Evolution based on random mutations and natural selection

[David M]

That means you breathe 15 times in one minute.

The average is generally held be be 16 at rest. The normal range is 12-20 breaths per minutes for adults.

You can arrive at the same average by dividing the 4 seconds it takes to breathe into the number of seconds in a day 86,400 and you get 21,600 breaths a day.

21,600 BREATHS

Unfortunately for the argument you are building that is not correct. Try 23,040 breaths.

The universe is the same as the human brain where we use 10% intellectual with 90% the right side or spiritual etc.

Not true. We use all of our brains at one time or another.

The whole 10% use is an urban myth. What is true is that approximately 10% of our brain' are actual neurons rather than all the connective tissues etc.

In addition the amount if the universe that we can observe will increase over time until it reaches a maximum, so your 10% value is also not true. If you are talking about the parts that are not dark matter or dark energy then your 10% value is still not true.

DIAMETER OF THE SUN

The diameter of the sun is 864,000 miles.

No its not, it varies slightly but the average is 875,000 miles. It will also change in the future.

DIAMETER OF THE MOON

The diameter of the moon is 2,160 miles or 10% of the amount of breaths we take in a day.

2,159 miles and of course the average number of breaths is not 21,600.

Is this all just some big coincidence.

Well no, because there is no pattern to be a coincidence.

 

[David M]

Is there any observable mechanism for large evolutionary jumps or is it all the result of millions of cumulative tiny changes?.

For animals its mainly the accumulation of small changes over time.
For plants (and very occasionally animals) there is polyploidy, speciation in one generation.

 

[FearGod]

For animals its mainly the accumulation of small changes over time.
For plants (and very occasionally animals) there is polyploidy, speciation in one generation.

But very tiny changes won't have any beneficial effect as a reason to be naturally selected and to pass for the next generation,
IOW the tiny changes won't have any effect on adapting to the environment, as it needs millions of years to adapt and to move to the new environment.

 

[Bunyip]

But very tiny changes won't have any beneficial effect as a reason to be naturally selected and to pass for the next generation,
IOW the tiny changes won't have any effect on adapting to the environment, as it needs millions of years to adapt and to move to the new environment.

No. Changes can happen quite quickly. The modern sheep for example is a new species - only a few thousand years old. Fruit fly can speciate even faster -a few years.

 

[FearGod]

No. Changes can happen quite quickly. The modern sheep for example is a new species - only a few thousand years old. Fruit fly can speciate even faster -a few years.

Do you mean like a white and a negro ?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Of course there would be no top ladder. Meant we are currently residing at the top of the ladder as we all are in this present moment.

Why would you assume we are higher than anything else?

I am asking that since we are evolving as life is evolving, and the intelligence that's been given to us in our brains is quite impressive, what that remote, if existent chance, or inevitable, of it even occurring would be that we ourselves were once literal microbes, fish, dinosaurs, apes, etc? Or the chance of that not being the case.

100%. We are still apes. Our ancestors were apes, the ape's ancestors back far enough were mouse like animals that were far smaller than our current form, prior to that during the time of the dinosaurs we were a mammal like lizard with a semi-functional body temperature control. Prior to that we shared a common ancestor with all dinosaurs. Then tetrapods which are the direct ancestors to all land animals. And prior to that it was a fish like organism. Prior to that it was even more simplistic. All the way back to one celled organisms. Going up your genetic line you are a direct descendant of a microbe.

 

[Unification]

Hamlet: (act 2, scene 2)
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals...

We are not the paragon of animals, nor are we at the top of anything. Physically I'm neither more complex or more evolved than my cat or the broken-winged pigeon I rescued.
Like any animal, we do some things really well and some not so well. It must be acknowledged, though, that our species' hubris is without parallel.

We, ourselves, were never dinosaurs or fish (though we currently are a species of ape), but we are either descended from these creatures or share a common ancestor with the clade in question.

Thanks for the reply, friend.

Here's how I know it:

Human beings are not descended from a lower form of animal.

As far as human bodies are concerned...

That's another story.

Human bodies are animal.

Human bodies are animal and have many characteristics in common with the lower forms via genetics etc.

Evolution applies to human bodies.

GOD

The Human BEING was created by God to enter in the body when it has evolved to the proper status.

This is where so many err.

There is a BIG difference between a human BEING and a human BODY.

The same difference as a car and it's driver.

A human body evolves and a human being is created by God.

In other words:

Evolution IS intelligent design.

 

[Parsimony]

But very tiny changes won't have any beneficial effect as a reason to be naturally selected and to pass for the next generation,
IOW the tiny changes won't have any effect on adapting to the environment, as it needs millions of years to adapt and to move to the new environment.

I've already said this before, but a beneficial mutation can happen in a single generation. Millions of years are not even remotely necessary.

 

[Unification]

The average is generally held be be 16 at rest. The normal range is 12-20 breaths per minutes for adults.



Unfortunately for the argument you are building that is not correct. Try 23,040 breaths.



Not true. We use all of our brains at one time or another.

The whole 10% use is an urban myth. What is true is that approximately 10% of our brain' are actual neurons rather than all the connective tissues etc.

In addition the amount if the universe that we can observe will increase over time until it reaches a maximum, so your 10% value is also not true. If you are talking about the parts that are not dark matter or dark energy then your 10% value is still not true.



No its not, it varies slightly but the average is 875,000 miles. It will also change in the future.



2,159 miles and of course the average number of breaths is not 21,600.



Well no, because there is no pattern to be a coincidence.

Thank your for the response with your own numbers and objective estimates also. Appreciate that. At least we can relatively agree that they are pretty darn close.

Pictures of dark matter and the circuitry of the human brain. From the Canada Hawaii France telescope.

Circuit pathways look the same. Carrying signals from point to point or source to source.

Neurons are specialized cells.

They are made to receive certain specific connections and pass their
decision to other neurons. These specializations include a cell membrane
which is specialized to convey nerve signals as electrochemical pulses

The dendrite from the Greek dendron or tree, which gets and delivers the signals.

Most signals are delivered to dendrites.

A tree in the brain.

A part of the brain that gets and delivers the electrical signals is dendrite which means tree.

Part of the brain that provides the information is called dendrite or tree.

Tree of "knowledge" of good and evil is in the brain.

 

[FearGod]

I've already said this before, but a beneficial mutation can happen in a single generation. Millions of years are not even remotely necessary.

Don't you think that survival chances are better for species that can breathe inside and outside water than just be able to breathe outside of water ?
why breathing outside of water was naturally selected ?

 

[dust1n]

Don't you think that survival chances are better for species that can breathe inside and outside water than just be able to breathe outside of water ?

For the species that currently can breathe inside and outside, yes. For humans? Well, when's the last time humans have needed to pull oxygen from water to reproduce successfully?

 

[columbus]

Don't you think that survival chances are better for species that can breathe inside and outside water than just be able to breathe outside of water ?
why breathing outside of water was naturally selected ?

Of course not.
If an organism can eat, breathe, defend and therefore procreate, having a redundant system for breathing will reduce evolutionary fitness.
Tom

 

[Parsimony]

Don't you think that survival chances are better for species that can breathe inside and outside water than just be able to breathe outside of water ?

It's because you don't get something for nothing: every adaptation has trade-offs. Having both lungs and gills would allow you to breathe both in and out of water, but more metabolic energy has to be spent growing both of those organs than it would if the animal simply had one or the other organ type alone. Having extra organs also makes them more vulnerable to injury or disease since a nonexistent organ cannot be harmed. In order for a creature to have the ability to breathe in both water and in air, strong enough selective pressures would have to be at work to maintain this dual survival capability which would have to be stronger than the disadvantages posed by the dual system. For some species, this is in fact the case: some amphibians can respirate both in and out of water.

why breathing outside of water was naturally selected ?

For one, it would allow prey animals to stay away from water-bound predators for longer. It would also give them a longer foraging time to consume plants on land. Once a prey item had developed that could breathe air and survive on land for extended periods, then predators which could survive on land could evolve to take advantage of the land-based prey.

 

[Sapiens]

Don't you think that survival chances are better for species that can breathe inside and outside water than just be able to breathe outside of water ?
why breathing outside of water was naturally selected ?

The first thing that you have to recognize is that there is an animal that have both gills and lungs. The Australian lungfish can respire through its gills. In other lungfish species, the gills are too atrophied to allow for adequate gas exchange. When a lungfish is obtaining oxygen from its gills, its circulatory system is configured similarly to the common fish.

One of the advantage of becoming terrestrial is access to the much oxygen richer atmosphere, water carries much less oxygen and thus can not support higher oxygen demands. For example: The reason whales and dolphins don't have gills is that a litre of air at sea level contains 210 millilitres of oxygen; a litre of seawater at 25 °C contains at most 5ml. What this means is that you need to pass roughly 40 times as much water through gills than air through lungs, in volume terms, to get the same amount of oxygen. In energy terms, things look even worse: for every gram of oxygen, air breathers have to move 3.5 grams of air, whereas those relying on gills have to move 100,000 grams of a much more viscus fluid. So, an animal that uses lungs will require a higher level of oxygenation than gills are capable of.

With thanks to: Short Sharp Science: Why whales don't have gills

 

[Sapiens]

Thanks for the reply, friend.

Here's how I know it:

Human beings are not descended from a lower form of animal.

As far as human bodies are concerned...

That's another story.

Human bodies are animal.

Human bodies are animal and have many characteristics in common with the lower forms via genetics etc.

Evolution applies to human bodies.

GOD

The Human BEING was created by God to enter in the body when it has evolved to the proper status.

This is where so many err.

There is a BIG difference between a human BEING and a human BODY.

The same difference as a car and it's driver.

A human body evolves and a human being is created by God.

In other words:

Evolution IS intelligent design.

You ended you previous post with, "Evolution IS intelligent design."

Too bad your post is not, relying as it does on strange and unconnected, unsubstantiated and unsupported, illogical design.

 

[Valjean]

Unification: OK. I think I see where you're coming from. Humans are souls, Divinely created. The souls incarnate in vehicles - bodies - which are created and evolve through natural processes.
Have I got that right?

Now, for everyone's viewing pleasure, Mouse breathing liquid:

 

[Unification]

Too bad your post is not, relying as it does on strange and unconnected, unsubstantiated and unsupported, illogical design.

To the physical, it absolutely would and I agree. One could never come to know the invisible by being obsessed and biased only with the material and physical. That's "accepted" for you, and I respect that.

It's impossible to have communication with the non-physical (Spirit) sub-atomically by using the physical atomic.

Biased science is trying to explain the universe apart from consciousness and never will. Almost as closed minded as religion.

We have in both of these concepts the potential for the consciousness of God to become form, because of these possibilities, self aware consciousness can be born through the limited expression of concrete, linear consciousness.

The fact that consciousness has no size, no shape, no form, and no substance. Yet from that no-thing which consciousness is (BEING) comes the concept and idea of form, shape, substance, and size (physical) Matter is simply spirit in form. Ultimately, it is the arrangement and experience of information, which eventually brings self-awareness into existence. And self-aware mankind is the pinnacle of God’s creation. We are the product of consciousness evolution.

And all images or physical matter is simply an illusion anyway. . Same mistake the culprit of religion makes. They just take the scriptures literally and physically and historically. . In physical form.

Consciousness needs no answer. It just is. And its potential is infinite.

 

[Unification]

Unification: OK. I think I see where you're coming from. Humans are souls, Divinely created. The souls incarnate in vehicles - bodies - which are created and evolve through natural processes.
Have I got that right?

Now, for everyone's viewing pleasure, Mouse breathing liquid:

I'll check that video out, looks interesting.

It’s impossible to be conscious of being unconscious.

You are reading this, so you are conscious (alive). This means you have always been conscious and always will be, because it is not possible for you to be aware of being dead (unconscious). You cannot be aware of not being aware, you cannot be conscious of being unconscious. You can be less conscious (sleep/coma), but not completely unconscious, because time would stand still for you. A billion years could pass, and you would not know it. You cannot be aware of any gaps in life, it is continuous and never ending from your own point of view.

You are immortal, because it is impossible for you not to be.

Have you ever experienced anything other than life? You haven’t, because you cannot experience anything else, anything you experience is life. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and consciousness cannot be created or destroyed for the same reason. It changes form. You cannot make nothing out of something. If you are conscious of life now, you are something. Your body is just a very temporary mortal container for your immortal consciousness.

The deductive logic above reveals that we are not our bodies. We know our bodies die, and we know consciousness cannot, thus our consciousness (what we are) cannot be our bodies.

You will die physically, but you will be born again, being born happens, or you would not be here now. You were born into this life. It is what we know happens for certain to everyone living. There is no evidence anything else happens.

Why would we think anything else happens or even can happen? People are playing make believe. We are dealing with time and space that never ends. If we were born once, it will happen again, things repeat in nature.

The best evidence out of anything out there is "consciousness" in itself.

 

[Sapiens]

To the physical, it absolutely would and I agree. One could never come to know the invisible by being obsessed and biased only with the material and physical. That's "accepted" for you, and I respect that.

Unsupported claim: "One could never come to know the invisible by being obsessed and biased only with the material and physical."

It's impossible to have communication with the non-physical (Spirit) sub-atomically by using the physical atomic.

That too is and unsupported claim, who's to say there is anything there to communicate with?

Biased science is trying to explain the universe apart from consciousness and never will. Almost as closed minded as religion.

Another unsupported claim, there is no data to support the idea that science is obsessed and biased or that the "invisible" as you describe it exists.

We have in both of these concepts the potential for the consciousness of God to become form, because of these possibilities, self aware consciousness can be born through the limited expression of concrete, linear consciousness.

Word salad, much noise saying nothing. There is no data to support a "potential for the consciousness of God" not to mention it gaining form so the entire paragraph is without any utility.

The fact that consciousness has no size, no shape, no form, and no substance. Yet from that no-thing which consciousness is (BEING) comes the concept and idea of form, shape, substance, and size (physical) Matter is simply spirit in form. Ultimately, it is the arrangement and experience of information, which eventually brings self-awareness into existence. And self-aware mankind is the pinnacle of God’s creation. We are the product of consciousness evolution.

More Word salad, more noise saying nothing, that even if it is stipulated to bears no relationship to gods or pinnacles, products or consciousness.

And all images or physical matter is simply an illusion anyway. . Same mistake the culprit of religion makes. They just take the scriptures literally and physically and historically. . In physical form.

Consciousness needs no answer. It just is. And its potential is infinite.

And we are back to unsupported claims.

I'll check that video out, looks interesting.

BTW: the mouse is not "breathing" water but rather perfluorocarbon and it did not survive the transition back to air.

It’s impossible to be conscious of being unconscious.

That's semantic claptrap that just wastes bandwidth and time.

You are reading this, so you are conscious (alive). This means you have always been conscious and always will be, because it is not possible for you to be aware of being dead (unconscious). You cannot be aware of not being aware, you cannot be conscious of being unconscious. You can be less conscious (sleep/coma), but not completely unconscious, because time would stand still for you. A billion years could pass, and you would not know it. You cannot be aware of any gaps in life, it is continuous and never ending from your own point of view.

Ditto, but sounds more like a sophomore that aspires some day to be philosophy major.

You are immortal, because it is impossible for you not to be.

and ... I yam what I yam 'cause I yam what I yam, I'm Popeye the Sailorman ... toot, toot!

Have you ever experienced anything other than life? You haven’t, because you cannot experience anything else, anything you experience is life. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and consciousness cannot be created or destroyed for the same reason. It changes form. You cannot make nothing out of something. If you are conscious of life now, you are something. Your body is just a very temporary mortal container for your immortal consciousness.

... and the reason is? I was unaware that "consciousness" took the form of matter or energy and thus was covered by the laws of thermodynamics.

The deductive logic above reveals that we are not our bodies. We know our bodies die, and we know consciousness cannot, thus our consciousness (what we are) cannot be our bodies.

No! There is not deductive logic, only a poorly thought out attempt at analogizing. Bodies die, the brain decays, there is nothing left save organic molecules that can (as Shakespeare put it) "... go of progress through the guts of a beggar."

You will die physically, but you will be born again, being born happens, or you would not be here now.

The logic does not connect, you die, you rot ... end of story.

You were born into this life. It is what we know happens for certain to everyone living. There is no evidence anything else happens.

Finally ... a sensible statement.

Why would we think anything else happens or even can happen? People are playing make believe. We are dealing with time and space that never ends. If we were born once, it will happen again, things repeat in nature.

The best evidence out of anything out there is "consciousness" in itself.

Things in nature do not "repeat" and there is no evidence for a binary change in grade with
consciousness on one side and "something else" on the other. That is an outmoded, unsupported concept based on the discredited and discarded Aristotelian "ladder of life."

 

[Unification]

Unsupported claim: "One could never come to know the invisible by being obsessed and biased only with the material and physical."

That too is and unsupported claim, who's to say there is anything there to communicate with?

Another unsupported claim, there is no data to support the idea that science is obsessed and biased or that the "invisible" as you describe it exists.

Word salad, much noise saying nothing. There is no data to support a "potential for the consciousness of God" not to mention it gaining form so the entire paragraph is without any utility.

More Word salad, more noise saying nothing, that even if it is stipulated to bears no relationship to gods or pinnacles, products or consciousness.

And we are back to unsupported claims.

BTW: the mouse is not "breathing" water but rather perfluorocarbon and it did not survive the transition back to air.

That's semantic claptrap that just wastes bandwidth and time.

and ... I yam what I yam 'cause I yam what I yam, I'm Popeye the Sailorman ... toot, toot!
... and the reason is? I was unaware that "consciousness" took the form of matter or energy and thus was covered by the laws of thermodynamics.

No! There is not deductive logic, only a poorly thought out attempt at analogizing. Bodies die, the brain decays, there is nothing left save organic molecules that can (as Shakespeare put it) "... go of progress through the guts of a beggar."

The logic does not connect, you die, you rot ... end of story.
Finally ... a sensible statement.

Things in nature do not "repeat" and there is no evidence for a binary change in grade with
consciousness on one side and "something else" on the other. That is an outmoded, unsupported concept based on the discredited and discarded Aristotelian "ladder of life."

One is not trying to make contact with a stone,
One is trying to make contact with another brain just as we
are all conscious/aware persons, carrying out our own desires and
acting them out through physical bodies with results that impact others.

In the same way other conscious/aware persons carry out their own desires
through physical bodies with results that impact on us.

Because an accepted scientific theory is not known or in affect or seen physically, it does not mean that a correlation between consciousness and our physical material world does not indeed exist in some way, shape or form. It's impossible to have laws of quantum science without consciousness, and most importantly because anyone doing anything has to be conscious in the first place.

Hypothetically, if it's the physical brain that makes the human aware and alive... Then it's creator, albeit the universe, nature, God ...must be a larger physical brain that is aware and alive.

The similarities to the human brain and the cosmos are abundant. If there is no connection between the brain and the universe, that would be one thing, but if they are the same then there is no reason we cannot make contact. Already experienced.

One is either curious for knowledge or genuinely cares for the future of man/mindkind. Either way, the only thing can change mankind would happen internally and spiritually, not physically. Religion makes this mistake, as well as much of science, and most of the world, material and physical. Same delusion of culprits. The physical.

We don't sustain the universe's life. The universe sustains ours.

Either way, whether it's higher intelligence, universe, nature... We conform to its rules, and our freewill is very limited.

We are creators ourselves carrying out creation through our consciousness, intelligence, brains, and minds. We collectively create, through the bodies we were given, and not chosen ourselves.

The body one resides in isn't their own, the knowledge and ability of one isn't their own doing, and being conscious wasn't ones own doing.
Such is true: yar what yar and not by choice or ones own selection.

"You die, you rot... End of story".... Most unsubstantiated claim of all. You've never experienced death, or rotting or an end of story.

Sure, consciousness repeats. That which was, is, and is to come. Life.