Evolution And Bricks

[thesometimesaint]

You misunderstand or misrepresent what I posted.  There are too many specialized and interconnected systems to make it statistically possible for chance mutation to be the method of their development.  One example is the eye and its connections with the brain and its control functions.  What are the statistical odds of that system developing just once by chance so that it all worked together just right.  Now what are the statistical odds that it would happen in sufficient numbers in the same tiny area to make it possible to have enough organisms to reproduce in enough numbers to have it become a permanent trait.

 

SEE Evolution of the eye.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-of-the-eye/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/e/evolution_of_the_eye.htm

http://www.wimp.com/eyeevolution/

[thesometimesaint]

I wish evolutionists would stop trying to say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Here, from Berkeley-

" http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

Evolution encompasses a wide range of phenomena: from the emergence of major lineages, to mass extinctions, to the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria in hospitals today. However, within the field of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is of special interest because it addresses the fundamental question of where we (and all living things) came from."

You cannot take any class on biology that discusses evolution THAT DOES NOT ALSO ADDRESS ABIOGENESIS as part of their theory. They are totally connected. Evolutionists are trying to distance themselves from abiogenesis because there is no evidence for it and all tests have been utterly in vain. So what do they do? They excuse themselves from the theory because now they look really bad.

 

Abiogenesis is about how life first formed on this planet.

Evolution is about how life changed AFTER it first formed on this planet.

 

 

You are being utterly ridiculous. High rise building construction and mushroom cultivation have more in common.

[thesometimesaint]

You are right- cats are always cats and all the evidence shows that cats have always been just that- cats. The same with dogs, apes, man, etc. So yes, you are right, evolution only shows micrevolutionary changes within species. I will agree.

 

The evidence shows that both Cats and dogs; Apes and man; have common ancestors.

 

Proof of Macro-evolution.

[Vance]

Evolution is based on 5 simple ideas.

 

1. All living things die.

 

How is it that the same organism that sprang to life out of the primorial goo couldn't also live forever? 

 

2. All living organisms must reproduce before they die, or the species dies out.

 

So, the first organism not only sprang to life out of the primordial goo, it did so with the ability to reproduce? What are the odds of that happening? Why not just live forever?

 

3. All living things produce more offspring thant can reproduce before they die.

 

So, the first organism not only sprang to life out of the primordial goo, it did so with the ability to reproduce AND its offspring also had the ability to reproduce.  What are the odds of THAT happening?

 

4. All living things that produce offspring through sexual reproduction reproduce slightly different than themselves.

 

Can anyone explain how the transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction occurred?  And what are the odds of THAT happening?

 

5. Only those offspring that live long enough to reproduce pass on those differences before they die.

 

Why waste all that energy on reproduction? Why not just live forever?

[Calm]

What are the odds of that happening? Why not just live forever?

 

100% for any organism that has posterity.

 

Even if the cell itself would not degrade with time, it could still be destroyed by unfavourable circumstances (say being struck by a lightening bolt).  Any nonreproducing organisim of which there would likely have been only one (since it couldn't reproduce) would then cease to exist.

[cdowis]

Sometimessaint,

 

You are so lazy that you do not give us any of the arguments, but expect us to do your job for us by giving us only the links.  The first link gives us the discredited argument "I am smarter than God, so that proves there is no God" argument.  Coming from a disbeliever, for him to pretend to know what God should or should not do, how the Creation process works from a divinity is absurd.

 

Second, the explanation is full of "perhaps", "likely", "it is possible that" etc etc.

 

The video starts of with HHAHAHAHHAHAHA "those creationists are full of XXXXXX, and I wouldn't wish anyone to read what they have written."  That is such a well-formed, thoughtful argument.

 

Is this the best you can do??

 

Now, get off the couch, give us your best arguments from these links and we will be delighted to respond point by point.  I suggest that you start a new thread and we will pull it apart piece by piece.

 

No sophistry, no mockery, so stupid arguments (God is so stuuuupid, that I could do it better).  No garbage, no nonsense.  An intelligent presentation of your best argument, pleeze.

Edited April 13, 2014 by cdowis

[Rob Osborn]

Abiogenesis is about how life first formed on this planet.

Evolution is about how life changed AFTER it first formed on this planet.

 

 

You are being utterly ridiculous. High rise building construction and mushroom cultivation have more in common.

So, even though life "evolved" from non living matter its not evolution until it has fully evolved into life? This sounds like a way to sidestep the lack of evidence in evolutionary theory (yes, abiogenesis is part of evolution).

[Rob Osborn]

The evidence shows that both Cats and dogs; Apes and man; have common ancestors.

 

Proof of Macro-evolution.

Hardly...

[thesometimesaint]

 

Evolution is based on 5 simple ideas.

 

1. All living things die.

 

How is it that the same organism that sprang to life out of the primorial goo couldn't also live forever?

 

2. All living organisms must reproduce before they die, or the species dies out.

 

So, the first organism not only sprang to life out of the primordial goo, it did so with the ability to reproduce? What are the odds of that happening? Why not just live forever?

 

3. All living things produce more offspring thant can reproduce before they die.

 

So, the first organism not only sprang to life out of the primordial goo, it did so with the ability to reproduce AND its offspring also had the ability to reproduce.  What are the odds of THAT happening?

 

4. All living things that produce offspring through sexual reproduction reproduce slightly different than themselves.

 

Can anyone explain how the transition from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction occurred?  And what are the odds of THAT happening?

 

5. Only those offspring that live long enough to reproduce pass on those differences before they die.

 

Why waste all that energy on reproduction? Why not just live forever?

 

 

All you have to do now is provide that organism.

 

Part of the definition of life is the ability to reproduce. See above.

 

All it has to do is happen once.

 

http://www.dorak.info/evolution/sreprod.html%C2'>

 

Because nothing we know of lives forever.

[thesometimesaint]

Hardly...

 

As my third grade math teacher said. Show you work.

[Rob Osborn]

As my third grade math teacher said. Show you work.

That goes for you as well. How does explaining the evolution of an eye from by showing your palm of your hand in different positions prove the evolution of the eye? If I was the teacher I would fail the kid just on his "work" alone!

[thesometimesaint]

That goes for you as well. How does explaining the evolution of an eye from by showing your palm of your hand in different positions prove the evolution of the eye? If I was the teacher I would fail the kid just on his "work" alone!

 

I've already demonstrated the evolution of the eye from primitive to more sophisticated than ours. I have no idea as to what you are talking about. The evolution the hand, while still evolution, is not the same as evolution of the eye. As a teacher asks what is 2x2 and your answer is always coconuts.

[Rob Osborn]

I've already demonstrated the evolution of the eye from primitive to more sophisticated than ours. I have no idea as to what you are talking about. The evolution the hand, while still evolution, is not the same as evolution of the eye. As a teacher asks what is 2x2 and your answer is always coconuts.

You must not watch the videos you put links too. The lady in the video uses her hand to describe the evolution of the eye.

[cdowis]

I've already demonstrated the evolution of the eye from primitive to more sophisticated than ours.

 

I don't see it ==>> please give us the post number.  

 

thankyouverymuch .

Edited April 14, 2014 by cdowis

[ERayR]

I've already demonstrated the evolution of the eye from primitive to more sophisticated than ours. I have no idea as to what you are talking about. The evolution the hand, while still evolution, is not the same as evolution of the eye. As a teacher asks what is 2x2 and your answer is always coconuts.

 

Yep always fall back on ridicule and ridiculousness.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't see it ==>> please give us the post number.  

 

thankyouverymuch .

Evolution of the eye

The evolution of the eye has been a subject of significant study, as a distinctive example of a homologous organ present in a wide variety of species.

The development of the eye is considered by most experts to be monophyletic; that is, all modern eyes, varied as they are, have their origins in a proto-eye believed to have evolved some 540 million years ago.

The majority of the process is believed to have taken only a few million years, as the first predator to gain true imaging would have touched off an "arms race".[citation needed] Prey animals and competing predators alike would be forced to rapidly match or exceed any such capabilities to survive.

Hence multiple eye types and subtypes developed in parallel.

Eyes in various animals show adaption to their requirements.

For example, birds of prey have much greater visual acuity than humans and some, like diurnal birds of prey, can see ultraviolet light.

The different forms of eye in, for example, vertebrates and mollusks are often cited as examples of parallel evolution.

As far as the vertebrate/mollusk eye is concerned, intermediate, functioning stages have existed in nature, which is also an illustration of the many varieties and peculiarities of eye construction.

In the monophyletic model, these variations are less illustrative of non-vertebrate types such as the arthropod (compound) eye, but as those eyes are simpler to begin with, there are fewer intermediate stages to find.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/e/evolution_of_the_eye.htm

[thesometimesaint]

You must not watch the videos you put links too. The lady in the video uses her hand to describe the evolution of the eye.

 

That is the best argument you can muster. You're kidding me right?

[cdowis]

Evolution of the eye

The evolution of the eye has been a subject of significant study, as a distinctive example of a homologous organ present in a wide variety of species.

Yes, the eye is found in many organisms.

 

The development of the eye is considered by most experts to be monophyletic; that is, all modern eyes, varied as they are, have their origins in a proto-eye believed to have evolved some 540 million years ago.

 

OK, so "most" experts think this, but apparently others disagree.  

 

The majority of the process is believed to have taken only a few million years, as the first predator to gain true imaging would have touched off an "arms race".[citation needed] Prey animals and competing predators alike would be forced to rapidly match or exceed any such capabilities to survive.

 

Hence multiple eye types and subtypes developed in parallel.

 

"Hence"? ?  Are you pretending there is some logical conclusion  here?  This is not an explanation of its evolution.  This is what I call "waving the magic wand" of evolution.  It looks like, walks like, and quacks like you infamous teleological fallacy.

 

Eyes in various animals show adaption to their requirements.  The "magic wand" of evolution at work.  May I suggest that you check out "tautology" ==  a self-reinforcing pretense of significant truth (wiki)

 

For example, birds of prey have much greater visual acuity than humans and some, like diurnal birds of prey, can see ultraviolet light.

 

There are so many logical flaws here that I have lost count.  I understand that evolution has taken on a religious significance for many, but I thought that you were a reasonably intelligent individual.  Here you explain by giving examples of the end result.  Don't you understand the problem with that ?

 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/e/evolution_of_the_eye.htm

 

[Rob Osborn]

That is the best argument you can muster. You're kidding me right?

What? Your video you posted on evolution of the eye- she uses her hand to describe the evolution of the eye. Is that the best argument you can muster?

[thesometimesaint]

 

Evolution of the eye

The evolution of the eye has been a subject of significant study, as a distinctive example of a homologous organ present in a wide variety of species.

Yes, the eye is found in many organisms.

 

The development of the eye is considered by most experts to be monophyletic; that is, all modern eyes, varied as they are, have their origins in a proto-eye believed to have evolved some 540 million years ago.

 

OK, so "most" experts think this, but apparently others disagree.  

 

The majority of the process is believed to have taken only a few million years, as the first predator to gain true imaging would have touched off an "arms race".[citation needed] Prey animals and competing predators alike would be forced to rapidly match or exceed any such capabilities to survive.

 

Hence multiple eye types and subtypes developed in parallel.

 

"Hence"? ?  Are you pretending there is some logical conclusion  here?  This is not an explanation of its evolution.  This is what I call "waving the magic wand" of evolution.  It looks like, walks like, and quacks like you infamous teleological fallacy.

 

Eyes in various animals show adaption to their requirements.  The "magic wand" of evolution at work.  May I suggest that you check out "tautology" ==  a self-reinforcing pretense of significant truth (wiki)

 

For example, birds of prey have much greater visual acuity than humans and some, like diurnal birds of prey, can see ultraviolet light.

 

There are so many logical flaws here that I have lost count.  I understand that evolution has taken on a religious significance for many, but I thought that you were a reasonably intelligent individual.  Here you explain by giving examples of the end result.  Don't you understand the problem with that ?

 

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/e/evolution_of_the_eye.htm

 

 

 

Being sighted gives a distinct survival advantage to an organism.

 

You'll always find some to disagree with anything disagreement is not proof of an idea. IE; The Principle

 

Le Sigh

 

The end result of evolution is a organism better suited to its environment. Change the environment change the end result.

[Ahab]

Are you serious? A cat NEVER becomes a dog. A dog NEVER becomes a bear. An ape NEVER becomes a man. You seem like an intelligent person, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evolution. Please educate yourself.

I know more than I let on sometimes and it may help you to bear that in mind.

A sense of humor is also almost as important as the ability to sense truth through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Now back to our show about how each kind of living being is supposedly an advancement of a less advanced kind of living being with each living being somehow interconnected to every other living being. As if men and chimps are somehow related.

[thesometimesaint]

I know more than I let on sometimes and it may help you to bear that in mind.

A sense of humor is also almost as important as the ability to sense truth through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Now back to our show about how each kind of living being is supposedly an advancement of a less advanced kind of living being with each living being somehow interconnected to every other living being. As if men and chimps are somehow related.

 

Considering how badly humans behave. I not too sure why the Chimps would want to claim us.

[Ahab]

My mistake I accidentally added the extra "not". I am sorry if that error on my part lead to any confusion. It should actually read as: IF they can't reproduce with other members of that species that is the dictionary definition of macro-evolution.

There is no biological definition of kind, only species. All life is related by what is known as common descent. Evolution is the process of that common descent. The primordial ooze idea is Abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with Evolution(The changes in life once it was first established).

Again there is no scientific definition of "kind". When scientists use the world advanced they mean a more elaborate adaptation to its environment that can be passed down genetically to their offspring, So a sea sponge is more "advanced" than an amoeba. A human is more "advanced" than its closest living ancestors the Chimps.

So the idea is that a less advanced being becomes a more advanced being, from even the most basic able to become the most advanced, as if something that isn't even close to being as advanced as man is now can someday become not only as advanced as man is but become man, itself, and even God.

It is an interesting theory, and even a fairly reasonable explanation to explain why different kinds or species of living beings have some similarities. The main problem I see with the idea is just that the theory is not true.

[cdowis]

Being sighted gives a distinct survival advantage to an organism.

 

Of course, and that certainly fits the teleological argument.  cough...  it is a very nice argument for intelligent design, is it not.

 

You'll always find some to disagree with anything disagreement is not proof of an idea. IE; The Principle

 

Le Sigh

 

The end result of evolution is a organism better suited to its environment. Change the environment change the end result.

 

And the end result of ID is to fit the design to the requirements of the environment.  Now, I am NOT making an argument for ID but pointing out that this  argument is not exclusive to evolution.  It is teleological.

 

The evolutionist has the burden to demonstrate, and prove, the step by step evolution.  You cannot leave out even one step, because it is the chain of evidence and ONE missing link and the entire argument collapses.  So, general arguments that you, and our faithful evolutionists use, are teleological in nature == they are arguments for ID as well as evolution.  

 

 

Edited April 14, 2014 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

 

Being sighted gives a distinct survival advantage to an organism.

 

Of course, and that certainly fits the teleological argument.  cough...  it is a very nice argument for intelligent design, is it not.

 

You'll always find some to disagree with anything disagreement is not proof of an idea. IE; The Principle

 

Le Sigh

 

The end result of evolution is a organism better suited to its environment. Change the environment change the end result.

 

And the end result of ID is to fit the design to the requirements of the environment.  Now, I am NOT making an argument for ID but pointing out that this  argument is not exclusive to evolution.  It is teleological.

 

The evolutionist has the burden to demonstrate, and prove, the step by step evolution.  You cannot leave out even one step, because it is the chain of evidence and ONE missing link and the entire argument collapses.  So, general arguments that you, and our faithful evolutionists use, are teleological in nature == they are arguments for ID as well as evolution.  

 

 

 

 

So called intelligent design presupposes an organism/force so complex that no one has ever or will ever figure it out. That is hubris in the extreme.

 

The end result of ID has a end result as priori.

 

Evolution has no such requirement. We don't throw out landing on the moon just because the Wright brothers didn't do it.