How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[Valjean]

She would?

Sure, try it yourself with the cladogram in post #1281. Trace the human back to the ancestral tetrapod. Do you find a bird, whale, or lizard?

 

[Valjean]

The idea of one LUCA for all life on earth to have emerged (evolved) from then mutations or whatever borders on the fantastical. That's how I look at it now the more I examine what science says about evolution.

Then you're either not understanding the science or not examining the right information. Those actually familiar with the information believe in evolution and LUCA.
If you want fantastical, how about the belief that plants and animals just pop into being periodically, from nothing, by magic. Where's your evidence for that?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genom(a cell) and around 30-40 trillion cells in a human each specialized for a specific function.

There are approximately 86 billions of neurons in the brain.

The eye has a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optical nerve, macula, fovea, Aqueous Humor, Vitreous Humor, Ciliary Muscles, sclera, Choroid and Conjunctiva to name a few. The eye can distinguish between 10 million colours.

The human gut is home to trillions of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiome.

These are just a few incredible facts about the human body there are hundreds more.

This doesn't even touch on the origins of the first cell, first DNA, first multi cell etc etc

How can you expect anybody to believe that it was random mutations that ultimately created all of this, the complexity is ridiculous and there's no way all these complex organisms could have evolved to work together in harmony as they do?

I think we need to stay tuned, as new information on this topic is coming in every day. Just yesterday I was reading an article of how mathematicians are calculating how many random numbers you have to have before patterns begin showing up. I even read that some scientists are proposing a new Law of Nature to explain how the universe seems to evolve to more complicated forms, not just with life, but with all systems.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The idea of one LUCA for all life on earth to have emerged (evolved) from then mutations or whatever borders on the fantastical. That's how I look at it now the more I examine what science says about evolution.

Your silly argument from incredulity / awe is noted.


Also amazing how logical, observable and demonstrable natural processes like evolution are considered "fantastical", but magical fruit in magical gardens with talking snakes and humans fashioned from clay (or whatever) is considered not only plausible but even true.

 

[Maninthemiddle]

It's important to recognize that the complexity seen in biological systems does not arise instantaneously, but through the accumulation and retention of small changes over profound expanses of time. While the ultimate origins of all biological complexity are still being studied and researched, evolutionary theory provides an empirically supported framework for understanding the development of life's complexity.

 

[Eli G]

It's important to recognize that the complexity seen in biological systems does not arise instantaneously, but through the accumulation and retention of small changes over profound expanses of time. While the ultimate origins of all biological complexity are still being studied and researched, evolutionary theory provides an empirically supported framework for understanding the development of life's complexity.

What we humans observe around us is based on so many billions of billions of billions of details that during the time of the entire universe's existence they could not have produced themselves.

I am not going to do any calculations, it is so obvious that it is not even necessary. Demanding a calculation of how long an autonomous universe would need to generate by itself everything we observe today is just an excuse for not accepting the obvious: that is absolutely impossible.

The fossil record does not even support the theory of slow change. There is no evidence at all that such changes happened. Think for example of how many systems any living organism has, even the simplest cell. Just imagine how something comes into existence without having already completed the existence of everything that it requires for it to be produced. For example: what needs to come into existence first to have a simple loaf of bread.

Can you make a loaf of bread without having got flour? Can you have flour if someone doesn't grind the grain? Can there be grain if plants don't produce fruit? Can a plant produce fruit without having sprouted from a seed? Can there be a seed without a previous plant? Can a plant grow without water or soil? Can there be water if it doesn't rain? Can there be rain if there are no oceans? Can a grain plant be planted in the sea?

The simple fact that humans take for granted that there are plants and water and thousands of other things that are already complete in themselves makes people forget that each of these things could not have existed without others that kept them in existence. Imagine how long it would take for everything that exists to come to have everything that resulted in its existence. There is not enough time in the universe for that. There must have been something else, like direction, control, intelligence. Do you really need a calculation to understand that?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What we humans observe around us is based on so many billions of billions of billions of details that during the time of the entire universe's existence they could not have produced themselves.

I am not going to do any calculations, it is so obvious that it is not even necessary.

But while it may be "obvious" to you, it is certainly not "obvious" to many others.

What you are describing here is a human instinct to find patterns and agency. It is a quality that has greatly benefited our species. However, sometimes it leads us to find patterns when none are there, and to see agency when none exists.

I remember the first (perceived patterns that don't exist) being illustrated to me in one of my graduate courses. The Professor had a bag, and pulled out a yellow ball. Then she pulled out another yellow ball. Then she pulled out yet another yellow ball. She asked us, What will come out next? We all said, A yellow ball. She then pulled out a blue cube.

Imagine you are out in the woods at night, and you hear a rustling in the bushes. Your heart starts racing. All you can think is that there is some kind of wild animal in the bushes that will attack you. So you run away. If in fact you are correct, running away saved you harm and perhaps even saved your life. But let's say that you were wrong, and that it was simply the wind rustling the leaves, or simply a tiny creature that is way more scared you. If you run away, it really accomplishes nothing, but on the other hand, it doesn't hurt you. Now let's say you hear that rusting in the bushes and even though you are scared, you tell yourself, "It's not really wild animal, it's just the wind." So you don't run. Then it turns out it WAS a wild animal. You would now be it's lunch. What this means is that assigning agency to the rustling is MOST OFTEN WRONG, but that we are better off making that mistake.

Like you, when I look at the awe of nature, whether it is the unfathomable immensity of space, the miracle of a baby's birth, or the astounding intricacies of a single cell, everything in my being shouts, "God!" And so I go with that. When someone asks me, Do you believe in God? I say yes without hesitation. But in the back of my mind, I retain the knowledge that this may simply be my instinct assigning agency when none exists.

 

[Eli G]

Check this article about the ability of cells to specialize

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/

How much time do you think it could take to all kind of cells to "learn" how to do that?

PD: Don't hesitate on reading/watching the articles and videos down there, in the series WAS IT DESIGNED? ... and get the point.

 

[Pogo]

Check this article about the ability of cells to specialize

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/

How much time do you think it could take to all kind of cells to "learn" how to do that?

PD: Don't hesitate on reading/watching the articles and videos down there, in the series WAS IT DESIGNED? ... and get the point.

Yes we know you have your propaganda that sounds good to you, the actual study of biology says otherwise.
Again you can start here.

Evolution 101

evolution.berkeley.edu

 

[Astrophile]

There truly is nothing beyond conjecture to conclude that DNA similarities mean evolution.

So what do DNA similarities mean?

 

[McBell]

So what do DNA similarities mean?

um...
Lazy creator?

 

[Pogo]

um...
Lazy creator?

Worse, he plagiarized and just fiddled some unimportant bits to see if he could get past the proctors.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What we humans observe around us is based on so many billions of billions of billions of details that during the time of the entire universe's existence they could not have produced themselves.

That's a claim which requires evidence.
Good luck with that.

I am not going to do any calculations, it is so obvious that it is not even necessary.

Obviously it is not obvious because then the smartest people around (you know, scientists) would be in agreement with you.
And also, off course, if it is so obvious, as you say, then it should be extra easy to demonstrate it.

So why don't you?

Demanding a calculation of how long an autonomous universe would need to generate by itself everything we observe today is just an excuse for not accepting the obvious: that is absolutely impossible.

So you keep claiming.

I'll bet everything that I own that your supposed mysterious "calculation" will ignore plenty of things, if not everything, we know about physics, chemistry and biology.


It rather sounds that all you have is nothing more then an argument from ignorance / incredulity.

The fossil record does not even support the theory of slow change.

That's obviously false as there are plenty of fossil series spanning millions of years showing the development of certain species.
Like whales, horses, humans, etc.

Think for example of how many systems any living organism has, even the simplest cell. Just imagine how something comes into existence without having already completed the existence of everything that it requires for it to be produced.

Another argument from incredulity / complexity / awe.

ie: "my evidence against evolution, is that I don't believe it".

For example: what needs to come into existence first to have a simple loaf of bread.

Can you make a loaf of bread without having got flour? Can you have flour if someone doesn't grind the grain? Can there be grain if plants don't produce fruit? Can a plant produce fruit without having sprouted from a seed? Can there be a seed without a previous plant? Can a plant grow without water or soil? Can there be water if it doesn't rain? Can there be rain if there are no oceans? Can a grain plant be planted in the sea?

Do you have a point to make?

The simple fact that humans take for granted that there are plants and water and thousands of other things that are already complete in themselves makes people forget that each of these things could not have existed without others that kept them in existence. Imagine how long it would take for everything that exists to come to have everything that resulted in its existence.

Well, the universe had 13.7 billion years. Plenty of enough time to produce all the heavier elements in the core of stars and during supernovae.
The earth itself has had 4.5 billion years. Plenty of enough time to have all the various species alive today to evolve. In fact, 99% of all species that ever lived are extinct today.

There is not enough time in the universe for that.

Sure there is.

There must have been something else, like direction, control, intelligence.

Why?

Do you really need a calculation to understand that?

I need evidence to support that. Your arguments from awe / complexity / incredulity / ignorance are not convincing.
Scientific explanations have plenty of evidence. You have fallacies.