Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?

[ringo747]

If anything is said to be irreducibly complex then it surely can't have evolved.

On my original question about eyes, if the starting point was simply light sensitive pigment in the skin then isn't it strange that eyes only developed on the face? What would have stopped rear facing eyes for example?

I'd also be interested to hear the general opinion on the cambrian explosion where the vast majority of all animal types were discovered in the fossil record. Surely this in itself is a big hurdle.

 

[ringo747]

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.

I don't get this "working out" business. I thought you said there isn't an intelligence? Without intelligence this notion of working out something sounds like nonsense. After all, this organism isn't even supposed to understand the concept of light so how does it know where to look for anything?

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.

So here you say it takes millions of years for something to happen....

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.

Yet here is happens suddenly? I'm confused.

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.

This process would assume that each individual monkey reproduced successfully in order to reach the end result. If a particular breed are wiped out then does the process start from scratch?

 

[Urgannagru]

http://www.nature.com/news/yeast-suggests-speedy-start-for-multicellular-life-1.9810

There seems to be quite a few people more techninally clued up than me (I'm not sure how to go round navigating journals to see if something has been peer reviewed or not), has this experiment been validated anywhere else? Never heard of it before but seems to be a pretty big leap to go from single celled to multi-celluar with cell with speacialised functions. Asking a lot but if anyone finds an artcle with more detail but simple enough the layman can take something away from it I'd be grateful.

 

[V-Spec]

On my original question about eyes, if the starting point was simply light sensitive pigment in the skin then isn't it strange that eyes only developed on the face? What would have stopped rear facing eyes for example?

Because things like eyes are expensive to make, they require holes in the skull, lots and lots of nerves, lots of 'brain software' to make them work, all this costs resources, time and development in the womb - it has to be right or the organism won't do well, if it doesn't do well it won't pass on it's genes.

With that in mind, it makes perfect sense that we have two for redundancy, and they're in the best possible place they could be on our entire body.

James Watson (Watson and Crick) go into detail about how organisms are built inside wombs and eggs, and the various chemical processes that determine exactly where bodily features grow.

It seems obvious that arms and legs grow in the place that they do, but all of this is down to chemical functions, it's proven that if you disrupt these chemical functions you can get an organism to grow legs out of it's head, there has been a lot of research done to identify this sort of thing, I highly recommend you read 'DNA' by James Watson, it's a very good book, and would answer many of your questions

 

[RDM]

Nice of you to ignore the majority of the post RDM. In regards to your above post, the start of life is an absolutely critical question. For if life did not spontaneously arise has scientists claim, then there can be no evolution.

I ignored the rest because it was ill informed rubbish. I was just pointing out the most obvious as an example of how little you (or whatever website you pulled that from) actually understand evolution.

 

[ringo747]

Because things like eyes are expensive to make, they require holes in the skull, lots and lots of nerves, lots of 'brain software' to make them work, all this costs resources, time and development in the womb - it has to be right or the organism won't do well, if it doesn't do well it won't pass on it's genes.

I'm assuming from your response that the womb has to exist before the eyes? Can the process determine (without intelligence) what is expensive and what isn't?

With that in mind, it makes perfect sense that we have two for redundancy, and they're in the best possible place they could be on our entire body.

It makes sense based on what we know now but this unguided unintelligent process couldn't have determined where the best possible placement of an eye was. Could it really?

James Watson (Watson and Crick) go into detail about how organisms are built inside wombs and eggs, and the various chemical processes that determine exactly where bodily features grow.

If bad mutations happened we could have ended up with eyes on our shins then. Just as well we did good.

It seems obvious that arms and legs grow in the place that they do, but all of this is down to chemical functions, it's proven that if you disrupt these chemical functions you can get an organism to grow legs out of it's head, there has been a lot of research done to identify this sort of thing, I highly recommend you read 'DNA' by James Watson, it's a very good book, and would answer many of your questions

I must check that out. To me it seems to be a very controlled process.

 

[Robosapien]

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.

Did you read Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation by any chance?

.. why are universes laws still the same? How come they have not changed?

Valid point. Why should we see the universe as homogeneous and isotropic on the whole, and what gives rise to invariance? There is a remarkable degree of consistency. But then again you also have localised examples of many things which aren't homogeneous, isotropic or invariant. Still it's an interesting puzzle, the Cosmological Principle is usually suggested as an answer but it's a bit of a circular argument.

Personally, my hypothesis is that the human mind evolved (there's that word again) to see patterns, like symmetry, and to 'perceive' trends in nature that enable it to adapt and survive. Edging towards philosophy and psychology now which is beyond me though.

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.

The basic chemical reactions / organisms also depended on energy, did they not? Is it unreasonable to assume the eye evolved from something like an early energy receptor, in the same way plants photosynthesize? Or has this one been debunked?

What would have stopped rear facing eyes for example?

Abandon thread, all hope is lost!

Sorry, I'm sure it's a sincere question but it's also incredibly hilarious! (Not because the answer is obvious but because it's so counter intuitive)

 

[Urgannagru]

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
"35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. "

Been browsing the web and stumbled one one of the creationist websites, just wondering if this is the fruit fly experiement you keep referring to?

If so I can see a pretty big flaw in this interpretation of this experiement. I'll see if I can get a more detailed account of the experiment n see if I can get my head round it. But from that snippet it doesn't say wether that mutation became more prevalent, if it did that is evolution in action it doesn't matter if they have shorter life spans if it means they get to reproduce more. The shorter development time is going to to advantageous aslong as that selective pressure is the most important. Once it stops the other pressures are more important and they will lose that trait.

 

[ringo747]

Abandon thread, all hope is lost!

Sorry, I'm sure it's a sincere question but it's also incredibly hilarious!

I'd love to hear your explanation. It absolutely is a genuine question. If it only takes Dawkins 2 minutes on youtube to explain making an eye then no question is too simple.

 

[RDM]

So here you say it takes millions of years for something to happen....



Yet here is happens suddenly? I'm confused.

Mutations happen suddenly but the selection process to make them common can take quite a few generations and enough mutations to change species can take even longer.

This process would assume that each individual monkey reproduced successfully in order to reach the end result. If a particular breed are wiped out then does the process start from scratch?

Pretty much. We have no idea how many useful mutations got wiped out by chance before getting established.

The amusing thing is that evolution is widely accepted amongst a lot of Christians, even the Catholic Church, but those that see the bible as the literal word of God are going to have massive problems as it directly contradicts their faith, poor lambs.

 

[d_brennen]

The origin of eyes is one of very simple creatures. Certain proteins are photosensitive, should these occur in a simple creature which eats, say, algae, which grows best in waters which are penetrated by sun light, over time it is conceivable that these creatures will come to "know" that light = food. They can't "see". Over time the individuals which have more of this mutant protein in spots on their surface are able to feed more effectively, thus survive, passing the mutation on. Over millennia the creatures get denser and more effective light sensing abilities.

 

[RDM]

It makes sense based on what we know now but this unguided unintelligent process couldn't have determined where the best possible placement of an eye was. Could it really?

Because the most advantageous place becomes more prevelant through selection. For us forward facing eyes are great as they give us depth vision, rabbits however have eyes more to the side of their head giving them more vision around them. This evolves over generations as the proto rabbits with the better vision survives to pass on its genes.

If bad mutations happened we could have ended up with eyes on our shins then. Just as well we did good.

Proto humans with eyes in their shins wouldn't survive as well so their strand of humanity would die out to more successful head eye port humans. Bad mutations will happen but they won't get selected.

I must check that out. To me it seems to be a very controlled process.

Humans are very good at seeing patterns even when they don't exist.

 

[ringo747]

The origin of eyes is one of very simple creatures. Certain proteins are photosensitive, should these occur in a simple creature which eats, say, algae, which grows best in waters which are penetrated by sun light, over time it is conceivable that these creatures will come to "know" that light = food. They can't "see". Over time the individuals which have more of this mutant protein in spots on their surface are able to feed more effectively, thus survive, passing the mutation on. Over millennia the creatures get denser and more effective light sensing abilities.

This concept of coming to know that light = food must be something experienced individually by each creature. Are you assuming that these creatures had an extremely high life span in order for there to be a chance that the mutation actually happens? I would assume that they don't just work it out overnight.

 

[Jason2]

I find it amazing that atheists believe the universe came from nothing, by nothing, and just happened to land on all the right parameters for a life permitting universe. If that doesn't take faith then I don't know what does!

As CS Lewis said: "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

 

[ringo747]

Because the most advantageous place becomes more prevelant through selection. For us forward facing eyes are great as they give us depth vision, rabbits however have eyes more to the side of their head giving them more vision around them. This evolves over generations as the proto rabbits with the better vision survives to pass on its genes.

Proto humans with eyes in their shins wouldn't survive as well so their strand of humanity would die out to more successful head eye port humans. Bad mutations will happen but they won't get selected.

Humans are very good at seeing patterns even when they don't exist.

Is this factually correct or just conjecture? It seems to me that there is intelligence involved in this process. What decides what is a good mutation or a bad mutation?

How can you see a pattern if it doesn't exist?

Does natural selection have the power to make choices?

 

[The Running Man]

I find it amazing that atheists believe the universe came from nothing, by nothing, and just happened to land on all the right parameters for a life permitting universe. If that doesn't take faith then I don't know what does!

As CS Lewis said: "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

Where did it all come from? We honestly don't know. But what makes you think that the bible s interpretation is correct? We don't know who wrote it or why or actually when or what their source was. We already knows genesis is inaccurate so why would a holy god be likely over something else.?

Maybe if we are in a simulation we do have a creator a god. But its not the holy kind of god you are thinking.

 

[V-Spec]

I'm assuming from your response that the womb has to exist before the eyes? Can the process determine (without intelligence) what is expensive and what isn't?

Womb, egg - it doesn't really matter, the slow progressive process is determined entirely by random mutations, 'decided on' by natural selection.

In terms of determining what's 'expensive' natural selection makes and guides that determination; If you're a predator, the regulating factor on the size of things such as teeth, claws, long strong legs for running fast, are determined entirely by the environment.

If you're born with legs that aren't fast enough and you can't catch prey - it's not an intelligent process that kills you; nature kills you because you're not equipped to operate in that environment, so therefore having slow legs means you're more likely to die, so predators with fast legs go on.

It makes sense based on what we know now but this unguided unintelligent process couldn't have determined where the best possible placement of an eye was. Could it really?

Well, it can and does - organisms actually use chemical processes to determine where things are placed, where eyes go, where legs, organs etc all go.

These mechanisms are the results of complex chemistry and biological processes - there's no mystic 'weird' answer, it's just the way it is.

I find it quite interesting, because even though you have DNA which contains all the information, it's still down to local units obeying local rules, that is liver cells build livers, hair cells build hair, sperm cells build sperm etc etc - but how does the information in the DNA actually determine that everything goes in the right place; turns out it's down to embryonic chemical processes, it's discussed in detail in some of Watson's work, it's incredible.

If bad mutations happened we could have ended up with eyes on our shins then. Just as well we did good.

Well I haven't heard of eyes on shins, but there are thousands and thousands of other physical mutations, most of them don't do very well at all, if they don't do well - they're not selected, and don't go on.

 

[RDM]

Is this factually correct or just conjecture? It seems to me that there is intelligence involved in this process. What decides what is a good mutation or a bad mutation?

It's a generalised description of how natural selection works using made up examples for simplicity.

A good mutation is one which allows a species to procreate better, a bad mutation is one that makes procreation harder.

How can you see a pattern if it doesn't exist?

Because we like to see patterns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

Does natural selection have the power to make choices?

Not really, it's just that a successful mutation gives a creature a greater chance to procreate.

 

[The Running Man]

Teeth in the womb happens a bit but it doesn't stick.

 

[Urgannagru]

Sorry if I give poor answers but I like trying to figure these things out , you seem genuinely interested in trying to understand evolution, and your questions are quite thought proking

I don't get this "working out" business. I thought you said there isn't an intelligence? Without intelligence this notion of working out something sounds like nonsense. After all, this organism isn't even supposed to understand the concept of light so how does it know where to look for anything?.

I'm pretty sure he means there is no inteliigence involved in the process of evolution rather than seeing. I'm pretty certain we don't know the answer as we're still trying to figure out conciousness and how the brain works But I'd hypothesis that an early form of seeing could be similar to our reflexes, as in one nerve recieves stimulus and circumnavigates most of the brain to the motor neurone to give a response. A similar thing could work with light, change of light cause the individual to move out, advoiding the object. Though this is assuming early sight formed before a more complex brain, which I don't know.

I'm assuming from your response that the womb has to exist before the eyes? Can the process determine (without intelligence) what is expensive and what isn't?.

Yes, if it requires too many resources it will die. The ones that become prevalent have found the optimum balance.

It makes sense based on what we know now but this unguided unintelligent process couldn't have determined where the best possible placement of an eye was. Could it really?.

Yes the ones that have the eyes in a less optimum position are more likely to die before reproducing than those that do. Therefore eyes in better placement (for example a way that allows stereoscopic for a predator) become more common

If bad mutations happened we could have ended up with eyes on our shins then. Just as well we did good..

They probaly did, somewhere there may of been an invertrebrate staring at its own arse If some of us did have eyes on our shins I guess it depends what is more important for survival, tripping over less or seeing further n not banging our heads