Is Evolution Conscious (Some amazing points about evolution)

[Robert.Evans]

One wonders why your god would do that to children...
That is your claim, is it not, that god did it, right?

No. It is more likely to be your God than mine.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I believe he thinks of it more as an amoral intrinsic intelligence to the Universe, including the process of evolution.

Bob, there are different kinds of mutations, producing different kinds of allele (versions of a gene). Loss-of-function, gain-of-function. There's a scale of recessiveness and dominance, and you get codominance and corecessiveness, and then there's polygenic traits.

Anybody here know about the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium?

It's essentially a mathematical proof of evolution.

Well for 19 you certainly know your onions

I like the first line.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Because the mutation for longer legs had to have already existed. And its possible that some of the offspring had short legs. However they would have been systematically removed. It is a percetange game after that. If I have 10 kids and if five of them inherit a "long leg trait" and five do not then the five that did inherit it would be more likely to survive. So maybe all five or 3 or 4 of them would survive to pass on that long leg gene while the other five die off or only one survives. The total number of animals with the long vs short leg gene would shift till the short leg gene is removed totally.

So we are saying that the long and short legs already existed and the short died out as they were easy prey.
Now, that means that both have to exist-- and intermediates no doubt as well. The long and short legs come about through mutations in the DNA, okay? All that really happens then is that those not suitably adapted, die. This means that most of the work is done in the mutations, and NOT in natural selection (which always seems to get the credit). As you said yourself, the long legs already existed. NS cannot act on something that is not there. So, to me, it appears that ninety percent of evolution is about mutations. All NS does it clear up the mess afterwards.

That means it is leaning so much on the crutch of luck its a wonder it doesn't break. Do you not see that?

 

[Kirran]

Well for 19 you certainly know your onions

I like the first line.

Well, thank you.

As for mutations: it can't lead to an increase in fitness, but it provides the raw material. There are more mechanisms than these two (mutation and natural selection).

 

[McBell]

No. It is more likely to be your God than mine.

Nice try, but I claim no deity.
Your sad attempts to assign one to me merely reveals your desperation.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Nice try, but I claim no deity.
Your sad attempts to assign one to me merely reveals your desperation.

haha.. okay.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So we are saying that the long and short legs already existed and the short died out as they were easy prey.
Now, that means that both have to exist-- and intermediates no doubt as well. The long and short legs come about through mutations in the DNA, okay? All that really happens then is that those not suitably adapted, die. This means that most of the work is done in the mutations, and NOT in natural selection (which always seems to get the credit). As you said yourself, the long legs already existed. NS cannot act on something that is not there. So, to me, it appears that ninety percent of evolution is about mutations. All NS does it clear up the mess afterwards.

That means it is leaning so much on the crutch of luck its a wonder it doesn't break. Do you not see that?

I don't know who told you that it was natural selection that caused the mutations. But that is wrong. There are mutations and those mutations are either successful or unsuccessful. There will always be successful and unsuccessful traits no matter what they are. It is only the ones that make it that pass it on. So the mutations, which are constant and fairly regular in changes to populations, are regulated by natural selection. There is some degree of luck but it is inevitable luck. Out of billions of mutations which one is the best in the environment at any given time? That is the luck behind it. But there WILL BE a best mutation to be passed on.

But back on luck. Yes. It is luck that we turned out the way we are. The process itself would still exist and produce something else had it not produced us. Until there is a mass extinction that wipes out all life it will continue to evolve in one way or another.

 

[McBell]

haha.. okay.

That reply was not actually for you.
You are impervious to truth and facts.

That reply was for the lurkers.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't know who told you that it was natural selection that caused the mutations. But that is wrong.

Didn't say that, and didn't mean it. What I meant is, when someone says evolution is luck, someone else will say it is not luck because of NS. But NS can do nothing without the mutations in the first place, which seemt to be remarkably brilliant over time. I find that somewhat contrived. I don't see how it would end up with such incredible life forms as we have today.

There are mutations and those mutations are either successful or unsuccessful. There will always be successful and unsuccessful traits no matter what they are. It is only the ones that make it that pass it on. So the mutations, which are constant and fairly regular in changes to populations, are regulated by natural selection. There is some degree of luck but it is inevitable luck. Out of billions of mutations which one is the best in the environment at any given time? That is the luck behind it. But there WILL BE a best mutation to be passed on.

To further this, it has to be taken by faith that the mutations will be random, and also by faith that there will be some that are not only beneficial, but are extordinarliy beneficial. You only have to look at the balance in the human body.

But back on luck. Yes. It is luck that we turned out the way we are. The process itself would still exist and produce something else had it not produced us. Until there is a mass extinction that wipes out all life it will continue to evolve in one way or another.

Some do say that if it had not been us it would have been something else. i don't believe that. There are only so many 'tools' to play with; so the outcome has to be what we see.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Didn't say that, and didn't mean it. What I meant is, when someone says evolution is luck, someone else will say it is not luck because of NS. But NS can do nothing without the mutations in the first place, which seemt to be remarkably brilliant over time. I find that somewhat contrived. I don't see how it would end up with such incredible life forms as we have today.

And why not? The vast majority of mutations failed. Only a fraction of a fraction of a decimal of a fraction of mutations stay within the gene pool to be passed on. They aren't brilliant. If you were to simply throw a basketball at random angles around a room until you made a basket you will eventually make the basket.

To further this, it has to be taken by faith that the mutations will be random, and also by faith that there will be some that are not only beneficial, but are extordinarliy beneficial. You only have to look at the balance in the human body.

We have to take it on faith that mutations are "random"? Or that they exist? Because I think it would be an extraordinary leap of faith to conclude that they are not random. Lets go back to the basketball analogy. If it was guided we would see similar mutations all the time. Instead we see random mutations at statistical intervals that usually mean nothing or are detrimental. If it is guided then they need to turn in their keys because they are drunk.

So we are left with it either being random or we have a really really really really really random or incompetent designer.

Some do say that if it had not been us it would have been something else. i don't believe that. There are only so many 'tools' to play with; so the outcome has to be what we see.

This is both true and false. There are limits to what kind of life can arise. We will probably never be made of rocks or be able to shoot lightning or levitate. But the amazing diversity of life has existed for millions and millions of years on this planet. Only the tiniest microscopic bit of time have humans existed. So why would you ever conclude that it couldn't exist without us?

 

[jtartar]

Hello,
I can think of a few things about evolution, but I believe that all the wonderful things you have mentioned, comes, not from evolution, but from an super wise, and loving Creator.
Even though, evolution is the present belief, there is actually No evidence that it has ever happened, if you are speaking about one species evolving to a higher species. There is much evidence that it has never happened.
Look up the term Homoplasy, and think how absurd this concept is. And why is it that we still have both the lower and the higher species? Why, after they evolved do we still have both species? Science knows there is no such thing as Successional Speciation.
The real truth is, it is impossible for any animal or plant to evolve to a higher form, because of something the Creator put within all living things; Prestabolism, any living thing must only reproduce after it's own kind. This truth is mentioned several times in the first book of the Bible, Gen 1:11,12,21,24,25. This makes evolution, to a higher Kind, impossible, and any freaks that are born cannot reproduce. Even animals that are close to the border cannot reproduce, as the Mule. Science has tried every way possible to make a living thing evolve, both Invivo and Invitro, and found it impossible.
When scientist use introgression, where genes are introduced into other kinds these cannot reproduce, and the process must be repeated with every crop. Our wise Creator ment for every kind to reproduce after it's kind!!!
Just think about the problems mankind would experience, if he was not sure what would come up when he put seeds in the ground. We know that when we plant wheat, wheat comes up, when you mate animals the same kind always is born.
That is the way God made things, for our own good!!

 

[jtartar]

Hello,
I can think of a few things about evolution, but I believe that all the wonderful things you have mentioned, comes, not from evolution, but from an super wise, and loving Creator.
Even though, evolution is the present belief, there is actually No evidence that it has ever happened, if you are speaking about one species evolving to a higher species. There is much evidence that it has never happened.
Look up the term Homoplasy, and think how absurd this concept is. And why is it that we still have both the lower and the higher species? Why, after they evolved do we still have both species? Science knows there is no such thing as Successional Speciation.
The real truth is, it is impossible for any animal or plant to evolve to a higher form, because of something the Creator put within all living things; Prestabolism, any living thing must only reproduce after it's own kind. This truth is mentioned several times in the first book of the Bible, Gen 1:11,12,21,24,25. This makes evolution, to a higher Kind, impossible, and any freaks that are born cannot reproduce. Even animals that are close to the border cannot reproduce, as the Mule. Science has tried every way possible to make a living thing evolve, both Invivo and Invitro, and found it impossible.
When scientist use introgression, where genes are introduced into other kinds these cannot reproduce, and the process must be repeated with every crop. Our wise Creator ment for every kind to reproduce after it's kind!!!
Just think about the problems mankind would experience, if he was not sure what would come up when he put seeds in the ground. We know that when we plant wheat, wheat comes up, when you mate animals the same kind always is born.
That is the way God made things, for our own good!!

 

[Kirran]

I would like to point out that I have literally, 100% observed evolution occur in bacteria. Like, I've actually seen E. coli develop antibiotic resistance through mutation, and then survive due to natural selection.

Also, I have personally conducted genetic modification of organisms on several occasions, and can testify that organisms can continue to reproduce when foreign genetic material has been integrated into their genome.

But to be honest, the truth of evolution is irrelevant - assuming it's true is still a massively useful tool to help people.