Some questions about evolution.

[angellous_evangellous]

Conversely, I wonder if Archer can explain the reasons that certain letters drop out of Greek words.

Or perhaps the finer details of the pointing in Codex Vaticanus.

Or maybe the vowel structure of proto-Hebrew and the Masoretic text.

If not, he has no clue what he believes.

Pathetic.

 

[lunakilo]

Reading something and being able to repeat it shows me you can read and regurgitate. It does not explain the concepts. It does not explain cellular bonds.

And why is cellular bonds important for you at this point?

I gave you an explanation. I understand it. Do you?
If not tell me which part you don't understand and I will be happy to explain it to you.

(But that is not really what you want is it? What you want is to tell people you think they are stupid don't you?)

 

[lunakilo]

True. I do not deny that they absorbed and gravitated to it. But it is a long way away from there to here.

Small steps can take you far if you just take enough of them. :yes:

 

[Magic Man]

I don't care what i know. I want to know if those that believe in total evolution actually know what they believe in. Some (there are a lot of good PPL here but some) criticize believers because they cant present them with evidence of God and therefore are mentally ill. I am simply saying that many of them have no clue what they believe in.

This is faulty logic. We understand evolution. We may not know all the little details of it, but we understand basically how it works. I don't need to know all the details of how eyes evolved to understand the concept of lifeforms evolving. As others have pointed out, I don't have to understand how an electrical signal move along a circuit board to understand basically how my computer works. I am quite knowledgeable about how computers work, since I work in IT. However, there are things about them I don't understand.

When we criticize believers for not being able to provide evidence of their god, it's completely different. It would be like me believing in evolution even though I couldn't provide any evidence at all for it.

Basically, you're not using a comparable example here.

 

[Noaidi]

Small steps can take you far if you just take enough of them. :yes:

Luna, I think this is the problem many people have in accepting evolution. They see the current complex product (e.g. the eye), but can't accept that many incremental steps were taken to reach that level of complexity.

 

[Alceste]

I'm still not sure what this little game is supposed to prove.

It falls under the general category of "attempting to demonstrate that empirical naturalism is exactly the same thing as religious faith".

It's not an uncommon tactic. Unless it can be demonstrated (or at least believed) that empirical naturalism is exactly the same thing as religious faith, the inevitable realization is that empirical naturalism is SUPERIOR to faith, at least when it comes to understanding how things work. You can understand why religious people might be frightened to consider the possibility.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Luna, I think this is the problem many people have in accepting evolution. They see the current complex product (e.g. the eye), but can't accept that many incremental steps were taken to reach that level of complexity.

Although lack of intelligence, education, and imagination certainly play a role in why many people don't "believe" in evolution, the primary factor is still a pre-formed conclusion that it is "wrong." No matter how much information and education you provide someone, if they cover their ears and shut their eyes like a stubborn and willful child, then they will never learn anything. Of course, this isn't a problem for the type of people who have no interest in learning.

 

[McBell]

I'm still not sure what this little game is supposed to prove.

My take is that the whole thread was nothing more than a rather poor and transparent attempt to show that at some point you have to have "faith" in something.

The thread was never really about evolution.
Evolution was merely the subject he thought would lead to showing that at some point one still has to have faith.

Problem is when he was called out on it instead of being a man about it he decides to throw a little temper tantrum.

His hypocrisy seems to be getting the better of him.

 

[Noaidi]

No matter how much information and education you provide someone, if they cover their ears and shut their eyes like a stubborn and willful child, then they will never learn anything.

How ironic, then, that our friend chose to highlight the eyes and ears in his early posts!

 

[jarofthoughts]

Read most of it before. Theories and good ones but I wanted someone here to explain it. The reason for this is that I personally think most believers in pure unguided development of components of the whole really have no clue what they believe.

I don't want a bunch of links I want it explained in the persons own words. Why should I debate with a link when the person posting it has not got a real clue what it says?

I am not saying you do not have a clue but explain it to me.

If you or others cant really completely understand the exacting science without quoting sources then do you really know what you are talking about. Do you?

Let me get this straight: You want someone to write you a friggin' book? :sarcastic
Just to, for some reason, convince YOU that they understand evolution?
Yeah... That's gonna happen...

 

[rusra02]

How about this...

If a creature has a mutation which makes slightly different from the rest of the creatures of that type, and this difference increases its chances of surviving long enough to have children, that mutation is passed on to its children.

Its children again has a higher probability of making it than the children of the creatures without the mutation. So slowly the chreatures without the mutation die off and the mutation becomes the norm.

An eye if usefull. Creatures with eyes can see preditors thus giving them the chance to escape leaving the blind creatures to be eaten. It also helps in localising food and mates.

So having an eye increases a creatures ability to survive, and any mutation which makes the eye better increases a creatures ability to survive.

One possible way an eye could evolve is this:

You are assuming mutations are beneficial. In fact, the great majority of mutations are harmful, rather like poking a sharp tool into a a complicated machine. And there is no empirical evidence that mutations produce new species. Thus a key foundation of evolution proves to be sunk into sand. A human eye is far superior to the most advanced camera, and no intelligent person would opine the camera evolved through a series of happy accidents. In truth, it took an intelligent designer to create the first camera, and every camera created since. The same is true of the human or animal or insect eye.

 

[Father Heathen]

You are assuming mutations are beneficial. In fact, the great majority of mutations are harmful, rather like poking a sharp tool into a a complicated machine. And there is no empirical evidence that mutations produce new species. Thus a key foundation of evolution proves to be sunk into sand. A human eye is far superior to the most advanced camera, and no intelligent person would opine the camera evolved through a series of happy accidents. In truth, it took an intelligent designer to create the first camera, and every camera created since. The same is true of the human or animal or insect eye.

No one said all mutations are beneficial. In cases where a mutation hinders their survivability, they obviously don't go on to breed, spreading their genetic code. But in the cases where the mutation happens to be beneficial, they survive and breed, passing on their DNA. But I understand that it's easier for atrophied minds to say a cloud surfing wizard did it.

 

[idav]

You are assuming mutations are beneficial. In fact, the great majority of mutations are harmful, rather like poking a sharp tool into a a complicated machine.

Nobody assumes mutations are beneficial in fact most are not. Evolution does not have a problem with this.

Most extinctions have occurred naturally, without human intervention: it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.

Extinction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Father Heathen]

Also, evolution and the concept of god are not mutually exclusive. The only thing evolution conflicts with is the literal interpretation of ancient creation myths. Ancient creation myths do not have a monopoly on the concept of god.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You are assuming mutations are beneficial.

No, they are assuming that only some are beneficial, which they are.

In fact, the great majority of mutations are harmful, rather like poking a sharp tool into a a complicated machine.

Wrong again. The vast majority of mutations are neutral.

And there is no empirical evidence that mutations produce new species.

We've already directly observed it happening:
Ring species - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Actionbioscience | Species, Speciation and the Environment

Thus a key foundation of evolution proves to be sunk into sand. A human eye is far superior to the most advanced camera, and no intelligent person would opine the camera evolved through a series of happy accidents.

Cameras aren't formed through natural chemical processes - humans are.

In truth, it took an intelligent designer to create the first camera, and every camera created since. The same is true of the human or animal or insect eye.

Prove it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don't care what i know....

Obviously.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You are assuming mutations are beneficial. In fact, the great majority of mutations are harmful, rather like poking a sharp tool into a a complicated machine. And there is no empirical evidence that mutations produce new species. Thus a key foundation of evolution proves to be sunk into sand. A human eye is far superior to the most advanced camera, and no intelligent person would opine the camera evolved through a series of happy accidents. In truth, it took an intelligent designer to create the first camera, and every camera created since. The same is true of the human or animal or insect eye.

You're assuming that your ignorance of evolutionary theory is somehow an argument against it.

 

[Alceste]

You are assuming mutations are beneficial. In fact, the great majority of mutations are harmful, rather like poking a sharp tool into a a complicated machine. And there is no empirical evidence that mutations produce new species. Thus a key foundation of evolution proves to be sunk into sand. A human eye is far superior to the most advanced camera, and no intelligent person would opine the camera evolved through a series of happy accidents. In truth, it took an intelligent designer to create the first camera, and every camera created since. The same is true of the human or animal or insect eye.

What "first eye" is this? Do you mean the first light sensitive cells, or some other stage after this?

 

[averageJOE]

What Archer is attempting here is to back people up into a god of the gaps argument.

 

[Alceste]

What Archer is attempting here is to back people up into a god of the gaps argument.

That only works when there is a gap. The evolution of the eyeball is well understood.