Evolution: Your Inner Fish

[Uncle Dale]

I'm not here to tell you that you are wrong or right. My only point is that there is no observable evidence to even make that conclusion a logical choice. 

 

....

 

If you bothered to play the short video clip available here

earlier, you'll see that there is abundant evidence for what

I referred to.

 

We can find, living today, primitive animals possessing

light-sensing tissue connected to their rudimentary

nervous systems. Examples of such creatures with

flattened patches of that sort of tissue. The can tell

if light it a head of them, or not -- but that's about all.

 

Then we can also identify their biological relatives that

possess slightly indented patches of the same kind of

light sensing tissue.

 

Also, somewhat more advanced or complex species in

which the "bend" in the light sensory patches is more

pronounced, forming a bowl-like surface. These creatures

can roughly discern whether the light is brighter or dimmer

to the right, left, up, or down. And, if a dark object moves

through that discerned "directional" light, these primitive

creatures can tell that something external to themselves

is changing that field of illumination.

 

Can anybody "logically" (since you use that word) argue

that flattened light-sensing tissue patches in a species

cannot evolve into slightly bent tissues in its offspring,

through many generations, through natural selection?

 

Can anybody "logically" convince us that those slightly

curved light-sensing tissue patches in the later species

cannot evolve into the bowl-shape discoverable in what

scientists claim are evolved offspring, also arising through

many more generations, through natural selection?

 

I say this -- If a developed eye can devolve into blind spots

in the Texas salamander, then the uni-directional light sensors

of a primitive flatworm can also evolve into the multi-directional

light sensory spots in a more complex flatworm, or in a very

closely related species evolved from the uni-directional sensing

ancestral species.

 

If my conclusion in this regard is not a "logical" one -- then

what better answer can you supply?

 

 

Perhaps, that on day four or five of Creation all the various, but 

slightly differing shapes of light-sensing tissues were created in

different species, by God -- simultaneously?

 

???

 

UD

Edited March 3, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[thesometimesaint]

Would it make you feel better if I told you that I see many fragments of truth in the theory of evolution, both micro and macro?

I just say it's silly, or to be nicer, simply not true, as a whole... when talking about what many people usually think about and talk about as "evolution".

It would help a little if the proponents of evolution would make it a point to clarify that evolution doesn't involve one kind of being becoming another kind of being, like a cat becoming a dog or a fish becoming an ape or a man or any other kind of being. If it was made more clear that that kind of thing is impossible according to the theory of evolution. But you guys are not on the ball and haven't even taken the time to give a basic definition to what a "kind" of being refers to, leaving that up in the air for confusion.

It's like you guys need an ambassador or something like that to help with science PR problems.

 

It helps somewhat, but totally depends on what you mean by fragments.

 

I really don't care what if anything many people think about evolution. That is essentially an Ad Populum argument, and has no validity to science.

 

"KIND" has no scientific definition.

 

The problem then isn't with the science, but with PR? So if I can make you think that brand "X" of corn flakes is better than bran "Y" of corn flakes because of its prettier packaging that is an objective test proving brand "X" of corn flakes are better.

[danielwoods]

I say this -- If a developed eye can devolve into blind spots

in the Texas salamander, then the uni-directional light sensors

of a primitive flatworm can also evolve into the multi-directional

light sensory spots in a more complex flatworm, or in a very

closely related species evolved from the uni-directional sensing

ancestral species.

 

If my conclusion in this regard is not a "logical" one -- then

what better answer can you supply?

 

 

I would agree with you if there were actual, observable evidence that the it has happened at least once. Until then it's simply speculation based on sparse data that may or not be connected. 

 

Like I said, if you theorized that my car actually ran, you might be right or maybe not. But, until it's established that I can actually make a car that runs and works, it's an unsubstantiated theory. 

 

Can genetics come up with new designs on it's own? 

 

It's like asking a computer program to program itself a solution to a problem it has encountered. 

 

It just hasn't been demonstrated that life can do that. 

[thesometimesaint]

I would agree with you if there were actual, observable evidence that the it has happened at least once. Until then it's simply speculation based on sparse data that may or not be connected. 

 

Like I said, if you theorized that my car actually ran, you might be right or maybe not. But, until it's established that I can actually make a car that runs and works, it's an unsubstantiated theory. 

 

Can genetics come up with new designs on it's own? 

 

It's like asking a computer program to program itself a solution to a problem it has encountered. 

 

It just hasn't been demonstrated that life can do that. 

 

That is exactly what DNA does.

http://www.genome.gov/25520880

[bcuzbcuz]

An interesting thread, IMO!

 

A few random thoughts:

 

First simple-single cells (life) spontaneously form from non-living matter (abiogenesis) - Proven fact? Highly improbable? Impossible?

 

The evolution of mitosis (cell division/splitting) - Proven fact? Highly improbable? Impossible?

 

The evolution of male/female sexual reproduction - Proven fact? Highly improbable? Impossible?

 

 

One of my personal favorites: The proposed evolutional steps from fish to quadruped to whale.

 

 

Single cell organism is spontaneously formed from non-living matter

Simple/Single celled organism goes multi and evolves into marine organism of some type

Marine organism (fish) evolves spinal chord

Fish with spinal chord begins evolving legs and starts to crawl out of water

Eyes migrate from side of head to front of head - fur evolved and legs extend

Results in a 30 pound raccoon-like predator who kills and eats other land dwelling animals

Furry raccoon-like creature goes back in water

Legs de-evolve and become tiny bones

Fins re-evolve

Two nostrils migrate to top of head - become single opening blowhole. 

Flap evolves over blowhole to keep water out.

Ears that evolved previously - gradually evolve away and become internal

Fur that previously evolved - evolves away

Eyes that once migrated to front of head now migrate back to side of head

30 pound raccoon-like land dweller evolves back to water and becomes a 200,000 pound whale - the largest organism on earth

Diet goes from killer/predator to eating krill and plankton

Nothing exceptional if you now go back and add time to the recipe. This process wasn´t done in a pressure cooker. Your list of items/process needs time. Same thing if you took a coarse grained slab of beef, that would taste great if slowly roasted, but you don´t have the patience to take the time it needs. Throw it on the BBQ and it will taste like an innertube.

Between each of your steps add tens of millions of years. Start with racoon back into water, where it very successfully changes over a long, long time, and then.........wait for it.........

[Uncle Dale]

I would agree with you if there were actual, observable evidence that the it has happened at least once.

...

 

 

Well, soft tissue preservation is a rarity in the rocks --

so, we'll be lucky to find even a single flatworm from

a billion years back.

 

But, say be the greatest possible luck, I do find such

a remarkable discovery -- and indications of the flat,

uni-directional light sensing tissues are preserved

clearly enough for us to compare them with some modern

worm, fished out of a pond.

 

Say, also, that the fossil flatworm and the pond worm are

cataloged as being from two, very closely related species.

Since the species are different, I cannot prove that the

modern worm is descended from the same ancestor as

the fossil remnants. So -- if proof is required, I cannot

even "prove" that logical deduction.

 

But let's also say, that by some even greater luck, I happen

to discover another very ancient flatworm preserved in the

rocks. And this time the scientific experts tell me that the

second fossil is of a previously unknown species even more

identical to the first-found rocky worm (with the light-sensors).

 

I compare the two fossils and determine that worm #2 came

from an era just a couple of million years later than worm #1.

 

I then discover that the light sensing tissues in worm #2 are

slightly more curved than what we saw in the older worm.

 

All of what I just outlined is plausible, and something along

those lines may actually occur some day in the future.

 

However, even in such a case, here is what I predict that our

friends, the "creation scientists" will say in response:

 

1. There is no incontrovertible proof for the antiquity of the

two fossil worms -- they were probably both buried in Noah's flood.

 

2. There is no incontrovertible proof offered to show that one of

the worm fossils really is older than the other.

 

3. Since the two worm fossils may be of the same species, a

slight tissue difference between them may just be a coincidence,

having nothing to do with evolution.

 

4. No proof has been submitted to show that worm #2 could really

"see" better than worm #1 -- deductions from fossilized remains

are controversial and are not incontrovertible proof.

 

5. No "missing link" has been discovered and examined, in order

to show that there was any evolutionary transition from the flat

light sensing tissues to the slightly curved tissues in worm #2.

 

----- So, we would have to discover that "missing link." -----

 

At which point the "creation scientists" would demand proof

of yet more "missing links," in order to show a series of very,

very slight transitions over time -- none of which could possibly

occur in the 8,000 years since God created planet earth.

 

In the estimation of "creation scientists" no amount of offered

evidence is ever sufficient to demonstrate natural selection.

Conclusions that the Bible is more reliable than any set of

human discoveries are a "logic" that cannot be challenged.

 

So..... I give up.

 

UD

Edited March 3, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[bcuzbcuz]

I would agree with you if there were actual, observable evidence that the it has happened at least once.

 

It just hasn't been demonstrated that life can do that.

Like some others, you lack the patience to wait for these evidences to reveal themselves. Evolution requires millions and millions of years. I wouldn´t suggest holding your breath.

[thesometimesaint]

Maybe I'm just masochistic, but I'm not giving up quite yet. 

[Rob Osborn]

Science is based on the human ability to observe and make rational accurate predictions about our natural world/universe. IE;  No one has ever seen an electron. Yet you right now are using the Electron Theory with your computer.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

Well, we certainly would hope that science would be based on the human ability to observe and make rational accurate predictions. Its the sad truth though that in the name of that science we make predictions and conclusions based on the imaginations of a few void of any rational thought or observations. Abiogenesis is one such imagination claimed as science.

[thesometimesaint]

Like some others, you lack the patience to wait for these evidences to reveal themselves. Evolution requires millions and millions of years. I wouldn´t suggest holding your breath.

 

Depends on the species 30,000 generations of bacteria is just 250 days. Still a little long to hold one's breath.

[thesometimesaint]

Well, we certainly would hope that science would be based on the human ability to observe and make rational accurate predictions. Its the sad truth though that in the name of that science we make predictions and conclusions based on the imaginations of a few void of any rational thought or observations. Abiogenesis is one such imagination claimed as science.

 

Abiogenesis has been observed in the lab and in nature.

[Rob Osborn]

Abiogenesis has been observed in the lab and in nature.

No it hasnt.

[name]

Hey again sometime,

Abiogenesis has been observed in the lab and in nature.

No.

It most certainly has not.

[danielwoods]

 So -- if proof is required, I cannot

even "prove" that logical deduction.

 

Right. And I agree. 

 

However, all is not lost. As was just mentioned, it "Depends on the species 30,000 generations of bacteria is just 250 days." 

 

We can and do analyze other organisms that have must faster gestation rates and what do we find? Something called "stasis" is what we find. Even the beloved fruit fly, when pushed and pushed still doesn't develop new genetics to solve the environmental problems it faces. 

 

So, while you can object to the plea for actual, physical evidence to support your belief (or theory), it seems to me that what is actually happening is a call back to real science. 

[danielwoods]

An interesting thread, IMO!

 

A few random thoughts:

 

First simple-single cells (life) spontaneously form from non-living matter (abiogenesis) - Proven fact? Highly improbable? Impossible?

 

The evolution of mitosis (cell division/splitting) - Proven fact? Highly improbable? Impossible?

 

The evolution of male/female sexual reproduction - Proven fact? Highly improbable? Impossible?

 

 

One of my personal favorites: The proposed evolutional steps from fish to quadruped to whale.

 

 

Single cell organism is spontaneously formed from non-living matter

Simple/Single celled organism goes multi and evolves into marine organism of some type

Marine organism (fish) evolves spinal chord

Fish with spinal chord begins evolving legs and starts to crawl out of water

Eyes migrate from side of head to front of head - fur evolved and legs extend

Results in a 30 pound raccoon-like predator who kills and eats other land dwelling animals

Furry raccoon-like creature goes back in water

Legs de-evolve and become tiny bones

Fins re-evolve

Two nostrils migrate to top of head - become single opening blowhole. 

Flap evolves over blowhole to keep water out.

Ears that evolved previously - gradually evolve away and become internal

Fur that previously evolved - evolves away

Eyes that once migrated to front of head now migrate back to side of head

30 pound raccoon-like land dweller evolves back to water and becomes a 200,000 pound whale - the largest organism on earth

Diet goes from killer/predator to eating krill and plankton

 

the most amusing thing about this is the idea that at each step, the organism changed to survive the situation it found itself in. Yet, other organisms who lived in the same ecosystem didn't feel the need to change. Hmm… curious isn't it? 

[danielwoods]

Nothing exceptional if you now go back and add time to the recipe. This process wasn´t done in a pressure cooker. Your list of items/process needs time. Same thing if you took a coarse grained slab of beef, that would taste great if slowly roasted, but you don´t have the patience to take the time it needs. Throw it on the BBQ and it will taste like an innertube.

Between each of your steps add tens of millions of years. Start with racoon back into water, where it very successfully changes over a long, long time, and then.........wait for it.........

 

 

Like some others, you lack the patience to wait for these evidences to reveal themselves. Evolution requires millions and millions of years. I wouldn´t suggest holding your breath.

 

 

Right. Like I said before. A reference to millions of years is just another way of saying God or faith. If you just believe you will see! 

[name]

Hi daniel,

Right. Like I said before. A reference to millions of years is just another way of saying God or faith. If you just believe you will see!

But, if this proposed very small and very gradual changes (multiple random mutations and natural selections) over millions of years happens to hit areas that are problematic, don't worry - we can trot out punctuated equilibrium: very rapid changes over very short periods of time.

[danielwoods]

Hi daniel,

But, if this proposed very small and very gradual changes (multiple random mutations and natural selections) over millions of years happens to hit areas that are problematic, don't worry - we can trot out punctuated equilibrium: very rapid changes over very short periods of time.

 

Exactly! The theory itself is very flexible and can evolve to fit any situation. It's a great theory that way!

[bcuzbcuz]

Right. Like I said before. A reference to millions of years is just another way of saying God or faith.

No, not really. A reference to millions of years is exactly.....a reference to millions of years. It is, in no way, a reference to God or faith.

Faith, that´s what you use to imagine a "creation" or "design" of the earth. There is absolutely zero evidence for the creation idea. You have only one source for that idea and even that is second hand information. No person was there to "see" the creation, it´s a story based only on someone´s "reporting" of how they think it happened.

But if you want evidence of millions of years, grab a shovel and head to the Grand Canyon, or grab a camera and head to Bryce canyon. Take a look at the layers of the Cliffs of Dover, and they´re mostly shells from one veery short million year period. Try explaining that one with Noah´s flood. That takes faith.

[name]

Hi bcuz,

Faith, that´s what you use to imagine a "creation" or "design" of the earth.

I'm not sure that I can agree with this.

Earth had a beginning, yes? Thus it was created, yes?

How is that mere "imagination?"

Seems to me that it is a combination of personal belief and reason.

Neither camp has proof, do they? Are both camps not left with very same (and only) position?

There is absolutely zero evidence for the creation idea.

"The creation idea?"

It seems to me that the creation of earth (as well as the universe)goes way beyond an idea. How/who/what/when/why created it seems to be the 500 pound elephant in the room - whether or not it was created is, IMO, not even debatable. It's a given.

But if you want evidence of millions of years, grab a shovel and head to the Grand Canyon, or grab a camera and head to Bryce canyon. Take a look at the layers of the Cliffs of Dover, and they´re mostly shells from one veery short million year period. Try explaining that one with Noah´s flood. That takes faith.

Although a very interesting topic, this is an example of moving the goal posts and has nothing to do with creation.

Perhaps another thread?

Thanks in advance for engaging!

[bcuzbcuz]

Hi bcuz,

I'm not sure that I can agree with this.

Earth had a beginning, yes? Thus it was created, yes?

How is that mere "imagination?"

Seems to me that it is a combination of personal belief and reason.

Neither camp has proof, do they? Are both camps not left with very same (and only) position?

"The creation idea?"

It seems to me that the creation of earth (as well as the universe)goes way beyond an idea. How/who/what/when/why created it seems to be the 500 pound elephant in the room - whether or not it was created is, IMO, not even debatable. It's a given.

Although a very interesting topic, this is an example of moving the goal posts and has nothing to do with creation.

Perhaps another thread?

Thanks in advance for engaging!

You're right. I should be more precise with my language and words.

 

"Earth had a beginning, yes? Thus it was created, yes?" is how you expressed it. My response to 'earth having a beginning' depends on how "earth-beginning" is defined. If you mean one day it wasn't here and the next it was, then I would disagree. I, personally, see no reason to think our earth came into being in anyway differently than all the other planets in our planetary system. Nor that our planetary system came into being differently than all the qua-zillion other solar/planetary systems in our universe. As to how many billions of years that took, I leave that question and probable answer to those more well versed in astronomy, but I'll go with the current 14.5 billion years. If this whole process was overseen or guided or controlled or started by some all powerful entity, is not a question I can answer. Science, for sure, cannot answer that question.

 

I do know the study of the universe goes beyond a belief system. Scientists argue incessantly to be able to finally express their observations as a theory that the majority can agree on. 

 

Did the 'creation' happen in the order and in the time frame as given in the Book of Genesis, I would answer no. There is no evidence to support that concept. That is a question of belief. And since it a 'belief' I refuse to attach the word "theory" to the loosely framed idea that the Bible provides. The books of Moses were written down less than 3000 years ago so they definitely do not qualify as "eye-witness" observations. I used the word 'imagine' and yes, that was a poorly chosen word.

 

You defined it as "a combination of personal belief and reason." You may want to qualify why you go beyond calling it merely a belief and added the word "reason".

 

But you are right, 'creation' is a concept that lies outside the basic idea of this topic of evolution, "Our Inner Fish". I should have qualified my comments to only deal with that topic.

[ERayR]

Like some others, you lack the patience to wait for these evidences to reveal themselves. Evolution requires millions and millions of years. I wouldn´t suggest holding your breath.

 

Princess kisses frog.  Frog turns into prince = fairy tail.

Frog plus millions of years.  Frog turns into prince = science.

[bcuzbcuz]

Princess kisses frog.  Frog turns into prince = fairy tail.

Frog plus millions of years.  Frog turns into prince = science.

Wow, that must have been some kiss! Thanks for the giggle. 

 

The frog and the prince do, however, share some DNA that is identical. Science tries to answer "why".

 

God creates man from dust. Then God takes a rib from the man to create a woman = fairy tale.

A female births a male (and the male has a belly button to prove it) = science

 

(but your frog tale is funnier)

[name]

You're right. I should be more precise with my language and words.

No problem.

 

"Earth had a beginning, yes? Thus it was created, yes?" is how you expressed it. My response to 'earth having a beginning' depends on how "earth-beginning" is defined. If you mean one day it wasn't here and the next it was, then I would disagree. I, personally, see no reason to think our earth came into being in anyway differently than all the other planets in our planetary system.

I'm confused by your reply?

The entire universe has a beginning, yes? (some 13.8 billion years ago)

Earth had a beginning, yes? (some 4.5 billion years ago)

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with? If they began to exist at some point (they didn't exists before that point) - they have a beginning - Creation.

Nor that our planetary system came into being differently than all the qua-zillion other solar/planetary systems in our universe. As to how many billions of years that took, I leave that question and probable answer to those more well versed in astronomy, but I'll go with the current 14.5 billion years.

Yes, science proposes that our universe has existed for approximately 13.8 billion years. AKA - It began (was created) 13.8 billion years ago. No?

 

I do know the study of the universe goes beyond a belief system.

I agree that the study of the universe goes beyond (way beyond IMO) a belief system. What/who/when/why/how it began (was created) is where beliefs enter this extremely complex equation.

 

You defined it as "a combination of personal belief and reason." You may want to qualify why you go beyond calling it merely a belief and added the word "reason".

Sure!

First - I am convinced that our universe (and earth) had a beginning - thus was created.

Given the only two choices that we all have available to us (unless there are others that I haven't considered?)

1. A Creator (God) created (began) all of it.

2. All of it was created (began) by mere chance - from nothing by nothing.

Given the above two options, I find it to be more than reasonable to believe in a Creator (God)

 

But you are right, 'creation' is a concept that lies outside the basic idea of this topic of evolution, "Our Inner Fish". I should have qualified my comments to only deal with that topic.

No worries, I am equally at fault.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

[danielwoods]

No, not really. A reference to millions of years is exactly.....a reference to millions of years. It is, in no way, a reference to God or faith.

Faith, that´s what you use to imagine a "creation" or "design" of the earth. There is absolutely zero evidence for the creation idea. You have only one source for that idea and even that is second hand information. No person was there to "see" the creation, it´s a story based only on someone´s "reporting" of how they think it happened.

But if you want evidence of millions of years, grab a shovel and head to the Grand Canyon, or grab a camera and head to Bryce canyon. Take a look at the layers of the Cliffs of Dover, and they´re mostly shells from one veery short million year period. Try explaining that one with Noah´s flood. That takes faith.

 

The connection is the "inner fish" theory relies on the "vast amounts of time" theory. 

 

The reason it is faith just like faith in God is because it's not really there. There is no real direct observation of a million years. Every bit of evidence referenced for said amount of time, is a reference to something else. For example, you referenced the Grand Canyon. What do we see when we look at the Grand Canyon? Are we actually observing time? If so, where's the clock and how is it calibrated? Where is the detailed reference to time? It's not there. Rather, the reference is to a belief system (by which we put together a model), that the sedimentary rock at the bottom is much older than the rocks at the top. While this may sound logical, it certainly isn't a reference to time, but rather is to how those layers were laid there. Now, where we agree is that it takes a certain amount of time for those layers to be deposited. Where we disagree is how much time it takes. 

 

And since we didn't witness the layers being deposited, both of us are trusting that our "idea" (or model) about how they were laid down is correct. That is the very definition of faith plain and simple.