On Evolution & Creation

[Valjean]

Reading about eyes, the info from scientists is quite interesting. Different organisms, different types of eyeballs. It's not making logical sense to me as if these organisms did better with these different types.

They don't necessarily 'do better'. Evolution's not about progress, it works more by "good enough."

 

[walt]

Where did you hear that there was ever a "complete" first human???

My own common sense tells me the first human was complete. because if it was not complete It would have not survive past the first day.

Does not common sense explain, the first of any species life, needs a brain, heart, lungs and everything else that makes that particular species alive.

For any species to remain alive for more than a few moments, that species requires it's vital organs, all at the same time, does it not?

 

[Valjean]

First, I try to relate to my own personal experiences, for fifty years I have never received assistance from a unintelligent source, with even one tiny step. Is it not reasonable to think that whatever happens in our own lives, is also what happens in other areas of life.

What's capable or not capable of happening In my own personal life, should cross over to what's capable or not capable In other situations, wouldn't that make sense?

Not really, no -- but I see your point.
This is a fallacy of composition. What's true for you, or in your experience, doesn't necessarily apply to the whole. You're extrapolating your own experience to apply to the whole.

We are a planning, tool-making species. In our modern, technological world we're surrounded with planned, purposeful, manufactured complexity. But not all complexity is planned or purposefully created, and not all function is purpose. There are well known, observable mechanisms by which functional complexity may occur all on its own, by natural, unplanned mechanisms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My own common sense tells me the first human was complete. because if it was not complete It would have not survive past the first day.

Does not common sense explain, the first of any species life, needs a brain, heart, lungs and everything else that makes that particular species alive.

For any species to remain alive for more than a few moments, that species requires it's vital organs, all at the same time, does it not?

Okay, you are in error since all organisms are "complete". Like many you appear to be thinking of man as a goal. Man is just a result. and there is no hard line between species in evolution (perhaps I should say almost never, because there are some events that apply to plants or other groups that could cause generational change, but we have no evidence of it). As we go back further and further in time we see human skulls getting more and more like the next species in the line of our evolution. There is no hard line to be found. In other words a Homo heidelbergensis never gave birth to a Homo sapiens. The boundaries are always fuzzy.

In fact if one had a time machine a Homo heidelbergensis would likely be able to breed with a modern human. The name changes are human a good percentage of the time. It reflects that the populations were different enough that we can fairly reliably say which species a fossil belongs to. But even that is not always the case. That is why some will argue that Homo ergaster is part of Homo erectus. The lines are not absolute.

 

[blü 2]

You're saying we humans do not have to witness the process of evolution but it is true nonetheless.

We humans have witnessed the process of evolution. You can find videos of experiments with bacteria on the net.

I'm surprised you haven't found them already.

 

[walt]

Okay, you are in error since all organisms are "complete". Like many you appear to be thinking of man as a goal. Man is just a result. and there is no hard line between species in evolution (perhaps I should say almost never, because there are some events that apply to plants or other groups that could cause generational change, but we have no evidence of it). As we go back further and further in time we see human skulls getting more and more like the next species in the line of our evolution. There is no hard line to be found. In other words a Homo heidelbergensis never gave birth to a Homo sapiens. The boundaries are always fuzzy.

View attachment 97696

In fact if one had a time machine a Homo heidelbergensis would likely be able to breed with a modern human. The name changes are human a good percentage of the time. It reflects that the populations were different enough that we can fairly reliably say which species a fossil belongs to. But even that is not always the case. That is why some will argue that Homo ergaster is part of Homo erectus. The lines are not absolute.

I have no knowledge on evolution at all, could you please explain how the first breathing living species survives its first hour?
How are lungs in the first mother of the first species formed in the evolutionary process?


A baby's lungs begin to form around 3–5 weeks into a pregnancy, a baby's lungs are usually fully formed by 36 weeks of pregnancy.

 

[John53]

First, I try to relate to my own personal experiences, for fifty years I have never received assistance from a unintelligent source, with even one tiny step. Is it not reasonable to think that whatever happens in our own lives, is also what happens in other areas of life.

What's capable or not capable of happening In my own personal life, should cross over to what's capable or not capable In other situations, wouldn't that make sense?

The breeze cooling me on a hot day. The sun warming me on a cold day. The rain watering my yard. There's 3 without really thinking about it, no intelligence required.

 

[walt]

A baby's lungs begin to form around 3–5 weeks into a pregnancy, a baby's lungs are usually fully formed by 36 weeks of pregnancy.

It takes many weeks for a baby's lungs to be fully formed, how does the first mother of the first species survive the first hour, when the mother's lungs will not be fully formed for many weeks?

I can understand how this process happens in the womb of its mother, but I cannot understand how this process happens for the first mother of the first species?

 

[John53]

A baby's lungs begin to form around 3–5 weeks into a pregnancy, a baby's lungs are usually fully formed by 36 weeks of pregnancy.

It takes many weeks for a baby's lungs to be fully formed, how does the first mother of the first species survive the first hour, when the mother's lungs will not be fully formed for many weeks?

Are you here for a discussion or some agenda?

 

[walt]

Are you here for a discussion or some agenda?

Please I am here trying to make sense of all this information.

 

[John53]

Please I am here trying to make sense of all this information.

It certainly doesn't seem that way as you rarely respond to those who take the time to answer. Did you bother reading the evolution 101 thread that was linked for you? If it's just going to be an endless stream of what you think are gotcha questions please let me know... I've seen it all before and don't need to see it again.

 

[YoursTrue]

First, I try to relate to my own personal experiences, for fifty years I have never received assistance from a unintelligent source, with even one tiny step. Is it not reasonable to think that whatever happens in our own lives, is also what happens in other areas of life.

What's capable or not capable of happening In my own personal life, should cross over to what's capable or not capable In other situations, wouldn't that make sense?

Speaking of which, I was walking on pavement today which was cracked and uneven. Then I thought about the engineers, why there were indentations in the pavement that could cause a person to stumble. Then I wondered why the engineers and people responsible for the upkeep in this commercial parking lot did not fix it or arrange for better materials. Either way, so-called intelligent people were entrusted to lay the concrete. Then I thought about beavers. They do not go to school to learn how to build their dams. They do it "naturally." (by instinct.)

 

[YoursTrue]

The stages, from a simple spot of light-sensitive tissue on a microbe, to the formation of a fairly complex mammalian eye like our own, can be examined, by those very eyes, in organisms alive today. No need for fossils or reconstructions or speculation about possibilities.

So I've been reading about light-sensitive tissue. Since you know more than I do about these things, would you say these types of organisms (microbes with light-sensitive tissue) are still alive and around today?

 

[YoursTrue]

OK, you feel it, but you don't understand it. There are known, observable mechanisms by which changes can accumulate and generate greater complexity.
A "fully developed person, with all its parts" -- or a fully developed anything -- did not pop into being ex nihilo. Our complex selves are a collection of small, selected changes, accumulated bit by bit, over æons of time. At no point was the mechanism dysfunctional or we would have become extinct.

I agree -- but your premise is factually incorrect.
Where did you hear that there was ever a "complete" first human???

I am not sure that was Walt's question as to a "complete first human" starting the human race. Maybe I'm wrong, but may I ask, since you mention a "fully developed" organism perhaps of sorts -- would you say a "fully developed" organism popped up from perhaps a soupy mass or perhaps flew in from outer space? I'm talking about the first living organism -- was it fully developed when it popped up, emerged, came about, or however you might call it?

 

[walt]

It certainly doesn't seem that way as you rarely respond to those who take the time to answer. Did you bother reading the evolution 101 thread that was linked for you? If it's just going to be an endless stream of what you think are gotcha questions please let me know... I've seen it all before and don't need to see it again.

I will read it in the next few days, on evolution 101 thread. Thanks for the link.

 

[YoursTrue]

They don't necessarily 'do better'. Evolution's not about progress, it works more by "good enough."

I realize that about evolution is not about progress. (or is it) But the concept is (isn't it?) that a beneficial mutation causes those continuing the mutation to function better in their environment. In other words, survival of the fittest, or has that idea been given up.

 

[YoursTrue]

I will read it in the next few days, on evolution 101 thread. Thanks for the link.

The problem I have found with Evolution 101 is that if I have questions about what it says (and I have looked at it), will those here recommending it be able to answer those questions...

 

[Valjean]

My own common sense tells me the first human was complete. because if it was not complete It would have not survive past the first day.

Does not common sense explain, the first of any species life, needs a brain, heart, lungs and everything else that makes that particular species alive.

For any species to remain alive for more than a few moments, that species requires it's vital organs, all at the same time, does it not?

But life isn't a succession of discrete species or types. Life's more a spectrum; a succession of small, usually unnoticeable changes, with no clear demarcation between species. Where the line gets drawn between an ancestral, ape species and the first "human" is pretty much arbitrary.

As has been mentioned, every organism in any line of succession was fully functional and complete, with all the parts and processes necessary to survive and reproduce in its particular environment.

Every species doesn't require all the myriad parts and processes you or your cat possess. Life began with simple, microscopic, unconscious, assemblages of atoms and molecular structures. Occasionally some would combine into amalgamations of parts, forming little structures. Some would self-replicate under certain conditions. Eventually self-replicating assemblages of 'parts' developed and, as changes or errors occurred with each replication, the dysfunctional changes were eliminated while the more functional variants "survived" to replicate again, passing on any "design" improvements to future replications/generations.
Proto-life, up to this point, has been observed as well as created in the lab, but the spontaneous formation of actual, metabolizing, fully reproductive cells has not yet been observed.

This first life did not need a brain, heart, or lungs to survive. They were simple, microscopic, aquatic, metabolizing blobs, able to grow and sometimes replicate themselves. It was the replication that enabled the process of natural selection to begin and, with it, increasing functionality, robustness, and complexity. As small variations occurred with successive generations, the more functional changes improved survival rates and, with it, reproductive success -- increasing their percentage in the population.
The hearts, lungs, and limbs you mentioned developed gradually, through tiny changes, over billions of years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no knowledge on evolution at all, could you please explain how the first breathing living species survives its first hour?
How are lungs in the first mother of the first species formed in the evolutionary process?

Lungs were not needed originally. If you are going to go that far back the organisms had gills. Bu the fish likely lived in oxygen poor water. Surface waters will have the highest concentration of oxygen since they are directly in contact with the air. An existing skin sac likely evolved due to its action of trying to draw surface water in and drawing in air. The sac aided in oxygenating the fish and fish with more and better develop sacs would have had a better chance of surviving. Wiki has a much better explanation that I do:

Evolution of the lung - Vikipedi

tr.wikipedia.org

A baby's lungs begin to form around 3–5 weeks into a pregnancy, a baby's lungs are usually fully formed by 36 weeks of pregnancy.

So what? All of the ancestor's of babies had lungs to at least 400 million years ago. Please try to bring up valid points.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem I have found with Evolution 101 is that if I have questions about what it says (and I have looked at it), will those here recommending it be able to answer those questions...

One has to be willing to ask honest questions.