I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics1 min ago
Evolution
I accept the theory of evolution in, well, theory, but there's a few things I've been thinking about that don't make sense. Like, if the first living things were microbes which had no eyes, how did they evolve into animals like us which do have eyes? How did the eyeless microbes actually know that there was anything to see and therefore evolve to grow eyes? Same with sound, if the first earless beings didn't have ears in the first place, how did they know there /was/ anything to hear? And what about the sense of smell? Very puzzling.
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Yai. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Creationists are forever quoting Darwin's sentence which states that the idea of the evolution of eyes is absurd. What they never - ever - do is quote what he goes on to say in the very next sentence. If you care to read all about it, click here
good link from QM - hope this helps, but just to labour a point - the evolving animals don't "know" anything about their evolution, one individual or a group of individuals simply survive better than others in a species because, for instance, a mutation has allowed them to sense light and shade (meaning they can hid in the shade from predators) - this means that this mutation ios then passed on to their off spring who will in turn survive and produce more simarlarly blessed off spring. After a time the mutation is through the whole species - this process would be on going, slow improvement until for instance you have a species with proper eyes! so no though, or imagination or knowledge required - just breeding.
In any discussion of evolution, it's important to understand the terms being used and their application... two people can say nearly the same term, but the meaning is quite different. Such is evolution. If by that term, one means the classical Darwinian Theory he enumerated in 1859, then there is a deffinite, defined problem. Ironically, it's not the Creationists who are defining the problem, it's the scientists who recognize what Darwin seems to have known just before his death. I appreciate Quizmonter's quote, however, let me add a few as well...
Later in life Charles Darwin had grave doubts about his theory. Near the end of his life he said, "Not one change of species into another is on record...we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
I think it's fair to say that he, and defenders of the Theory hoped continuing exploration of the fossil record would vindicate his writings, however here we are, 150 years later, with tons and tons of fossils in museums and research labs, virtually completing the fossil record and no uncontested speciation is shown to have occurred...
"Modern multicultural animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This Cambrian Explosion marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the miniscule span , geologically speaking, of a few million years. (Stephen J. Gould; Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, pgs. 23-24).(Emphasis mine).
Contd.
Contd.
�Paleontologists have long been aware of the contradiction between Darwin�s postulate of gradualism and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always appears abruptly in the fossil record.� (Mayr, E., Our Long Argument. Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought. Pgs. 138, 1991)
These quotes, especially Stephen J. Gould's are from leading paleontologists, not Creationists...
As large a problem as the lack of transitional forms constitutes, it pales in comparison to the problem presented by statsis, in my opinion:
�The principle problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record.� (Williamson, Peter G., �Morphological Stasis and the Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism�, Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November, 1981, Pg. 214).
Contd.
Contd.
And, finally, the following quote really puts the whole argument in a nutshell:
�There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)
At any rate, one needs to understand the facts of the Cambrian Explosian and all of its ramifications, before continuing to adhere to classical the Darwinian Theory, in my humble opinion.
The idea that Darwin recanted his views on evolution on his deathbed - as some claim - is a myth which it suits creationists to perpetrate. All his conversations near the end of his life, including those in the hours immediately before his death, are well documented. Not even the slightest detail of his theory was disowned by him.
His last words were: "How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done." The key words there are the last four; that is, he was still perfectly happy with the theory itself but wished he had been able to express it in a way that would not have caused so much conflict between religion and science.
He did worry about the absence of transitional fossils - the famous "missing links" - that would prove beyond any doubt that his theory was true. He was, though, convinced that such evidence would eventually turn up, because, after all, fossil-collecting was quite new in the late 1800s.
In addition, he was convinced that evolutionary developments occurred irregularly and not in a smooth continuously-changing manner. Species alterations, he believed, were probably very local and very rapid and that, consequently, these �missing links' would be rare and any discovery of them even rarer. Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.
Tyranasaurus Rex existed for millions of years and yet we have only ever recoverred a few complete examples and yet anti-evolutionists insist on seeing "transitional forms" or "missing links" which probably exist for a tiny fraction of that time.
Against the odds archaeopteryx was found half reptile half bird - but apparently thats not truely transitional!
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
I sometimes wonder exactly what proof of evolution would convince them.
If you don't believe in evolution you have some pretty tough questions to answer like how come humans share common genes with so many animals and how do diseases like Bubonic plague or Aids arise?
You end up with the hand of God continually creating them - and where did God come from? Who created Him? - well it's a mystery.
Scientific Creationalism is my favorite Oxymoron
I have the privelege (?) of having been on both sides of the debate, and I understand now that the debaters are arguing at cross purposes.
People like Quizmonster and jake-the-peg are probably interested in knowing facts about the world, even the circumstances of creation or otherwise, by weighing up the facts and evidence around them based on accepted principles.
People who reject evolution and are proponents of divine intervention or Scientific Creationism do not share this standpoint at all. It can sometimes be imagined that they do. That they have sat down, weighed up the evidence, and thrown out the idea of NeoDarwinism as a result. But no. In fact, they have almost universally begun the investigation with the conclusion firmly fixed in their minds: that there is a God, and that this is the same God who produced man in a special act of creation, along with everything else. The view of 'God' is always the traditional one: the God of Genesis, or some variant thereon. It is rare to find someone trying to work NeoDarwinism and 'God' together, because 'God' has been classically created to explain all of the things that NeoDarwinism now answers.
Thus, far from weighing up the conjectures from both sides of the debate, NeoDarwinists stare aghast and with open mouths (as I do) at the ability of the other side to hold on to their position despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is the only theory that 'fits', and it does not require the existence of fossils alone, in fact it does not require that any fossils be found. The convergence of evidence from, for example, comparative Evolutionary Psychology, comparative DNA studies, etc, is simply overwhelming.
Besides, we do have fossil evidence. How are the proponents of 'Scientific Creationism' explaining the fossil record of the ancestors we share with other primates?
And look at chimps: living proof of speciation. You never find a chimp fossil that is older than our common ancestor with them. They have a DNA similarity to us that is very high, yet different enough to make us different species. A little less similarity with gorillas. A little more less with orangutans. Beginning to see a picture?
And look at chimps: living proof of speciation. You never find a chimp fossil that is older than our common ancestor with them. They have a DNA similarity to us that is very high, yet different enough to make us different species. A little less similarity with gorillas. A little more less with orangutans. Beginning to see a picture?
My response is simply that the turmoil in the Darwinian theory today, is not primarily in the arena of the "Creationists", what ever that may mean. Many scientists of all specilaties have made the same observations concerning the validity of macro-evolution. To deny this is to deny reality. If one wishes to investigate, these facts, it's rather a simple process now days.
I would say, again, that there is no doubt that micro-evolution, the adaptation over time is a proven fact. Speciation is not so proven... far from it. Regardless of MargeB's contention that fossils are not required to prove evolution, she stands in confrontation with most paleontologists who have spent their professional lives inquiring into the fossil record for just the purpose of proof.
She also over looks the recent discovery that Homo Sapiens Sapiens shares no DNA with Neanderthal. A shattered assumption that has caused concern among scientists.
Archaeoptryx... Aha! Surely the proof neccessary to quiet the critics. Except, in almost every way, the bird exhibits all the well developed traits of... well... a bird. Not only that, but to be the progenitor of modern birds it would have to predate modern birds. Unfortunately, fossil examples (which MargeB objects to as necessary) have been found of modern birds that pre-date Archaeoptryx.
All I'm really saying is that adherents to classical Darwinianism, i.e. leading to speciation over vast periods of time, must exhibit great faith; a trait highley criticsized when displayed by Crerationists.
Contd.
Contd.
For Quizmonster, I would say that you are entirely wrong (gasp) when stating Darwin proposed speciation to be local and rapid. I find that no where in his writngs. I did not imply that he recanted his beliefs at the end of his life. But it is true, he expressed great doubts throughout his life and hoped for future vindication. Unfortunately, that hasn't occurred, according to scientific investigation...
BTW, Google Irreducible Complexity for further thought...
Paleontologists can dig away, and finding fossils helps to understand, but that does not mean for one moment that fossils are required to show Macro Evolution. Following the sequencing of the human genome, among others, we are very close to showing what DNA differences actually code for. Thus, by comparing differences in gorilla, chimpanzee, and human DNA, we can show that they MUST have come from common ancestors and show that species evolution has occurred. All without fossils.
Where on earth do you get the suggestion that we share no DNA with Neanderthalus? While we did not descend from Neanderthalus, we MUST have shared a lot of DNA with them. We share a lot of DNA with cabbage.
Clanad, what do you object to in the following proposal: Humans and Chimps had a common ancestor (of a different species to either). It branched off in 2 directions, one occupying a set of niches to become humans, one occupying a set of niches to become chimps.
This really is the most patent nonsense!
Apart from dozens of examples of transitions from living lung-fish to ancient feathered lizards there's the DNA record and the ongoing evolution of micro-organisms such as AIDS.
But no all this is wrong, we are mistaken! in reality God created all these as seperate species (whatever that means) and is still creating new species now.
I wonder why God would gave us so many cabbage genes? I wonder why he killed off the neanderthals and all those other species (or was that the flood?)
Most of all I wonder why I am even dignifying this with debate!
Clanad, I'm no expert on Darwin's writings having only ever read snippets from them. I mentioned him at all only because the questioner referred to the development of eyes and I knew Darwin had something to say about those specifically. I bow to your superior knowledge of the minutiae of the great man's claims. The question, however, was about evolution, not Darwinism.
Clearly, what I had in mind re "local and rapid" may well have come from neo-Darwinism, the theories of which do, I understand, suggest "punctuated equilibrium"...ie local and rapid change.
You did say that Darwin "had grave doubts about his theory" towards the end of his life. Again, I'm no expert, but from what little knowledge I've gleaned of the man's life, that does not appear to be the case, particularly given his supposed last words...unless I got those wrong, too.
You say you are unsure what the word 'creationist' means and then, in the same section of your response, you actually use the word in a way which makes clear that you do know! I'm sure we are all aware that 'creationists' - particularly in the Bible-belt regions of the USA - are the sort of people who believe that the world came into existence on the 25th of October, 2456 BC or some similar nonsense. Not only do they believe this, they try to insist their children are so taught!
Anyway, that's enough for me. This discussion has about as much chance of reaching a mutually-satisfactory conclusion as the "Does God exist?" one.
Cheers
hi yai
You have two votes for Stephen Jay Gould's Burgess Shale. I have just finished it, but I cant lend it to you I'm afraid.
Creationists tend to stress how unlikely evolution is and so God must have created things. Anyway Stephen Goulds books are written for a general audience and are worth a read.
While I concur with Quizmonter's conclusion that this thread has about exhausted any meaningful contribution, there are a few loose ends...
For MargeB, an excerpt form BBC News, dated May 13, 2003..."The scientists found that while, unsurprisingly, modern humans show clear genetic signs of their Cro-Magnon ancestry, no such link between Neanderthal DNA and modern European DNA could be established.
The results, they say, indicate that Neanderthals made little or no contribution to the genes of modern humans." This is well documented elsewhere...
(BTW, aren't you a member of the flat earth society according to your postings in another thread?)
Additionally, while humans and chimpanzees do have DNA similarities equivalent to approximately 98%, almost all of those have to do with bilateralism and other physical structures. The remaining 2% are quite strikingly different...
Contd.
For Quizmonster... you are exactly correct in your surmise concerning punctuated equilibrium. Stephen Jay Gould and a cohort proposed the idea a number of years ago, when he came to the conclusion that the stasis observed in the fossil record presented nearly insurmountable problems for classical Darwinianism. He proposed that, as an example, a reptilian progenitor, who had displayed little or no variety, could produce an offspring that was a bird, due primarily to mutatitive forces of some undescribed kind. When saner minds prevailed and began to question how this mutant could reproduce, the theory was quickly abandoned.
Unfortunately, there are adherents to a young earth Creationist scenario. This presents problems, not only for themselves, but also for those proponents of Intelligent Design who readily concur in the age of the universe and the earth as being ancient. There are those Creationists that believe the Bible and Science are not mutually exclusive. Hence my question "..whatever that means".
As far as Darwin's conflicted views, please read the final sentence of the final paragraph of his 1859 work. But be sure to read the 2nd edition, wherein he add's the revealing words "...of the Creator". This proves nothing, of course, but does reveal a man not entirely satisfied with his own pronouncements.
I would only add the fact that most paleontologist suggest that only 5% of the species noted in the Cambrian exist today. Some even lower that figure to 1%. If speciation is at work, it's obviously not doing very well...
Yes! The earth is FLAT! (can't believe that guy thought I was serious. Just wanted to see how far I could make it go).
I've learned quite a lot now....so...98% of my genes are concerned with making me bilateral?
If I have sex, and my genes go via my sperm to a woman's egg, and join up with her genes, what pray tell, is responsible for that egg going on to produce an object with a brain, heart, hands, lungs, a social intellect, problem solving skills, the ability to use tools, hair, eyes, teeth, nose........genes code for all of these. Now...you think that 98% are for bilateralism?
If you accept what you seem to be accepting from the BBC article, that we share a lot of genes with Cro Magnon but not with Neanderthalus, how do you think this then works? What would you expect our overlap genetically with Neanderthalus to be? 10%? 20%? 99%? Hint: we already share 50% with cauliflower.
What part of his genetic makeup was concerned with giving him a nose, of that shape, in the right place? Was that an overlap with us? Or was it just convergent evolution?
I'm beginning to think (hope) that you might be taking the psi.
1 to 19 of 19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |