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

[Valjean]

Since there is no proof of the theory, it does not have to be correct. Except in the minds of believers. And there is no proof. That is correct.

If you require proof you'll never believe anything!
There is no "proof" the Earth circles the Sun, or that germs cause disease, but we believe it because there is overwhelming evidence.
There is overwhelming evidence for evolution, from multiple disciplines. There is so much evidence that it would be foolish not to believe it.

 

[Valjean]

Oh, and one more thing to @Sargonski -- gorillas and monkeys, etc., mankind's closest genetic relatives insofar as I understand, have not invented microscopes and do not concern themselves with figuring out their origins. In other words, there is a vast difference in cognition (mental attitude) between humans and gorillas. Or bonobos.

So what's your point, that humans, gorillas and chimps have different skillsets? Well of course they do, they're different species. ...That human abilities are superior to those of other apes'? Are you judging humans the paragon of animals because you value our skills over those of other animals? Couldn't any animal judge its race superior because it values the skills it happens to own?

Well, of course, I can't use the word proof, anyway there is none. Meaning there is no absolute incremental evidence showing the theory to be true. One might interpret fossils to fit into the theory, but this does not mean evolution is true. Bird beaks changing size does not mean that these birds are evolving to be anything more than birds. Furthermore, there is nothing to show that fish today are evolving in any form to become a different type of animal, such as becoming land dwellers, is there?

What about the many fish that can walk or migrate considerable distances over land to find new habitat" What about the lungfishes, that can breathe air and survive years long droughts? What about the mudskippers, that spend more time out of the water than in?
The development of the anatomic features that enabled certain fish to begin venturing onto land are well documented in the fossil record, but it didn't happen overnight, as you seem to demand.

The changes are slow, useful ones are selected, and accumulate, but you can't sit and watch it happen. You have to be able to extrapolate an observed process into the future.

 

[Valjean]

So that means there was a vast difference in cognition (mental attitude) between humans of today and humans of 2,000 years ago because the microscope was invented about 1590.

Hominins lived for millions of years at a level of technology little different from that of today's chimps.
Did we suddenly morph into a new species? What were we before?

 

[Valjean]

You are mistaken if you think that science has shown that there is no need for a designer or no evidence for a designer. These come from faith and not from science or lack of evidence.

Evidence of need comes from unevidenced belief??? How does that work?
Can you give an example of a need for divine manipulation?

I was not talking about whether evolution happened or not.
If somebody says "I don't see how evolution could have happened without a designer", it is no more a fallacy of incredulity than somebody else who says "Evolution happened without a designer because I find it hard to believe in a designer".

But nobody need say that. I'd say evolution happened because we have mountains of objective evidence and real-time observations supporting it.
Remember, science is not like religion. It's not faith based.

Well what you really mean is that you don't see how that is possible. But if I can do it, then it is possible.

Huh? How what is possible? Evolution? -- the mechanisms are well known. Magic poofing? -- No evidence, no mechanism, no need.
"If I can do it, then it is possible?" -- do what? Poof a man out of clay? You can do that?

 

[blü 2]

I'm not qualified to discuss so I'll believe you.

Grammatically, it's identical to Who says?

 

[ChristineM]

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

Why not to mention another, one has ignored, please, right??

Regards

Such as?

I'd be pleased to hear your idea

Right?

 

[Audie]

I have always heard that mutations are random.

It is.
Think of dice. What numbers come up is random.
But what comes up determines the winner.

 

[shunyadragon]

A complete falsehood on your part .. I gave you an example a natural event which impacted a the natural process of evolution .. contrary to your insulting falsehood in my name .. tsk tsk on you .. for crying boo hoo .. when it is all You .. who is doing what you accuse others of doing .. needing to heed the words of Jesus .. and take log out of own eye.

Now .. you say you do not believe in Intelligent design but if you don't agree that 1) mutations are driven by a number of forces .. some static .. some random) .. then what is the driving force for evolution .. The Invisible Hand ?

You do not deserve any other response considering your failure to respond coherently and began with insults,

It went down hill when you could not distinguish between a natural event and a natural process.

 

[shunyadragon]

SunnyD .. the hair thing was a joke .. Did you miss the part about aliens teaching humans about clothes ?

and good you do not believe in Intelligent design but if you don't agree that 1) mutations are driven by a number of forces .. some static .. some random) .. then what is the driving force for evolution .. The Invisible Hand ?

You do not deserve any other response considering your failure to respond coherently and began with insults,

The primary unresolvable disagreement is randomness in nature, and not the forces involved in evolution, I provided many references and can provide more that the contemporary view in science, as references is the underlying variation of outcomes of cause and effect events is defined as fractal NOT random.

It went down hill when you could not distinguish between a natural event and a natural process.

 

[shunyadragon]

SunnyD .. the hair thing was a joke .. Did you miss the part about aliens teaching humans about clothes ?

and good you do not believe in Intelligent design but if you don't agree that 1) mutations are driven by a number of forces .. some static .. some random) .. then what is the driving force for evolution .. The Invisible Hand ?

To add: Yes there are Natural forces involved, but no nothing fundamentally random involved. You are clouding the issue. The environment is driving force in evolution. Yes there ar emany sources involved with the cause of the changes and cyclic nature of the environment over time

 

[wellwisher]

Silicone can contain CHR groups but does not always, whether this changes its status I don't know.

That is true and may be expressed as aan organo-silicone polymer or a silicone polymer with organic side groups.

The term VOC of volatile organic carbon, restricts itself to organic materials that evaporate into the air; volatile. This would not include coal or limestone; carbonates, since these are solid. It is more about additives such as solvents, although technically, the smell of freshly baked bread is a range of VOC's. That is a good and enjoyable VOC. Perfumes are VOC's and they do more good than bad.

The confusion has to do with word games and redefining words and terms like organic and VOC, to target someone or something. The restaurant cooking the garlic, onions and peppers in olive oil, although releasing volatile organic carbon compounds, gets a pass since they are only after big oil and its related industries; oil and chemicals from oil.

Organic Chemistry, which was my favorite subject in college, is about carbon containing compounds, from solvents like methyl ethyl ketone; MEK, and dimethylformamide; DMF, to organic template materials like DNA. It was about all the various chemicals and reactions needed to make the wide spectrum of carbon products. But the term organic was hijacked and narrowed to mean just natural products, which is only a few chapters in any inclusive Organic Chemistry Book. You can find specialist books that treat this one category; biochemistry.

Physical Chemistry was the original Physics of matter, and is the most inclusive, going beyond just carbon based compounds to discussions of the physics of all chemicals including life. This is the hardest area of Chemistry. I was often behind due to over sleeping this 8AM class, but I could ace the finals. My acing the O-Chem and the P-Chem finals, as an Engineer, and is how I got the recommendation into Grad school, and a nomination into the Chemical Honor Society as a Junior.

My water and hydrogen bonding model for life, to address evolution, is based on the physical bio-organic chemistry of organics, water and hydrogen bonding. I use water as the integrating variable, since it touches everything and is also self binding as liquid water; stable matrix for life. There as 50 times as many water molecules as all the organic molecules combined. This allows a way for the sheer complexity of life and evolution to have a sense of direction, instituted by the water. The DNA double helix is due to water.

The properties of Polymers, which are organic macromolecules, are based on their second bonding forces. Picture a bunch of worms with sticky outer surfaces, lightly connected but wiggling. In the case of liquid water and life, the strongest secondary bonding forces are hydrogen bonding which is dominated by the water. Each water molecule can form up to 4 hydrogen bonds.

Due to the free energy needs of this hydrogen bonding of water; physical chemistry, the rest of the organic have to find their place in the aqueous grid and assume their proper 3-D shapes, that minimize the potential of the secondary bonding of the water. As life evolves, the global water and hydrogen bonding constraint changes via the secondary bonding. However, the molecular of water does not change, but is the same as a billion year ago. Based on the 2nd law of increasing complexity, the organics have all the potential for change, at the primary bonding level, and as complexity increases; evolution is directed by the unchanging primary bonding state of water, which allows for hydrogen bonding.

Hydrogen bonding within water is like a binary switch than can flip between two stable states; polar and covalent, The hydrogen bond does not break but rather flips between the two states, which changes the parameters of the hydrogen bonding. As life evolves, the water feels this, so switches are flipped, but this has no effect on the primary state of water or on the number of hydrogen bonds. However, it does impact the free energy within the still dominate aqueous grid. This moving line; flip switches, become the new goal for the organics; evolution.

The confusion is created by the statistical assumptions in a black box, which make evolution seem impossible, due to more wrong than right happening if we assume random. A small genetic change if progressive may be a subtle positive. But if the genetic change is negative, it can be life threatening. But with water a stable primary bonding bookend, due to its long term chemical stability, and its hydrogen bonding king of the secondary bonding forces within life, no matter the switch settings there is only way to go; evolve the organic toward the endgames of water and the organic influence on its switches; consciousness.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are mistaken if you think that science has shown that there is no need for a designer or no evidence for a designer.

Agreed. What science has shown is that the world was able to unfold from a primal seed into filaments of galaxies of solar systems comprising the periodic table of elements that functions daily without apparent intelligent supervision and that on one such planet life and mind exist and evolve also without apparent intelligent oversight. Science has generated a host of theories, laws, and facts none of which require a god and none of which are improved by adding a god.

As you say, that doesn't rules gods out, but it does make the question of their existence or nonexistence moot, since having the answer to that question would change nothing. Suppose a god created and designed that initial seed rather than unconscious nature (that describes the deist god). If so, OK and thanks.

Nothing has been found or discovered that demonstrates the process of evolution said to be that caused water dwelling fish to move up to land. Absolutely nothing.

Many discoveries support that contention which collectively confirm that the theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt. Your doubt is based in unreason. It's not necessary that you understand or agree.

I think you are making outstanding claims that you do not back up.

Every claim you post can be described that way. You cannot support your theistic worldview or your trust in the Bible.

Look at the previous quoted sentence beginning with "Nothing has been found...". It is demonstrably incorrect, yet you keep asserting similar things about evidence being nonexistent when it is not. You cannot support that, either. Others have seen and understood that evidence even if you haven't.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is true and may be expressed as aan organo-silicone polymer or a silicone polymer with organic side groups.

The term VOC of volatile organic carbon, restricts itself to organic materials that evaporate into the air; volatile. This would not include coal or limestone; carbonates, since these are solid. It is more about additives such as solvents, although technically, the smell of freshly baked bread is a range of VOC's. That is a good and enjoyable VOC. Perfumes are VOC's and they do more good than bad.

The confusion has to do with word games and redefining words and terms like organic and VOC, to target someone or something. The restaurant cooking the garlic, onions and peppers in olive oil, although releasing volatile organic carbon compounds, gets a pass since they are only after big oil and its related industries; oil and chemicals from oil.

Organic Chemistry, which was my favorite subject in college, is about carbon containing compounds, from solvents like methyl ethyl ketone; MEK, and dimethylformamide; DMF, to organic template materials like DNA. It was about all the various chemicals and reactions needed to make the wide spectrum of carbon products. But the term organic was hijacked and narrowed to mean just natural products, which is only a few chapters in any inclusive Organic Chemistry Book. You can find specialist books that treat this one category; biochemistry.

Physical Chemistry was the original Physics of matter, and is the most inclusive, going beyond just carbon based compounds to discussions of the physics of all chemicals including life. This is the hardest area of Chemistry. I was often behind due to over sleeping this 8AM class, but I could ace the finals. My acing the O-Chem and the P-Chem finals, as an Engineer, and is how I got the recommendation into Grad school, and a nomination into the Chemical Honor Society as a Junior.

My water and hydrogen bonding model for life, to address evolution, is based on the physical bio-organic chemistry of organics, water and hydrogen bonding. I use water as the integrating variable, since it touches everything and is also self binding as liquid water; stable matrix for life. There as 50 times as many water molecules as all the organic molecules combined. This allows a way for the sheer complexity of life and evolution to have a sense of direction, instituted by the water. The DNA double helix is due to water.

The properties of Polymers, which are organic macromolecules, are based on their second bonding forces. Picture a bunch of worms with sticky outer surfaces, lightly connected but wiggling. In the case of liquid water and life, the strongest secondary bonding forces are hydrogen bonding which is dominated by the water. Each water molecule can form up to 4 hydrogen bonds.

Due to the free energy needs of this hydrogen bonding of water; physical chemistry, the rest of the organic have to find their place in the aqueous grid and assume their proper 3-D shapes, that minimize the potential of the secondary bonding of the water. As life evolves, the global water and hydrogen bonding constraint changes via the secondary bonding. However, the molecular of water does not change, but is the same as a billion year ago. Based on the 2nd law of increasing complexity, the organics have all the potential for change, at the primary bonding level, and as complexity increases; evolution is directed by the unchanging primary bonding state of water, which allows for hydrogen bonding.

Hydrogen bonding within water is like a binary switch than can flip between two stable states; polar and covalent, The hydrogen bond does not break but rather flips between the two states, which changes the parameters of the hydrogen bonding. As life evolves, the water feels this, so switches are flipped, but this has no effect on the primary state of water or on the number of hydrogen bonds. However, it does impact the free energy within the still dominate aqueous grid. This moving line; flip switches, become the new goal for the organics; evolution.

The confusion is created by the statistical assumptions in a black box, which make evolution seem impossible, due to more wrong than right happening if we assume random. A small genetic change if progressive may be a subtle positive. But if the genetic change is negative, it can be life threatening. But with water a stable primary bonding bookend, due to its long term chemical stability, and its hydrogen bonding king of the secondary bonding forces within life, no matter the switch settings there is only way to go; evolve the organic toward the endgames of water and the organic influence on its switches; consciousness.

This still reflects a religious agenda with assumptions that are totally false. First, the ID advocates assume random in nature in their false argument, but in reality nature is NOT fundamentally random. ALL outcomes of cause and effect events have a limited range of possible outcomes limited by Natural Laws and processes. This can be explained in math as fractal and NOT random.

Yes ID advocates create word games and worse misrepresenting and misusing science and math.

The ID advocates dishonestly misuse probability assume nature is a series of random, which is unbelievably false.

 

[BrendanG]

I thought of a simple example that can explain the complexity of life via evolution.

Suppose you had 100 dice, and you wanted all 100 to roll a 6. If you wanted all 100 to roll a 6 at the same time, then you have a (1/6)^100 = 1.53*10^-78 chance. That is about 1 out of 6.53*10^77. So, not very likely.

Evolution doesn't work that way though. Evolution isn't a bunch of dirt flying around in a tornado that just so happens to create a person. It is one tiny coincidence after another that accumulate. If an organism has a tiny mutation that makes it better at surviving (like maybe a bird with a longer beak), then that mutation spreads, and then the next mutation acts on top of that mutation. They add up.

That would be like if you wanted 100 sixes, but didn't care if you rolled them all at the same time. On average, you'd need to roll about 600 times to get 100 sixes. 600 is much much smaller than 6.53*10^77.

That is why evolution takes time.

I've often seen a refrain like, "I've never seen a dog give birth to a chicken." If that happened naturally, that would actually disprove evolution by natural selection. Evolution doesn't work unless the children are nearly identical to the parents.

Microscopic organisms can reproduce very quickly. If our single-celled ancestors could reproduce about once a day (which might actually be conservative), and if they reproduced for 4 billion years, then that makes over a trillion generations. You can get a lot of accumulated coincidences after a trillion generations, especially if there are trillions of organisms each generation rolling their own dice.

Scientists still don't have a complete picture of how life got started, but the complexity of life alone is not sufficient to prove that life could not have occurred naturally.

 

[SkepticThinker]

the dna and fossils. that's what says it. Nothing to verify that humans, bonobos, chimps, evolved from some "Unknown Common Ancestor."

The DNA and fossil evidence indicates that every living thing on earth is related, in varying degrees.

What are you talking about??

 

[SkepticThinker]

You were making sense until your last paragraph. Which is too bad. Nothing has been found or discovered that demonstrates the process of evoliution said to be that caused water dwelling fish to move up to land. Absolutely nothing. No fossils show that -- even if scientists say they do, they don't, because water dwellers remain that, and there is no evidence that water dwellers evolved to become land dwellers.

You're utterly and absolutely wrong. And you've been shown how and why more times than I can count.
Why do you insist on repeating falsehoods?

 

[shunyadragon]

Once again -- there is nothing beyond conjecture in relation to the idea that fish merged out of water and eventually became virtual total land dwellers. Only dreamwork.

Ancient tribal religious agenda in full gear.

We are talking about science and not proof in math.

Your lack of knowledge of the basic English language concerning what is proof, is very apparent,

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, I could give you my ideas, but they are not necessary. Therefore, I'll just say g'nite.

"g'nite for the thousandth time.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

Why not to mention another, one has ignored, please, right??

Regards

Simply the overwhelming objective verifiable evidence that the sciences of evolution are beyond any reasonable doubt the best knowledge we have for the history of life and human ancestors.

 

[Sargonski]

No, we haven't. "We" have found fossils.

Walking fish cannot last long out of water and show no "growth," (evolution) in that they head on towards solely land dwelling animals. Scientists can study their genetic makeup, but that does not mean these fish in any way are in the process of evolving towards land dwellers who can live out of water entirely.

Spare me friend .. this is getting painful .. no one said a fish went directly from the water to land in once generation.. Please stop talking about something that is way outside your knowledge scope .. "As IF" this is not the case .. and end up building the most ridiculous of strawman fallacy which do nothing but demonstrate a big understanding deficiency .

The Fish does not go from water to land in one generation Brother TY .. please stop this horrible line of irrational reasoning.. from the only one I have seen so far .. other than yourself .. arguing for ID. K .. KK ? This is a "Objective Voice" .. who is "On your side" .. trying to tell you something .. and you are not listening..

OH -- and lest we not forget who is who .. ME - Chemist - Applied microbiological Specialist - Religious and Biblical archaological Enthusiast .. YOU -- Religious Enthusiast