Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[estebanrey]

Sounds like it was all just by accident and a big fluke.

No.

Firstly you are assuming that colour vision is the best solution you can have and therefore we are 'lucky' to have it. It is possible that eyesight could have evolved in completely different way that was just, if not more useful as the colour vision we have but worked in a different way.

Evolution is about solving problems, not coming up with clever desirable things.

Secondly the there is a difference between luck and chance. Given enough time and attempts even the most unlikely things will eventually happen. The chances of you personally winning the lottery in the next ten draws in highly unlikely, if you do that would certainly be a 'fluke', but the chance of anyone winning the jackpot in the next ten draws in almost certain to happen.

There would be no reason for colour vision surely. If the only aim is survival then why would it even matter?

Because you are forgetting the principles of natural selection. The things with the best tools survive the longest and reproduce the most, hence their genes are passed on and so on and so on. The more 'evolved' you are the more likely you are to reproduce which over long periods of time generates an improvement.

There are other interesting questions like the complexity of systems like blood clotting. I fail to understand how this mechanism could evolve. Until the process was completely constructed then blood wouldn't clot properly and so the creature would die.

You are making the irreducible complexity argument. Intelligent design proponents tried to say the same thing about the bacterial flagellum which was basically it couldn't have evolved because until it had all the parts it couldn't survive (or served no purpose) until all those parts had come together. This video explains that myth and why it's wrong (he also touches on blood clotting).

 

[Urgannagru]

Sounds like it was all just by accident and a big fluke. There would be no reason for colour vision surely. If the only aim is survival then why would it even matter?.

Each individual mutation is an accident, some them are good some of them are bad. Its the process of natural selection that makes them useful. Colour is useful, it allows us to more easily differentiate one object from another, the banana example again.

These things that had other functions before they mutated... did those functions stop or would something else evolve to perform the role?.

My knowledge of genetics is pretty poor, but yes the function would stop or atleast change it would differ from case to case. Some times the mutation may stop a function which is beneficial in which case that individual is less likely to reproduce (or just plain fail to survive). I believe some forms or cancer are an example of this, the gene that limits a cells replication is damaged or changed and the cells replication goes out of control causing a tumor.

There are other interesting questions like the complexity of systems like blood clotting. I fail to understand how this mechanism could evolve. Until the process was completely constructed then blood wouldn't clot properly and so the creature would die.

I can only speak for myself I don't know how all processes evolved, infact I doubt science knows how everything has evolved, thats why people are still researching. Again I have to take a guess at this, the individuals can survive with out blood clotting, but obviously their chances of survival and reproduction are much lower. One of the mechanisms may occur through mutation but on its own is useless. However aslong as it doesn't dramatically decrease the chance of reproduction it can still be passed on. Generations go by more mutations some irrelevant but some that form part of the the blood clotting system. When all the mechanisms have formed and it becomes useful it will become more prevelant throughout the population due to the individuals increased chance of reproduction.

 

[Jason2]

No.

Firstly you are assuming that colour vision is the best solution you can have and therefore we are 'lucky' to have it. It is possible that eyesight could have evolved in completely different way that was just, if not more useful as the colour vision we have but worked in a different way.

Evolution is about solving problems, not coming up with clever desirable things.

Secondly the there is a difference between luck and chance. Given enough time and attempts even the most unlikely things will eventually happen. The chances of you personally winning the lottery in the next ten draws in highly unlikely, if you do that would certainly be a 'fluke', but the chance of anyone winning the jackpot in the next ten draws in almost certain to happen.



Because you are forgetting the principles of natural selection. The things with the best tools survive the longest and reproduce the most, hence their genes are passed on and so on and so on. The more 'evolved' you are the more likely you are to reproduce which over long periods of time generates an improvement.



You are making the irreducible complexity argument. Intelligent design proponents tried to say the same thing about the bacterial flagellum which was basically it couldn't have evolved because until it had all the parts it couldn't survive (or served no purpose) until all those parts had come together. This video explains that myth and why it's wrong (he also touches on blood clotting).

The origins of life did not have numerous attempts. Neither did the beginning of the universe. You also keep forgetting that mutations do not add information. It only ever leads to a loss or substitution of information. If new information can be added then why have fruit flies never shown it? They either die or become deformed.

Nine times out of ten mutation leads to a loss, and not gain, of information.

 

[Scrutinize]

Science serves only to observe the laws that God has set.

Evolution has not occurred on this earth. God is the creator of all living things.

In a debate such as this it is not etiquette to draw a conclusion of this nature.

We've already debated evolution and shown the numerous flaws in the theory. You're dogmatic in your beliefs so they aren't going to change. What's the point debating?

Jason2

Many of us have asked what denomination you are repeatedly, this is a really important question. You have failed to answer and for your credibility you really need to answer this. I would also like to understand what type of church you go to.

Do you feel that you come across as humble, gracious and with humility? Do you feel you demonstrate the qualities that a Christian should desire to, in your posting style?

After lots of googling quite a few of your answers appear to be from existing anti evolution websites almost verbatim. For example, this post here http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=23676816&postcount=579 is pretty much a straight cut and paste from this site here http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

This does nothing to add to a structured debate, especially when you don't cite sources.

 

[Urgannagru]

1 out of 10 times and whole lot of times is all it needs.

 

[Jason2]

1 out of 10 times and whole lot of times is all it needs.

So why is life not appearing out of no where now? We only ever see life come from life.

 

[Robosapien]

Creations of the mind. Survival mechanisms

Post of the thread. Not only sums everything up but also a touch of irony.

 

[Urgannagru]

So why is life not appearing out of no where now? We only ever see life come from life.

For all we know it may be occuring somewhere, although this is unlikely. The reason we no longer see life being formed with out involving other life is that the conditions on earth are very different from how they were then. Both atmospheric composition and temperature have changed, I can only hypothesise that the present conditions don't support the formation of life from basic molecules.

 

[Jason2]

In a debate such as this it is not etiquette to draw a conclusion of this nature.



Jason2

Many of us have asked what denomination you are repeatedly, this is a really important question. You have failed to answer and for your credibility you really need to answer this. I would also like to understand what type of church you go to.

Do you feel that you come across as humble, gracious and with humility? Do you feel you demonstrate the qualities that a Christian should desire to, in your posting style?

After lots of googling quite a few of your answers appear to be from existing anti evolution websites almost verbatim. For example, this post here http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=23676816&postcount=579 is pretty much a straight cut and paste from this site here http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

This does nothing to add to a structured debate, especially when you don't cite sources.

First, I haven't cut and pasted from anywhere. If I did I would quote sources as I did in that post. Of course the information is gonna look the same - we're all singing from the same hymn sheet.

Secondly, I don't belong to any denomination.

I hope this answer your question. God bless.

 

[The Running Man]

But then, let us look at mutations

sure, mutations can happen one day a cell is this way and then the next it is slightly different.

What is the chance that the utation leads to an extended life? usually slim, what is the chance that the mutation gets passed down in the DNA, very very slim, especially as the other partner is unlikely to be the same way mutated, as the mutation was one in a million.

And then say the mutation does not get passed down, what is the chance of the mutation happening again and having the same or more benefit AND getting passed down, and then when it has been passed down the chance of it being passed down again or simply swallowed back up by the generic non mutated version?

Repeat this for every slight variation and for me, with my basic understanding I cannot see as there has been enough time on earth to account for every complex adaptation and variance tot he extent that we see today.

In my view, creationism isn't incompatible with evolution, but a part of it. That, certain DNA was constructed to force these mutations to happen over time - removing the element of chance to an extent and changing that into a higher probability of certain genetic adaptations and mutations actually occurring.

God could have set the laws, the rules to allow the incubation of this life.

Afterall, you don't just create a flower and elt it exist in nothingness, you must first create earth, food, water, sustainable cycles to allow you to plant a seed that could potentially grow in the environment that it is planted.

 

[Jason2]

For all we know it may be occuring somewhere, although this is unlikely. The reason we no longer see life being formed with out involving other life is that the conditions on earth are very different from how they were then. Both atmospheric composition and temperature have changed, I can only hypothesise that the present conditions don't support the formation of life from basic molecules.

LOL. If anything, present conditions should be in favour of life arising. Nice try, though.

God made all living things. Without him, nothing was made, that has been made.

 

[The Running Man]

And to expand upon that, when I say creation, I mean the creation not by a non entity god, but by a living god. Via the way of simulation.

in the future we are likely to be able to create bigger, better more complex simulations than we can even imagine.

of course we will want to simulate the big bang, the beginning. And then inside the simulated world, it could last long enough to allow life to develop (or it could be 'seeded' by the 'god' who is the person outside of that universe running the simulation. And then multiple people will all be simulating the big bang and then there will be multiple people simulating a simulation inside of a simulation unknowing that they are in a simulation themselves. until there are virtually infinite simulations all running simultaneously. Leading us to assume that the chances of us being the originals is very slim and that we are infact part of a larger simulation.

it sounds fantastical, but when you realise that at some point in the future simulations will be possible then it follows suite that people will simulate the big bang, or the beginning and there will be life creation within those simulations.

 

[The Running Man]

LOL. If anything, present conditions should be in favour of life arising. Nice try, though.

God made all living things. Without him, nothing was made, that has been made.

Given that the bible is wholly inaccurate and not a trustable source, what makes you think that (independent of the bible) could be true?

 

[Jason2]

And to expand upon that, when I say creation, I mean the creation not by a non entity god, but by a living god. Via the way of simulation.

in the future we are likely to be able to create bigger, better more complex simulations than we can even imagine.

of course we will want to simulate the big bang, the beginning. And then inside the simulated world, it could last long enough to allow life to develop (or it could be 'seeded' by the 'god' who is the person outside of that universe running the simulation. And then multiple people will all be simulating the big bang and then there will be multiple people simulating a simulation inside of a simulation unknowing that they are in a simulation themselves. until there are virtually infinite simulations all running simultaneously. Leading us to assume that the chances of us being the originals is very slim and that we are infact part of a larger simulation.

it sounds fantastical, but when you realise that at some point in the future simulations will be possible then it follows suite that people will simulate the big bang, or the beginning and there will be life creation within those simulations.

So you believe we are nothing more than a simulation? Very much like "The Sims"? It's an interesting concept, one that I have pondered greatly. However, I was troubled by one question: Can a simulation character become aware that he is a simulation character?

 

[The Running Man]

I believe that in the future we will be able to simulate the big bang. Just like we can simulate things now that we would never have thought a hundred or two hundred years ago, for example atomic collision. and at some point within the simulation if run for long enough. they will certainly try, just like they will try to simulate a black hole or something else that we do not understand.

Cern and the God particle simulation is just an example. Imagine when we have quantum computing or whatever comes afterwards. It is a logical step. And then simulations will be conducted within a simulation as that simulation progresses and such forth.

 

[Urgannagru]

LOL. If anything, present conditions should be in favour of life arising. Nice try, though.

God made all living things. Without him, nothing was made, that has been made.

Why are conditions better now for basic life to form from basic molecules, than they were in the past?

Infact if there was a creator wouldn't they of been best in the past as well? As thats when he made life

 

[V-Spec]

I suppose this just pushes the question back. Why would some patches of skin have light sensative pigment to begin with? Did a little mucus just happen to appear?

It seems that the explanation "knows" that light exists and therefore must strive towards an eye-like mechanism. Why would the "deepen the pit" exercise even take place? If light isn't known about or understood then why would this even happen.

On the question of why would some patches of skin have light sensitive pigment, that's more of a question about skin than eyes - I could go back even further and say why does the skin exist? a why question is very hard to answer, and we obviously then get caught up in a circle - the answer is, skin and many other surfaces have these properties, especially in sea creatures - a qualified biologist would be able to expand further.

In terms of 'deepening the pit' the organism would be able to work out with far greater accuracy, the direction from where the light is coming from, natural selection would favour this over many generations until you end up with a complex organ capable of resolving high detail.

This isn't because there's any intelligence, it's simply because if you can see you do well, if you can see better - you do slightly better, give this millions of years and you end up with complexity, natural selection isn't intelligent - I see it more as a natural law that applies to living things.

You talk about a monkey 'suddenly' being able to see bananas. I thought this would have taken millions of years? If this took milllions of years then the first monkeys to develop the extra light receptors would have died before the idea even got off the ground!

Edit: The opsin genes must have existed before the process you described obviously. Why would these even exist?

He shouldn't have used the word 'suddenly' and I don't think he meant it in that context.

It definitely happens suddenly, one small change in one gene, in one organism can allow it to see three colours instead of two - we see this all the time with colorblindness.

Colorblindness is normally inherited, and it's the exact same result but it's reversed - a baby is born with one gene in the opsin array missing or defective, the result is that he/she can only see two colours, one tiny genetic change results in a big effect - colorblindness

Play this in reverse with the duplicated mutated gene for the first time on earth, and you end up with the first animals capable of seeing three colours instead of two.

I'm not sure if the paragraph is meant as a joke, why would the initial monkey with the mutation need to still be alive? The monkeys didn't need to perfectly see the bananas in one generation they just needed a better chance of seeing the bananas than the monkeys with out the mutation.

Not sure I understand.

The monkey with the initial mutation would need to be alive so he can reproduce and pass the newly mutated 'trichromat gene' to his offspring, if that happens then the process is in motion.

 

[cuRvv]

There's no point in arguing with religious people. They don't have the capacity to believe in factual evidence, just the ability to believe the words of a made up story.

If God created man-kind why would there be concrete evidence to his non-existance? (half-lifes etc)

I'm a Biologist myself and find it astonishing that a Christian woman a few pages back has done a degree in Biochemistry? followed by a Msc and PhD yet still has the audacity to question evolution!

For one I honestly can't believe that she still has beliefs in Christianity. Secondly, it just shows how brainwashed people are due to religion.

Colour me Athiest.

 

[Urgannagru]

Not sure I understand.

The monkey with the initial mutation would need to be alive so he can reproduce and pass the newly mutated 'trichromat gene' to his offspring, if that happens then the process is in motion.

I may of misunderstood ringos post but it sounded like hes thought evolution carried on while while the monkey was alive. As in for the evolution from partial sight to how it is in the current generation. Thats why I was questioning him now. I'm fairly sure I've got a layman grasp of the theory.

Saying that, the stuff regarding colour blindness, that was pretty interesting did not know its down to one gene.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Jason2, your unshakeable belief and rebuttal of each and every indisuptable fact presented to you smacks of born again Christian. A remark you made on the previous page about being an atheist before becoming a Christian does nothing to dispel that view.

What happened in your life to make you so blind and unaccepting of challenge to a belief which you had to that point never entertained?