What facts are there AGAINST Evolution? no religion please

[ed21x]

Greetings!

I'll start by listing some sources if anyone is really interested in the topic, will post later also.

Punctuated equilibrium is actually the most recent revision of the evolution model (Biology, Campbell, 6th edition). To quote it in context, "The archaic model of gradual evolution has been replaced by an updated model involving punctuated equilibrium." What punctuated equlibrium infers is that macroevolution occurs in brief spurts of no more than several hundred to up to 3000 years at a time. Thus in such periods, often times of rapid climate change, the formation of new species MUST occur. *note that few transition species are ever found if any, but rather larger striation of sedimentary deposits shows distinct periods where the entire spectrum of species is often vastly different from layers before it (eg, Precambrian to Cambrian was marked by a huge explosion in invertebrate population despite a relatively small separation).

We're not talking about microevolution here, where birds simply grow bigger beaks. That is an accepted fact. We're talking about evolution to the point of reproductive isolation. Relative to mammal reproduction rate and population, a genetic mutation occurs in approximately 1 in 10,000 births. This of course with the frequency of harmful mutation coming in at around 95-99.9% These are all common numbers that any college level textbook can verify. On the very bottom is a book that references to the fact that a 20 year investigation involving heavily encouraged mutation and breeding over several decades brought about over 3000 different mutations on the Drosophila melanogaster. Interestingly enough, not a single mutation was found to have a single beneficiary effect on the population's survival in nature.

One of the more commonly accepted facts is that humans are a branch from other primates. However, the largest primate community (or tribe) has never exceeded more than 100 members. And considering that a mutation in a single organism, however rare it is has a near 99% chance of death, to believe that such mutation even has the remote chance of being the magic key in survivng/reproducing during a catastrophic transition period from one era to the next is damn near preposterous.

To give everyone the benefit of the doubt, we'll now assume that the the transition period is 2000 years. Given 6 billion humans (assume we are all part of the same breeding community =P) there will be aproximately 30 generations. Now take 1/10000 of this number (mutation rate), multiply that by a generous 1% rate that it is not a 'harmful' mutation, and your left with the fate of humanity resting in 6 people per generation (we'll once again assume that they all breed with one another). Assuming 6 people are alive per generation and manage to start a community of 200 people, genetic inbreeding would be the death of humanity. Once again, this is all suppose to occur during a period of catastrophe where huge changes in the enviroment calls for unbelievable compensation stemming from genetics.

Oh by the way, this was streamed off the top of my head in just a few minutes. i'll post more once I lay off the beer :beer:

Dan L. Lindsley and E.H. Grell, Genetic Variations of Drosophila melanogaster, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No. 627

 

[gopunk]

uh, last i checked, "punctuated equilibrium" was *NOT* widely agreed upon to replace "gradual evolution".

from wikipedia:

The theory of punctuated equilibrium was proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in the 1970s. It relies heavily on Ernst Mayr's concept of peripatric speciation, and it is usually contrasted with phyletic gradualism, though critics, notably Richard Dawkins, have argued that phyletic gradualism is merely a straw man. The actual differences between the various evolution theorists are not as large as the opponents of punctuated equilibrium have suggested (Gould himself said that punk eek, as it is affectionately called, did not in fact refute Darwin's gradualism theories, just added to them the ideas of catastrophism and stasis) and the current debate is often more a debate on the relative degree of punctualism and gradualism than one between two fully different extremes.

 

[Rayden]

Evolution is a theory and has not been proven. So there does not NEED to be facts against it to disprove it as it has not been proven. Most arguments against it are based on that. Where are the intermediate species? How come we have a plethora of fossils on the animals that exist today but not even a single fossil of any transitional species?

One thing i can remember is there have been petrified trees found that go through layers of rock. These layers are considered to be the history of millions of years. The bottom of the tree obviously is not 100 million years old and the top 10 million years old.

There are some organs that pose a problem to evolution. The eye is so complicated. It has to be extremely complicated to be of any use. In a transitional phase it wouldn't help at all.

What about blood clotting? If blood clotting happens at the wrong time it would kill the animal. It has to be PERFECT to be helpful at all. Unless everyone single part of the blood clotting process works then it would be bad isntead of good. There is no possibility of a transition.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Rayden
Evolution is a theory and has not been proven. So there does not NEED to be facts against it to disprove it as it has not been proven. Most arguments against it are based on that. Where are the intermediate species? How come we have a plethora of fossils on the animals that exist today but not even a single fossil of any transitional species?

One thing i can remember is there have been petrified trees found that go through layers of rock. These layers are considered to be the history of millions of years. The bottom of the tree obviously is not 100 million years old and the top 10 million years old.

There are some organs that pose a problem to evolution. The eye is so complicated. It has to be extremely complicated to be of any use. In a transitional phase it wouldn't help at all.

What about blood clotting? If blood clotting happens at the wrong time it would kill the animal. It has to be PERFECT to be helpful at all. Unless everyone single part of the blood clotting process works then it would be bad isntead of good. There is no possibility of a transition.

Your Evolution definitions are flawed....most scientists don't think we all came for a single cell that keep mutating/evolving....a species could have been 'created' with eyes....then that creature evolved.

Blood clotting goes bad now....no evolution at all...again this is not the way evolution works.

What happens is you have a few key abnomalities....these are 'better' in a way that promotes the species....the weaker types end up slowly dying off or are incapable of finding mates. The abnormal genes grow in the 'genepool' giving rise to more progeny of the same genotypes.....soon the species is a totally new species since it has trait(s) that never existed in the original species. This does not mean the old species has to die out or be replaced. This is also a very general explaination. If you are a scientist you can easily tear it apart, but the general idea would still be the same.

Å

 

[Rayden]

But to go from an animal that's blood does not clot to one that does is a giant leap and it all has to happen at the same time. You can't go half the way in one generation and another half in the next.

"a species could have been 'created' with eyes" but anything that is created has a creator.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Rayden
But to go from an animal that's blood does not clot to one that does is a giant leap and it all has to happen at the same time. You can't go half the way in one generation and another half in the next.

I don't really understand your grammar or the point...

The blood clotting stuff is always brought up...it's by far a poor example to discuss in general as all the mechanisms and whatnot are scientific in nature and over the heads of most.

Here is a quick link:
Some blood clotting evolution mumbo jumbo that always gets brought up

"a species could have been 'created' with eyes" but anything that is created has a creator.

[/quote]

In the purpose of this thread I will agree, but religion was a topic to be left out of it so I am not going to say if the creator was a being or just a random congealing of particles.

Å

 

[gopunk]

One thing i can remember is there have been petrified trees found that go through layers of rock. These layers are considered to be the history of millions of years. The bottom of the tree obviously is not 100 million years old and the top 10 million years old.

sounds like you're talking about polystrate fossils

As for Malone's "problem" with the "thousands of years" for the tree to remain upright for "slow accumulation" to occur, it is a non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not.

There are some organs that pose a problem to evolution. The eye is so complicated. It has to be extremely complicated to be of any use. In a transitional phase it wouldn't help at all.

false. think about an eye that hadn't developed a cornea and lens yet. transitional phase right? all you would be able to do is tell the difference between light and dark, it'd be too blurry to do anything more complicated. now then, do you think a creature with the ability to tell the difference between light and dark has a better, worse, or equal chance of survival than one that is completely blind?

What about blood clotting? If blood clotting happens at the wrong time it would kill the animal. It has to be PERFECT to be helpful at all. Unless everyone single part of the blood clotting process works then it would be bad isntead of good. There is no possibility of a transition.

also false. read about doolittle and his work, his hypothesis on the evolution of blood clotting has been repeatedly verified by empirical evidence. for example, in lobsters, clotting evolved from 2 digestive enzymes.


and another one bites the dust...
*does a little dance*

 

[MegaloManiaK]

Originally posted by: gopunk
false. think about an eye that hadn't developed a cornea and lens yet. transitional phase right? all you would be able to do is tell the difference between light and dark, it'd be too blurry to do anything more complicated. now then, do you think a creature with the ability to tell the difference between light and dark has a better, worse, or equal chance of survival than one that is completely blind?



and another one bites the dust...
*does a little dance*

Just thought id ask a question about this. You are saying two different things.

A. Evolution is a slow process
B. Evolution continues becuase a genetic mutation provides an advantage.

I suppose im the only one who isn't smart enough to understand this so please enlighten me.

If things change ever so slightly how can you go from not seeing at all to seeing light/dark. Seems like a large jump, wouldn't you have a mutation that had say lumps of flesh in the head that would later become eyes and then slowly develop into something useful? If so what genetic advantage is a lump of flesh on your head? Even if you ignore the low probability of mutation and the even lower probability of a mutation not being harmful, AND if you ignore the even lower probability that 2 organisims who just happened to have the same mutation would get together and mate. You still haven't addressed why something in the transitional phase would have a better chance at surviving.

Now if we were all blind and someone poped in with sight that would perfectly explain it. But you justify the fact that evolution can't be observed with the statement of "it takes billions of years"

But then again, im just an computer engineering student so i don't go crazy reading biology books. and yes i do realize your eye thing was just an example used to explain it, im not saying you think thats how the eye evolved.

 

[0roo0roo]

there are no simple organisms with very simple light sensors?

Eyespot
A light-sensitive cell on the surface of an animal's body. This simple eye form cannot gather enough information to see an image; it only detects changes in light and dark.
Eyespots can be found on simple organisms such as earthworms and leeches. When the eyespot is stimulated by sunlight, the organisim reacts by moving out of the light.
Eyespots can also be found on more complex animals that have well-developed eyes. A dragonfly, for example, has an eyespot on each side of its head in addition to its compound eyes. Since eyespots only detect changes in light and dark, the dragonfly may be using them as navigation aids -- by tracking the horizon where the light sky meets the dark ground.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: MegaloManiaK

Just thought id ask a question about this. You are saying two different things.

A. Evolution is a slow process
B. Evolution continues becuase a genetic mutation provides an advantage.

I suppose im the only one who isn't smart enough to understand this so please enlighten me.

If things change ever so slightly how can you go from not seeing at all to seeing light/dark. Seems like a large jump, wouldn't you have a mutation that had say lumps of flesh in the head that would later become eyes and then slowly develop into something useful? If so what genetic advantage is a lump of flesh on your head? Even if you ignore the low probability of mutation and the even lower probability of a mutation not being harmful, AND if you ignore the even lower probability that 2 organisims who just happened to have the same mutation would get together and mate. You still haven't addressed why something in the transitional phase would have a better chance at surviving.

Now if we were all blind and someone poped in with sight that would perfectly explain it. But you justify the fact that evolution can't be observed with the statement of "it takes billions of years"

But then again, im just an computer engineering student so i don't go crazy reading biology books. and yes i do realize your eye thing was just an example used to explain it, im not saying you think thats how the eye evolved.

He was using the eye with just light/dark reception as an example. What may have happened were originally nerves concentrated in the 'area' the eyes would grow....over time these nerves became more in abundant there, and perhaps slowly became light sensitive or heat sensitive....then continuing on.

Also many don't realize that evolution can also 'reuse' something already present in the body....the reference to the lobsters and blood clotting can be an example of this.

In general you are not understanding evolution, however, at least you acknowledge that possibility....most non-scientists think they have it all figured out and develop 'proofs' that proclaim creation or evolution incorrectly.

You have mutations which suddenly come to being, these may or may not directly contribute to the evolution of the species. However, say a common mutation developed that gave a bird the ability to bite through hard shells, at the same time their soft food source died out, but nuts were found that the tougher beaked birds could eat. The soft billed birds die out and now the mutation represents the species...this is overly simplistic but explains the ideas. In general you will not have some major change taking place right away and even the small changes may at first have no advantage what so ever, or even offer a disadvantage at the time. However, mutation != evolution necessarily...

Regarding the 'eye' and evolution, that's a well-written on topic....probably one of the most common perhaps and sadly one of the most complicated and scientific to understand.

A little bit about it

Å

 

[gopunk]

If things change ever so slightly how can you go from not seeing at all to seeing light/dark. Seems like a large jump, wouldn't you have a mutation that had say lumps of flesh in the head that would later become eyes and then slowly develop into something useful? If so what genetic advantage is a lump of flesh on your head? Even if you ignore the low probability of mutation and the even lower probability of a mutation not being harmful, AND if you ignore the even lower probability that 2 organisims who just happened to have the same mutation would get together and mate. You still haven't addressed why something in the transitional phase would have a better chance at surviving.

0roo0roo has basically covered this... all you need is a sensitivity to light. this can be done with just one cell that happens to have some non-local reaction to photons hitting it (that's how cells work, by absorbing, emitting energy, bonding, etc). this alone is enough to give an evolutionary advantage.

just look at a light, close your eyes, wave your hand in front of your face. you can barely notice right? but at least you *can* notice... you can imagine that being able to would give you an advantage over one who was not able to at all.

But then again, im just an computer engineering student so i don't go crazy reading biology books. and yes i do realize your eye thing was just an example used to explain it, im not saying you think thats how the eye evolved.

i'm just a computer science student 🙂 what school?




and yea, i'm not saying that IS what happened in the evolution of our eyes, just that it is a plausible explanation.

 

[MegaloManiaK]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
there are no simple organisms with very simple light sensors?

Eyespot
A light-sensitive cell on the surface of an animal's body. This simple eye form cannot gather enough information to see an image; it only detects changes in light and dark.
Eyespots can be found on simple organisms such as earthworms and leeches. When the eyespot is stimulated by sunlight, the organisim reacts by moving out of the light.
Eyespots can also be found on more complex animals that have well-developed eyes. A dragonfly, for example, has an eyespot on each side of its head in addition to its compound eyes. Since eyespots only detect changes in light and dark, the dragonfly may be using them as navigation aids -- by tracking the horizon where the light sky meets the dark ground.

The original question however is still unanswered, does an eyespot developing into a complex eye have any useful transitional phases? In fact this makes me question it even more. If it is usefull to tell the difference between light and dark and therefore benificial to survival, where is the next useful step? If the next useful step doesn't come directly after this one how could it have a better chance of surviving?

For it to work every step has to make a significant difference over the last one. You can't go from having a little light detection to having a little more light detection because it doesn't provide an significant advantage. If the advantage is not significant, then you decrease the chance that evolution will occur. I.E. if a worm develops a mutation that is the next step in its evolution but that step does not make it survive more than any other worm it will not survive while the others die and therefore you need another mution to take its place. The already low possibility of mution is now joined with the fact that each mutation has to happen multiple times until one of the mutations just happens to mutate again until it reaches a point that makes it survive more.

The gap between a worm that cannot tell when its in the sunlight and one that can't would provide a survival advantage. The difference between a worm that can tell if its in the sunlight and one that can tell how bright the sunlight is would not be benifitial to its survival.

Edit: If i sound sarcastic its not intentional, im sarcastic about everything. I am interested in hearing what anyone has to say. It just seems to me that we have all these unexplained things that really don't work until you slap 4.3 billion years on them and then all of the sudden its supposed to all make sense.

 

[MegaloManiaK]

Originally posted by: gopunk

If things change ever so slightly how can you go from not seeing at all to seeing light/dark. Seems like a large jump, wouldn't you have a mutation that had say lumps of flesh in the head that would later become eyes and then slowly develop into something useful? If so what genetic advantage is a lump of flesh on your head? Even if you ignore the low probability of mutation and the even lower probability of a mutation not being harmful, AND if you ignore the even lower probability that 2 organisims who just happened to have the same mutation would get together and mate. You still haven't addressed why something in the transitional phase would have a better chance at surviving.

0roo0roo has basically covered this... all you need is a sensitivity to light. this can be done with just one cell that happens to have some non-local reaction to photons hitting it (that's how cells work, by absorbing, emitting energy, bonding, etc). this alone is enough to give an evolutionary advantage.

just look at a light, close your eyes, wave your hand in front of your face. you can barely notice right? but at least you *can* notice... you can imagine that being able to would give you an advantage over one who was not able to at all.

But then again, im just an computer engineering student so i don't go crazy reading biology books. and yes i do realize your eye thing was just an example used to explain it, im not saying you think thats how the eye evolved.

i'm just a computer science student 🙂 what school?




and yea, i'm not saying that IS what happened in the evolution of our eyes, just that it is a plausible explanation.

University of Tennessee whoo hooo.

Don't hate me cuz i come from the south, plenty of inteligent people come from the south.

Althought I can't think of any at the moment 🙂

 

[acemcmac]

There are no facts against evolution. Ask a geo/archeologist.

I still want to stick a soldering iron in my ear every time I think of the day I discoverd nobody in my most recent ex's family (including the "doctor" father) believed in evolution...

 

[MegaloManiaK]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
In general you are not understanding evolution, however, at least you acknowledge that possibility....most non-scientists think they have it all figured out and develop 'proofs' that proclaim creation or evolution incorrectly.

Å

I guess it has just been a long time since i read about it. I thought the whole idea was that species continue on as normal and then some genetic mutation pops up that gives the organism a better chance to live than any other. If a mutation occurs that is not benifitial then the organism dies and the rest of the species continues as normal.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: MindStorm

Originally posted by: glen

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
There are no facts against evolution. What the Jesus-freaks use in a vain attempt to discredit it is that it cannot be proven to 100% certainty. Fossil records are excellent, but not complete. As you trace the evolution of each species it's easy to see the small changes take place over vast periods of time. What you can't see is a second-by-second record, there will be the "missing" link at various places where it seems that unexplained jumps took place. Generally though, our knowledge of evolution is pretty new. Religion used to control science and covered up or destroyed a lot of info. The fact that there are missing links is a product of limited discovery time. Every day more and more of the gaps are closed and fewer and fewer links remain missing. It's like a jigsaw puzzle getting put together, all the pieces are not in place yet, but only a blind person would be unable to see the picture taking shape.

Please, remember that only a minority of Christians don't accept evolution. We established this years ago on the forums, but people still think the vocal minority of extreme fundamentalists are the majority of Christians.

AT Christians can't be used to represent Christians in general - I've noticed the opposite in real life (you should try it sometimes!). Most Christians I've talked to believed in Creationism or never bothered to really think about something so fundamental. It's ridiculous.

Christians HAVE to believe in creationism. When you're asked to swallow the concept of religion you pretty much have to take the whole thing. You're not allowed to pick and choose what parts you want to believe and which parts are pure hogwash. To be a Christian and to disavow creationism is to admit that the Bible falls apart on page 1. Once you take that step the rest of it collapses like a house of cards. Christians do tend to ignore the parts of the religion that they find inconvenient. The homophobes will point to the bible where it says that homosexuality is an abomination, but forget about the part where it says you should sell your daughter into slavery or kill your neighbors if they worship the wrong way. There's a lot of fudging around on the fringes, but creationism is the foundation.

Most don't believe in it. I don't know where you are getting your information. Why not start with google and look up the major denominations and their beliefs?

You guys are arguing the wrong thing. Evolution doesnt mean there is no room for Creationism. It all depends what your understanding of creationism and perhaps God is. See Creationism as God made the Universe in our favor or God gave the starting spark... - whatever I am not religious but I do know there are more than enough ppl that are Christian believing in Gods creation but have no problem in fitting evolution in there. You have to stop to think of the bible is a history book.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: MegaloManiaK

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
there are no simple organisms with very simple light sensors?

Eyespot
A light-sensitive cell on the surface of an animal's body. This simple eye form cannot gather enough information to see an image; it only detects changes in light and dark.
Eyespots can be found on simple organisms such as earthworms and leeches. When the eyespot is stimulated by sunlight, the organisim reacts by moving out of the light.
Eyespots can also be found on more complex animals that have well-developed eyes. A dragonfly, for example, has an eyespot on each side of its head in addition to its compound eyes. Since eyespots only detect changes in light and dark, the dragonfly may be using them as navigation aids -- by tracking the horizon where the light sky meets the dark ground.

The original question however is still unanswered, does an eyespot developing into a complex eye have any useful transitional phases? In fact this makes me question it even more. If it is usefull to tell the difference between light and dark and therefore benificial to survival, where is the next useful step? If the next useful step doesn't come directly after this one how could it have a better chance of surviving?

For it to work every step has to make a significant difference over the last one. You can't go from having a little light detection to having a little more light detection because it doesn't provide an significant advantage. If the advantage is not significant, then you decrease the chance that evolution will occur. I.E. if a worm develops a mutation that is the next step in its evolution but that step does not make it survive more than any other worm it will not survive while the others die and therefore you need another mution to take its place. The already low possibility of mution is now joined with the fact that each mutation has to happen multiple times until one of the mutations just happens to mutate again until it reaches a point that makes it survive more.

The gap between a worm that cannot tell when its in the sunlight and one that can't would provide a survival advantage. The difference between a worm that can tell if its in the sunlight and one that can tell how bright the sunlight is would not be benifitial to its survival.

Edit: If i sound sarcastic its not intentional, im sarcastic about everything. I am interested in hearing what anyone has to say. It just seems to me that we have all these unexplained things that really don't work until you slap 4.3 billion years on them and then all of the sudden its supposed to all make sense.

just look to sea creatures and other simple organisms for simple eyes. its not just limited to complex and ultra simple, there are many many forms in between.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: MegaloManiaK

Originally posted by: alkemyst
In general you are not understanding evolution, however, at least you acknowledge that possibility....most non-scientists think they have it all figured out and develop 'proofs' that proclaim creation or evolution incorrectly.

Å

I guess it has just been a long time since i read about it. I thought the whole idea was that species continue on as normal and then some genetic mutation pops up that gives the organism a better chance to live than any other. If a mutation occurs that is not benifitial then the organism dies and the rest of the species continues as normal.

That's more mutation than evolution. Mutations give rise to evolution, but for it to be evolution a lot more requirements need to be met.

Å

 

[gopunk]

If it is usefull to tell the difference between light and dark and therefore benificial to survival, where is the next useful step? If the next useful step doesn't come directly after this one how could it have a better chance of surviving?

a plausible next useful step would be a refinement of this ability, such as a different reaction to photons of differing wavelengths (rudimentary color detection). we could go on forever like this, you should really just pick up an anatomy text and think about it... i wish i did, but i don't have the time to detail an entire hypothesis on the evolution of the human eye. but hopefully i've shown that it's not as unplausible as some think.

For it to work every step has to make a significant difference over the last one. You can't go from having a little light detection to having a little more light detection because it doesn't provide an significant advantage.

that's not necessarly true (see below)

If the advantage is not significant, then you decrease the chance that evolution will occur. I.E. if a worm develops a mutation that is the next step in its evolution but that step does not make it survive more than any other worm it will not survive while the others die and therefore you need another mution to take its place.

i think you have a misconception about evolution... if that change did not propagate, then there is no possible way it could have been the next step in its evolution. a "step", for lack of a better term, in evolution is defined as what happens, there is no "what was supposed to happen".

The gap between a worm that cannot tell when its in the sunlight and one that can't would provide a survival advantage. The difference between a worm that can tell if its in the sunlight and one that can tell how bright the sunlight is would not be benifitial to its survival.

i don't see how you can make that assertion... two worms, one can tell if it's under a really bright sun (which will fry it quickly) or if it's under a shade (which is okay), one can't. which will be more likely to survive?

Edit: If i sound sarcastic its not intentional, im sarcastic about everything. I am interested in hearing what anyone has to say. It just seems to me that we have all these unexplained things that really don't work until you slap 4.3 billion years on them and then all of the sudden its supposed to all make sense.

well when you're trying to explain things that did take 4.3 billion years to happen, it would make sense that you do have to slap 4.3 billion years on them in order to explain them.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: yellowperil

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
basically its hard to "evolve" an organ, or organ system, or even half an organ.

evolution is dependant on simultaneous genetic mutations. if the rate of genetic mutations is large, the result is cancer and death. normal mutation rates observed in living cells is 1 mutation per million, while it is noted that the guranteed cancer threshold rate is 1/1000, that is if the organism is at that rate it is guaranteed to die by cancer if not far sooner.

the example is the flagella of a single-cell organism, pretty basic but it amazingly looks exactly like a machine thru a microscope. it takes 16 new genes to form a flagella which means probability is at minimum (1/1000)^16. all must be simultaneous, having half of them would be disvantageous as reproduction rates would be decreased exponentially as it doesn't have many genes to begin with, so the addition of a few extra useless genes means it takes much longer time to divide and conquer...

at the fastest division rate of reproduction at each cell replicating itself every 20 minutes, you could fill the entire ocean of these and wait for quite some time before you have the magic single cell 2.0 w/ flagella upgrade. that is empty all the oceans and fill it from bottom to brim with nothing but this single one type of single cell organism and let it reproduce until the oceans are full (max capacity) and it would still take you tens of billions of year.

evolution is good at explaining the improvement of organs but bad at showing how organs form in the first place.

how did cocoon based insect come about, such as the butterfly. why can't it continute on as a fully functional catepillar?

or for that matter a venus fly trap, did a plant accidently eat an insect somehow one day and get better at it?

LOL....

All this says is that you do not understand. Nothing more.

On the contrary, I think he raises some valid points. I don't consider myself a creationist but evolution theory doesn't seem to explain the formation of complex organs well.

werd....this post makes the most sensible disagreement with Evolution.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: yellowperil

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
basically its hard to "evolve" an organ, or organ system, or even half an organ.

evolution is dependant on simultaneous genetic mutations. if the rate of genetic mutations is large, the result is cancer and death. normal mutation rates observed in living cells is 1 mutation per million, while it is noted that the guranteed cancer threshold rate is 1/1000, that is if the organism is at that rate it is guaranteed to die by cancer if not far sooner.

the example is the flagella of a single-cell organism, pretty basic but it amazingly looks exactly like a machine thru a microscope. it takes 16 new genes to form a flagella which means probability is at minimum (1/1000)^16. all must be simultaneous, having half of them would be disvantageous as reproduction rates would be decreased exponentially as it doesn't have many genes to begin with, so the addition of a few extra useless genes means it takes much longer time to divide and conquer...

at the fastest division rate of reproduction at each cell replicating itself every 20 minutes, you could fill the entire ocean of these and wait for quite some time before you have the magic single cell 2.0 w/ flagella upgrade. that is empty all the oceans and fill it from bottom to brim with nothing but this single one type of single cell organism and let it reproduce until the oceans are full (max capacity) and it would still take you tens of billions of year.

evolution is good at explaining the improvement of organs but bad at showing how organs form in the first place.

how did cocoon based insect come about, such as the butterfly. why can't it continute on as a fully functional catepillar?

or for that matter a venus fly trap, did a plant accidently eat an insect somehow one day and get better at it?

LOL....

All this says is that you do not understand. Nothing more.

On the contrary, I think he raises some valid points. I don't consider myself a creationist but evolution theory doesn't seem to explain the formation of complex organs well.

werd....this post makes the most sensible disagreement with Evolution.

please read the rest of the thread. it is anything but sensible.

 

[SirFshAlot]

some people want to discredit the theory of evolution because they don't understand how things could evolve from one point to another

attitude

MY attitude; evolution seems most probable, thus, I am curious HOW things changed

we have eyes
we have blood clotting
given

seems more intelligent to search to understand HOW they evolved, rather than go backwards, and proclaim that since it is hard to understand it, then it couldn't have happened
It DID happen!!!
If you have eyes, you can see it.

 

[BullsOnParade]

1. With regard to complex organs, complex organ systems etc... -- people keep getting stuck with the complexity of the end product, without realizing how much benefit very primitive sensory functions yeild. Take for instance being able to see in color vs black and white, there's quite a bit of complexity jumping from b/w to color however the benefit is only marginal, how about stereoscopic/binocular vs monocular/planar vision, again a jump that offers marginal benefit. Now those scales are absolutely trivial when you begin to think about sudden emergence of sensory function within a unicellular organism, clustering of certain chemicals suddenly yeilds sensitivity to gravity and various passive tropisms occur then assisted and active tropisms up to a formation of a new organelle or the like.

2. Mathematicaly modeling the survival of the fittest paradigm is as integral a part of evolution analysis as is the biochemistry and whatnot. What i find interesting is that subjective analysis of complexity and such things isn't really present when discussing fitness models. They're usually very straight forward algorithms that follow directly from population observations and genetic probabilites and are capable of making quite bold statements about future and past iterations. just coming up with simple fitness models ad hoc gives you quite a good picture of how many facets there are to evolution. You get a feel for the weight that genetic variance, mutation, envrionmental favorability, initial population densities etc.. have in the whole picture.
I think when people throw out 4.3 billion years as a catch all they're alluding to this finite automata.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Rayden
But to go from an animal that's blood does not clot to one that does is a giant leap and it all has to happen at the same time. You can't go half the way in one generation and another half in the next.

"a species could have been 'created' with eyes" but anything that is created has a creator.

don't mistake your lack of understanding of basic physiology and developmental biology for some kind of evidence of a fault with the theory.

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
basically its hard to "evolve" an organ, or organ system, or even half an organ.

evolution is dependant on simultaneous genetic mutations. if the rate of genetic mutations is large, the result is cancer and death. normal mutation rates observed in living cells is 1 mutation per million, while it is noted that the guranteed cancer threshold rate is 1/1000, that is if the organism is at that rate it is guaranteed to die by cancer if not far sooner.

the example is the flagella of a single-cell organism, pretty basic but it amazingly looks exactly like a machine thru a microscope. it takes 16 new genes to form a flagella which means probability is at minimum (1/1000)^16. all must be simultaneous, having half of them would be disvantageous as reproduction rates would be decreased exponentially as it doesn't have many genes to begin with, so the addition of a few extra useless genes means it takes much longer time to divide and conquer...

One thing that is quite apparent when studying genes and molecular biology, is that there appears to be a lot of repetition. Lots of things are done in very similar ways. For example, tyrosine kinase proteins are used for signalling in mammalian cells - yet there are dozens of them known,most of which are very similar, differing only in the signals that they sense and that they trigger. Similarly, there are many metabolic pathways which are intertwined in a complicated way.

One can imagine a primitive system in which one a gene product could have several functions. Potentially, a protein that helps mechanically stabilise the cell, could also form the main structual components of a flagellum. As this gene already exists, it doesn't have to 'evolve' out of nowhere. Function may be poor, but with time mutation may cause a gene duplication, the copy can then evolve independently to form a better flagellum.

The fact that so many very complex pathways are overtly extremely similar suggest that this copy and modify idea has been extremely important in the development of new pathways and organs.