?

 

[Fred the musician]

What's your basis for this claim?

Learn your history lessons again please. This is generally known in Europe, where children actually LEARN something at school.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I know you won't accept this,but this might be the reason God would create a gene like your saying

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

That verse has nothing to do with creation. That verse is talking about election and predestination.

 

[erowe1]

Learn your history lessons again please. This is generally known in Europe, where children actually LEARN something at school.

Sometimes something that's supposedly generally known actually isn't true.

Do you have any evidence for the claim? Or do you just believe it because you think lots of other people do?