How can evolution be responsible for a universe of complexity?

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: ducci
Evolution did not create the relationships - the relationships are what keeps species alive.

I'm not sure I follow you. If relationships are what keep species alive, how was survival possible before these releationships were established.

It's already been stated more eloquently than I can put it, but ultimately Earth was formed with a basic foundation resources available - in particular Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen. The earliest forms of life were the simplest, and required only the available resources to survive. With any chemical reaction, there is a byproduct - with plants it is oxygen. As new organisms formed, the ones that could use whatever resources were available reproduced more rapidly than ones who did not. The relationships you describe were not formed by chance, but by necessity. Evolution is essentially the ultimate trial-and-error.

To further comment on your other post - we would see life on other planets, however other planets are not conducive to life - either because of extreme temperatures, lack of sunlight, etc - but primarily because they lack the most important building block of life - water. Water is crucial particularly because scientists believe that all living things came from water.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Think about the animal and plant relationship. Plants give off life sustaining oxygen, they provide food, nutrients and vitamins which help sustain the animal life. In turn animals breathe out carbon dioxide which the plants need, animal waste also nourishes the soil which plants use for survival. It's hard to believe that this complex relationship came into existence by chance or evolution.

It seems like you have a serious misconception about evolution. What you wrote is *perfectly* explained.

It's like this-

- Earth stats out very rich in carbon dioxide.

- Life begins which feeds on carbon dioxide (plants). Probably some life begins that feeds on other substances, but because those substances are not plentiful enough it dies out.

-Lot of time passes, during which the initial plants are producing oxygen.

-Life evolves to make use of other gasses, including oxygen. The life that evolves to use less plentiful gasses all die out because there isn't enough, but the life that uses oxygen flourishes because there is a large amount of oxygen in the air due to plants.



So no. It's not by "chance" that we use oxygen, the reason we use oxygen is that if we used any other gas we would have died off billions of years ago because there wasn't enough of it.

I admit I'm not an expert in evolution so I don't know the different theories and terminologies that are used. However I do have a grasp of the concept. But getting to your example what is the explanation for life beginning that feeds on carbon dioxide or any other substance? And if that is how life really started on this planet should'nt we see countless other examples on other planets? I would imagine that there are planets, systems and galaxies that are likely older than the Earth. So should'nt there have been a similar pattern in the evolution of life in other locations? All these questions basically lead up to the one, what makes Earth so special that it was able to create life that evolved to what it is today?

We have no reason to believe life doesn't exist on billions upon billions of planets across the universe. We just haven't gotten to the point where we can observe it yet. Just because Mars and Venus are currently dead worlds, doesn't make earth unique, just likely to be rare.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I admit I'm not an expert in evolution so I don't know the different theories and terminologies that are used. However I do have a grasp of the concept. But getting to your example what is the explanation for life beginning that feeds on carbon dioxide or any other substance? And if that is how life really started on this planet should'nt we see countless other examples on other planets? I would imagine that there are planets, systems and galaxies that are likely older than the Earth. So should'nt there have been a similar pattern in the evolution of life in other locations? All these questions basically lead up to the one, what makes Earth so special that it was able to create life that evolved to what it is today?

You realize none of those answers will corroborate nor explain away intelligent design? Unless we FIND the "intelligent designer" and talk to it, it doesn't have much bearing as to how things happened. It's more of a "why" than a "how".

 

[Arkitech]

I almost dread to type this because the moment I do the attacks will begin. But the more I learn about life and just how complex it is I believe that it was done by intelligent design. I was reading an article about how complex a biological cell is. First off there are a wide variety of different types of cell and each cell is so mind boggling complex that our current technology could never hope to duplicate it. Even the smallest particles or matter are so complex that it's taken science years and years just to begin to understand how these things work. I find it hard to believe that there was no design or thought process behind it.

 

[child of wonder]

See this picture. Pic

There are at least 10,000 galaxies in this picture. Each galaxy has hundreds of billions of stars inside them. Each star has the potential for planets. Each planet has the potential for life. These galaxies are likely 7+ billion years old.

Now bear in mind this photo only encompasses an area of the sky no bigger than if you held up a dime at arm's length.

Even if the odds of life forming on a planet are insanely astronomical then there are likely countless other life forms in the endless and ageless vastness that is space.

There's your answer.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I almost dread to type this because the moment I do the attacks will begin. But the more I learn about life and just how complex it is I believe that it was done by intelligent design. I was reading an article about how complex a biological cell is. First off there are a wide variety of different types of cell and each cell is so mind boggling complex that our current technology could never hope to duplicate it. Even the smallest particles or matter are so complex that it's taken science years and years just to begin to understand how these things work. I find it hard to believe that there was no design or thought process behind it.

You find it hard to believe because you don't want to accept it. Just because we can't build something doesn't mean that someone had to. Can man build a star? No. Does that mean that it must have been created by a higher intelligence? Of course not. Complexity != intelligence. There is a force (natural selection) that drives complexity in any system with an outside heat source.

 

[KeithTalent]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I almost dread to type this because the moment I do the attacks will begin. But the more I learn about life and just how complex it is I believe that it was done by intelligent design. I was reading an article about how complex a biological cell is. First off there are a wide variety of different types of cell and each cell is so mind boggling complex that our current technology could never hope to duplicate it. Even the smallest particles or matter are so complex that it's taken science years and years just to begin to understand how these things work. I find it hard to believe that there was no design or thought process behind it.

That's funny, because reading/seeing things like that make me feel the exact opposite way. There is no way I can believe someone/something designed all of that, it just does not make sense to me.

KT

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I almost dread to type this because the moment I do the attacks will begin. But the more I learn about life and just how complex it is I believe that it was done by intelligent design. I was reading an article about how complex a biological cell is. First off there are a wide variety of different types of cell and each cell is so mind boggling complex that our current technology could never hope to duplicate it. Even the smallest particles or matter are so complex that it's taken science years and years just to begin to understand how these things work. I find it hard to believe that there was no design or thought process behind it.

So you find it more likely that for some unfathomable reason, some being (possessing mental abilities next to which ours is akin to an amoeba, it'd have to be because all this stuff is so complex) designed life on Earth, rather than it all happened by chance?
Because that requires another leap to wonder who designed that designer, because obviously if such a complex system as we have here on Earth must have been designed, only something ridiculously more complex could have done so. It's a path that cannot provide answers, only more questions.

 

[venkman]

Originally posted by: antyler
Just think of something like the human eye ball.!!! does it really seem like something like that, that complex with that many layers and different working parts can really be an accident, or part of a genetic mutation? really?

You do know the human eyeball "captures" images upside down and out brain flips it right side up. Other animals, such as Octipi, "capture" the images right side up from the start.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: HumblePie
Uhh, check out the deal on Finches in the Pacific Islands. I think it was those types of birds.

Anyhow, at one point these birds were never on the Pacific tropical islands. They couldn't fly far enough from the major land sources. However, it is believed that several explorer's such as Cook brought a few of the birds to the islands as pets that got away. Now there are something like 32 distinct species of Finches on those islands in a few hundred years.

Random mutations pop up constantly. Most are minor with some being MAJOR. Sometimes they work and most of the time they don't. That's evolution. This even happens among humans. Take a look at the "right hand" phenomena. It hasn't been until recent centuries that the majority of humans has become right hand dominate. For a long time humans were ambidextrous completely.

I don't have a problem with the science of adaptation which can result in different variations of a species. But my gripe is with the thought of species evolving into a completely different type. In your example above the finches remained finches they did'nt become eagle or pelican like, they still were recognized as finches.

and humans are still recognized as primates.
What's your point? If it becomes a different species, then it is a different species.

Natural adaptation is the process of a species evolving new characteristics, sometimes in the very next generation, that allow some members of that species to continue to survive, despite an environment that proves to challenging for the current members.

Large scale evolution, where new species come about, are both the direct result of natural adaptation and sometimes random mutations. Mutations also can occur nearly immediately if looking at one specific point in time, such as the very next generation. Most mutations are bad, so these are quickly forgotten about, that individual doesn't breed or for some reason those mutations are not passed on to its next offspring, and the species as a whole is back to where it was prior to that mutation.

Now, sometimes these mutations are good. It may be 10, 1000, a million or more years in-between beneficial genetic mutations. Hell, some mutations may not even be beneficial, but they may not be negative and they may not affect chances of breeding. So, you may get new species over time, that really was the result of pure chance. But the bottom line is, the stages of evolution that go noticed in the lifespan of well, life itself, are the ones that are extremely infrequent. These are the ones that result in the most major shifts in evolution, where new species are ultimately very different than their predecessors.

+

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
But getting to your example what is the explanation for life beginning that feeds on carbon dioxide or any other substance?

I'm confused by your question. Are you asking why does life need to feed on anything? It needs a source of energy. Actually, plants don't just feed on carbon dioxide, they take energy from the sun through photosynthesis, and the process requires carbon dioxide. If there wasn't any carbon dioxide in the air, plants as we know them couldn't have evolved, but perhaps something else that uses some other gas could have evolved instead. But we happen to be on a planet with carbon dioxide so the life that has evolved here is based around it.

Originally posted by: Arkitech
And if that is how life really started on this planet should'nt we see countless other examples on other planets? I would imagine that there are planets, systems and galaxies that are likely older than the Earth. So should'nt there have been a similar pattern in the evolution of life in other locations? All these questions basically lead up to the one, what makes Earth so special that it was able to create life that evolved to what it is today?

We haven't been on any of those other planets yet. We have seen evidence of planets in other solar systems, but so far none of them match even the most general characteristics of earth- our distance from the sun, and being a smaller rocky planet. Most of the planets we have detected in other systems are massive gas planets like Jupiter.

Mainly, this is because other systems are so far away and planets generally don't give off much energy. We can only detect them by the gravitational pull they produce on their star, and for a smaller planet the pull is very very tiny and thus impossible to detect with our current technology.

And then, even if we did detect a planet like earth in a nearby system, actually seeing if there is life evolving on it's surface will be a whole other difficulty- the distances involved are huge, even if we could sent a probe at 50% of the speed of light it would take 16 years for a round trip to the nearest star. Currently, AFAIK, the fastest probe we have sent out traveled at less than .1% the speed of light.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I almost dread to type this because the moment I do the attacks will begin. But the more I learn about life and just how complex it is I believe that it was done by intelligent design. I was reading an article about how complex a biological cell is. First off there are a wide variety of different types of cell and each cell is so mind boggling complex that our current technology could never hope to duplicate it. Even the smallest particles or matter are so complex that it's taken science years and years just to begin to understand how these things work. I find it hard to believe that there was no design or thought process behind it.

There are many complex systems in this world - most of which are man-made. If you could go back 500 years and describe the internet to people they would find it overly complex as well.

Intelligent design is typically the default way to explain life for any culture - primarily because it is the easiest way to do so. We also accredited rain and night/day to gods as well. Just because something is too complex for humanity's current comprehension does not imply intelligent design - it just implies we require more information.

 

[ghostman]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
The problem I have with that line of thought is that if it takes a substantial amount of time for a lifeform to change or adapt then the source of what is forcing the change will have eradicated the lifeform that needs to evolve.

There doesn't need to be a source that is forcing the change. Trees are tall. Medium giraffes may be doing fine on the bottom leaves, but there is an abundance of leaves just a little higher up that is just out of their reach. The mutated taller giraffes get to eat both the low leaves and the high leaves, grows healthier and is more attractive to the opposite sex. The mutated short giraffes have the least amount of resources, are malnourished and do not get to reproduce. There is no impending doom to the giraffes.

Evolution usually takes several generations, but it doesn't have to take millions of years. You need only look at organisms that reproduce quickly to observe evolution. E. Coli

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I almost dread to type this because the moment I do the attacks will begin. But the more I learn about life and just how complex it is I believe that it was done by intelligent design. I was reading an article about how complex a biological cell is. First off there are a wide variety of different types of cell and each cell is so mind boggling complex that our current technology could never hope to duplicate it. Even the smallest particles or matter are so complex that it's taken science years and years just to begin to understand how these things work. I find it hard to believe that there was no design or thought process behind it.

You find it hard to believe because you don't want to accept it. Just because we can't build something doesn't mean that someone had to. Can man build a star? No. Does that mean that it must have been created by a higher intelligence? Of course not. Complexity != intelligence. There is a force (natural selection) that drives complexity in any system with an outside heat source.

I guess creationists and evolutionists are from two different worlds so to speak. I think about how the automobile and computers are inventions that required thought and design to bring them into existence. A quadcore processor is a clever and complex result of engineering and design but that pales in comparison to something like a tick or a beetle. Speaking only for myself, when I examine these kind of things I see intelligence and design.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

I don't have a problem with the science of adaptation which can result in different variations of a species. But my gripe is with the thought of species evolving into a completely different type. In your example above the finches remained finches they did'nt become eagle or pelican like, they still were recognized as finches.

"Species" is merely an arbitrary system assigned by us. Nature doesn't have any markers in the genetic coding that says "New Species starts here."
The only reason you don't see a species evolving into another one is because we don't live long enough to see it.
You could just as easily say "species" = something different, something narrower, to the point where Finch A is actually a different species than Finch B. If that were the case, you could see it happening easily.
Bacteria adapt, but they're categorized as variants of the same thing. Why not change the definition of "species?" Then variant A would be a different species from variant B, and you could watch it happen over the course of a few days.

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: ducci
Evolution did not create the relationships - the relationships are what keeps species alive.

I'm not sure I follow you. If relationships are what keep species alive, how was survival possible before these releationships were established.

I could have survived without eating meat. But I discovered that eating meat could provide a quick boost of nutrients.
I had just formed a new relationship with the animal kingdom, in that I could consume members of it for food. Nature works in a similar fashion. New relationships are forged out of circumstance.

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I admit I'm not an expert in evolution so I don't know the different theories and terminologies that are used. However I do have a grasp of the concept. But getting to your example what is the explanation for life beginning that feeds on carbon dioxide or any other substance? And if that is how life really started on this planet should'nt we see countless other examples on other planets? I would imagine that there are planets, systems and galaxies that are likely older than the Earth. So should'nt there have been a similar pattern in the evolution of life in other locations? All these questions basically lead up to the one, what makes Earth so special that it was able to create life that evolved to what it is today?

Earth had something quite useful: a turbulent ocean, warmed by sunlight, kind of a giant petri dish being constantly stirred. If a planet is entirely dry and barren, such as Mercury, it lacks this means of promoting interaction of particles, molecules, and eventually, tiny life forms.

Mars might have had liquid water in the past, but the problem now is that it is extremely cold there, and getting equipment in place to really dig down deep would be incredibly expensive.

There's also Jupiter's moon, Europa. It's quite likely that beneath its thick crust of ice is an ocean of liquid water, heated by tidal forces of Jupiter. (Look at pictures of the moon Io for an example of what tidal forces can do to a ball of solid rock. Huge sulfur volcanoes everywhere.)
Somewhere like that may well have life. But there are problems exploring it. For one, we can't get there easily. No atmosphere means that you can't use parachutes to slow down a spacecraft, so it would need to rely entirely on thrusters, which means more fuel. Second, the crust could be miles thick, of really cold ice, solid as rock. That needs lots of drilling equipment, or else some kind of very high-energy thermal drill, to melt down through. Third, the radiation environment at Jupiter means that all electronics need to be specially made to survive there. (Such radiation would not make it down through the ice, as it would make for a pretty good shield.)

There may well be stuff out there, but we simply don't have the technological capability right now to do it.

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I almost dread to type this because the moment I do the attacks will begin. But the more I learn about life and just how complex it is I believe that it was done by intelligent design. I was reading an article about how complex a biological cell is. First off there are a wide variety of different types of cell and each cell is so mind boggling complex that our current technology could never hope to duplicate it. Even the smallest particles or matter are so complex that it's taken science years and years just to begin to understand how these things work. I find it hard to believe that there was no design or thought process behind it.

We're trying to comprehend in a few lifetimes what it has taken nature billions of years to assemble. Of course it's going to seem complex. I might as well send you to college and expect you to come out tomorrow with a Ph.D. in quantum dynamics. But if you go through at a normal pace, you will probably come out thinking, "Huh, that wasn't so bad."

We've just gotten into the library of existence, and are amazed at the size of it. There is so much to learn, and we're trying to take it all on at once. Of course it's going to seem complex.

Originally posted by: child of wonder
See this picture. Pic
There are at least 10,000 galaxies in this picture. Each galaxy has hundreds of billions of stars inside them. Each star has the potential for planets. Each planet has the potential for life. These galaxies are likely 7+ billion years old.
Now bear in mind this photo only encompasses an area of the sky no bigger than if you held up a dime at arm's length.
Even if the odds of life forming on a planet are insanely astronomical then there are likely countless other life forms in the endless and ageless vastness that is space.
There's your answer.

And here, Hubble Ultra Deep Field.
Again, about 10,000 galaxies, in a region 1/10th the width that the full Moon appears.
The brighter spots, with the "plus" pattern of light bleed, are the only things there that are NOT galaxies - those are just foreground stars in the Milky Way.

Originally posted by: antyler
Just think of something like the human eye ball.!!! does it really seem like something like that, that complex with that many layers and different working parts can really be an accident, or part of a genetic mutation? really?

Oh, not this again. It's been debunked numerous times.
You see eyes in stages in nature. Eyespots, simple eyes like reptiles have, and on upwards in complexity. Irreducible complexity, it's something that's thrown in constantly, and many times it's just not true.
Good video

 

[Chronoshock]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Think about the animal and plant relationship. Plants give off life sustaining oxygen, they provide food, nutrients and vitamins which help sustain the animal life. In turn animals breathe out carbon dioxide which the plants need, animal waste also nourishes the soil which plants use for survival. It's hard to believe that this complex relationship came into existence by chance or evolution.

It seems like you have a serious misconception about evolution. What you wrote is *perfectly* explained.

It's like this-

- Earth stats out very rich in carbon dioxide.

- Life begins which feeds on carbon dioxide (plants). Probably some life begins that feeds on other substances, but because those substances are not plentiful enough it dies out.

-Lot of time passes, during which the initial plants are producing oxygen.

-Life evolves to make use of other gasses, including oxygen. The life that evolves to use less plentiful gasses all die out because there isn't enough, but the life that uses oxygen flourishes because there is a large amount of oxygen in the air due to plants.



So no. It's not by "chance" that we use oxygen, the reason we use oxygen is that if we used any other gas we would have died off billions of years ago because there wasn't enough of it.

I admit I'm not an expert in evolution so I don't know the different theories and terminologies that are used. However I do have a grasp of the concept. But getting to your example what is the explanation for life beginning that feeds on carbon dioxide or any other substance? And if that is how life really started on this planet should'nt we see countless other examples on other planets? I would imagine that there are planets, systems and galaxies that are likely older than the Earth. So should'nt there have been a similar pattern in the evolution of life in other locations? All these questions basically lead up to the one, what makes Earth so special that it was able to create life that evolved to what it is today?

The are a number of theories as to how life began feeding on carbon dioxide (read about Abiogenesis for more info) but one is that there was essentially pools of inorganic molecules floating around (methane, ammonia, hydrogen, etc.) which combined to form basic organic building blocks. These combined randomly until more complex structures were formed. There was no "guidance" here, they just randomly combined and broke apart until something worked. Liken it to the million monkeys typing out Shakespeare analogy. There are other theories as well, such as biological seeding from a meteor. Either way, at some point life began and only organisms which could successfully harvest energy lived. Organisms which were able to use the abundant CO2 (the initial atmosphere) were the ones that survived. I feel like you're having trouble with the nature of natural selection, perhaps you should read more on that as well.

There are very few planets out there that can sustain the development of life. The majority of planets are either too hot/cold, have too much/too little gravity, etc. to support the chemical reactions necessary to form life. The parameters necessary for carbon-based life are very narrow. While other types of life (like silicon-based for example) may be possible, they are unknown at this point, but regardless, there is still a range of parameters that it requires.

Finally, there's no reason to say that there ISN'T life out there. There certainly could be, but it's undetectable. For a civilization to get to the point of being visible across astronomical distances, it must pass through another series of hurdles (environmental conditions favor survival of "intelligent" life forms, the creation of a civilization model, surviving planetary changes to develop technology, avoiding killing each other, etc.) For a more detailed description look into the Drake equation and Fermi's Paradox for why we should/shouldn't be able to detect extraterrestrial life.

 

[oznerol]

I really enjoy these discussions. I'm glad the conversation didn't turn into religion bashing or the like.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I guess creationists and evolutionists are from two different worlds so to speak. I think about how the automobile and computers are inventions that required thought and design to bring them into existence. A quadcore processor is a clever and complex result of engineering and design but that pales in comparison to something like a tick or a beetle. Speaking only for myself, when I examine these kind of things I see intelligence and design.

It depends, not necessarily. If you accept that evolution only seeks to explain how it happened and not why, they're completely compatible. Science isn't concerned with whether a deity flung a meteor down here to kick-start things or sat in a celestial lab with a celestial whiteboard drawing up the human eyeball, science says "Hey! This eyeball thing is pretty cool! How does it work? Wow, look at that creature, it has an eyeball like ours, but it's simpler. WILD!"

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I almost dread to type this because the moment I do the attacks will begin. But the more I learn about life and just how complex it is I believe that it was done by intelligent design. I was reading an article about how complex a biological cell is. First off there are a wide variety of different types of cell and each cell is so mind boggling complex that our current technology could never hope to duplicate it. Even the smallest particles or matter are so complex that it's taken science years and years just to begin to understand how these things work. I find it hard to believe that there was no design or thought process behind it.

You find it hard to believe because you don't want to accept it. Just because we can't build something doesn't mean that someone had to. Can man build a star? No. Does that mean that it must have been created by a higher intelligence? Of course not. Complexity != intelligence. There is a force (natural selection) that drives complexity in any system with an outside heat source.

I guess creationists and evolutionists are from two different worlds so to speak. I think about how the automobile and computers are inventions that required thought and design to bring them into existence. A quadcore processor is a clever and complex result of engineering and design but that pales in comparison to something like a tick or a beetle. Speaking only for myself, when I examine these kind of things I see intelligence and design.

Then who designed the guy who designed the tick or beetle? And so on. That path makes even less sense.

Evolution comes from gradual changes. Some people dont comprehend how after millions of years even small mutations added up can create something entirely different. Evolution however merely describes the changes life goes through, not where life started. That is abiogenesis. Your previous comment about particles and atoms do not fall under evolution at all, or even abiogenesis.

 

[DosadiX]

The theory that sold me on evolution had to do with RNA being the foundation of life. Because nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen are highly reactive, there was a good change that they would combine. In this combination a strand of RNA happened to form. I could look up the probabilities of these reactions occurring, but in the scheme of things, it?s fairly probably. Anyway, RNA has both structural and chemical properties that can catalyze self replication. That?s where the evolution starts. Colonies of RNA will form, mutate and migrated. Different colonies will have different sequences and will starts "competing" for hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen. Its not true competition, but they are still trying to react with the available materials to replicate.

Over the course of their mutations, they started catalyzing the creations of new substances, amino acids that can and will form proteins. However, the RNA can also shape the proteins both physically and chemically. From there the RNA and proteins messed up on an RNA synthesis and catalyzed a different sugar which created an inert form of RNA called DNA.

I could go into how cell membranes and organelles formed, however it?s essentially the same process. Simple, favorable chemical reactions that are catalyzed by structure (RNA, DNA and proteins) that happen to self replicate. Furthermore, if there is no self replication, there is not possibility of a system growing in complexity. But with self replication, the systems becomes a stable control system that attempts to maintain a steady state and error can propagate the system and either send it into an unstable region (it dies) or into a new stable state (essentially evolution). Ok, now I'm jumping well beyond of the scope of this discussion and boring everyone.

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
"This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' " - Douglas Adams

My day just got a little better. Thanks for that quote!

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: DosadiX
The theory that sold me on evolution had to do with RNA being the foundation of life. Because nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen are highly reactive, there was a good change that they would combine. In this combination a strand of RNA happened to form. I could look up the probabilities of these reactions occurring, but in the scheme of things, it?s fairly probably. Anyway, RNA has both structural and chemical properties that can catalyze self replication. That?s where the evolution starts. Colonies of RNA will form, mutate and migrated. Different colonies will have different sequences and will starts "competing" for hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen. Its not true competition, but they are still trying to react with the available materials to replicate.

Over the course of their mutations, they started catalyzing the creations of new substances, amino acids that can and will form proteins. However, the RNA can also shape the proteins both physically and chemically. From there the RNA and proteins messed up on an RNA synthesis and catalyzed a different sugar which created an inert form of RNA called DNA.

I could go into how cell membranes and organelles formed, however it?s essentially the same process. Simple, favorable chemical reactions that are catalyzed by structure (RNA, DNA and proteins) that happen to self replicate. Furthermore, if there is no self replication, there is not possibility of a system growing in complexity. But with self replication, the systems becomes a stable control system that attempts to maintain a steady state and error can propagate the system and either send it into an unstable region (it dies) or into a new stable state (essentially evolution). Ok, now I'm jumping well beyond of the scope of this discussion and boring everyone.

See, this is the problem with evolution - it's too complicated for the common person to understand. I mean, I get the gist, but it's not tangible - it's not a basic concept you can simply wrap your head around.

Intelligent design is simple, tangible, and precise - and that is why I think it will remain a prominent concept for the foreseeable future.

 

[torpid]

It does not take millions of years to observe major changes in species. Forced breeding practices in a short-lived species can do this. That is how we got all sorts of wacky dog species that are borderline physically inept.

 

[Arkitech]

Lots of replies and comments and almost no bashing

I can't reply to each and every post but I have read through them all. I would like to change directions just a bit though and just see how people feel about this observation.

If evolution is a system or process of describing how lifeforms better adapt and survive in it's environment how should we look at our current situation as a whole. At the moment humans are facing an unprecedented plethora of disease and illnesses. Cancer rates are climbing, infectious diseases are increasing and in many cases they are incurable. Medical science has been able to contain some of these illnesses so that they are'nt killing it's victims outright, but the problems persist. Is this a stage of evolution? Is nature weeding out the weak so that the strong will prevail? Or is evolution nearing its final stages or hit a proverbial deadend?

As with illnesses has evolution brought man to the point where it must destroy the planet to assert his dominance? By this I mean look at the state of politics and economics, the Earth has the ability to produce enough food to sustain every man, woman and child but because of politics people are literally are starving to death on a daily basis by the thousands. Would this be considered a link in the chain of evolution?

 

[ghostman]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
I almost dread to type this because the moment I do the attacks will begin. But the more I learn about life and just how complex it is I believe that it was done by intelligent design. I was reading an article about how complex a biological cell is. First off there are a wide variety of different types of cell and each cell is so mind boggling complex that our current technology could never hope to duplicate it. Even the smallest particles or matter are so complex that it's taken science years and years just to begin to understand how these things work. I find it hard to believe that there was no design or thought process behind it.

That's odd. The more complex it is, the less likely I think it was due to intelligent design. Something that planned for a gecko's ability to walk on walls, the eyelashes on your face and the fuzz on a peach. We discover new species even now with their own intricacies and it's supposed to be easier to believe that something, somewhere planned it all.

Take this for example. I'm making it up on the fly, so it may be a flawed analogy. Say you dropped several men into the forest. They all separate, wandering randomly for their own way out. In the process, they detail exactly what they did and the path they took. After several years, some of the men make it out of the forest alive, others do not. Those who survived have emerge from different parts of the forest, never knowing if any others emerged. One man emerges and finds his way to a small village. He will take a look at the complex path he detailed and think, "That's crazy! There is no way I could have gotten out by chance." He and the others who hear his story will believe a god had guided him. Meanwhile, another man will emerge at a tropical beach community. The technology doesn't exist for the first guy to realize another man took a very different path and had a very different result.