Problems I have with evolution

originally posted by: kcgads
Nothing explains how you repeatedly get the SAME accidental mutation. Why do eyes always get the same exact mutations? Everyone keeps ignoring this. I understand that natural selection would keep a good mutation, if it helps an organism adapt to it's environment. What I don't get is the same exact mutation happening time and time again. Everyone keeps saying "natural selection isn't random" and thinks that's an explanation. Well, it's not. It doesn't explain the mutation itself.

I LITERALLY posted this response to you the last time you said this (it's actually on the same page as your post I'm quoting now) and you completely ignored it:
"They don't always develop in the same way... There are many different types of eyes out there that view things many different ways. That is unless you consider a fly's eyes the same as a human's eyes. "

So you MUST think that a fly's eyes and a human's eyes function exactly the same if you want to continue saying that they are the same mutation.

originally posted by: Autorico
Is there any reason a deity couldn't have created us through evolution?

there is a Deity of this planet at least... and possibly a creator Deity named Lucifer who is Lord/Prince not only of this world (Earth) but the material universe...the God Trinity reserved the 10 or so 'Dark Matter' Universes for their place called 'Heaven'


Lucifer, the Master/Prince/God of this world (admitted by Jesus & Scriptures) uses the progressive nature of evolution to act as a general background-for-change... but the Lucifer Deity also manipulates genes & DNA to create fantastic living things...
the Lucifer model had to have 5 previous mass-extinctions because his bizarre bio-spheres got too weird.


glad you voiced Your observation

originally posted by: kcgads
originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: kcgads

I think eyes are inevitable, yes.

You're starting to confuse me. In some posts you accept that some mutations are inevitable, and in others you're making it seem as though you believe all mutations are inevitable. Then you agree that some things aren't accidental and some are, and now in this most recent post you're forgetting what we touched upon earlier about the accidental mutations of photosensitive cells, and the inevitability of further complexity thereafter.

I now don't really know what you are and aren't having an issue with. It seems to change per post. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding of previous information that some of the comments here have?

originally posted by: kcgads
originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: kcgads
" Eyes, specifically, are relatively simple to form and progress"

Why? Why is a mutation causing a patch of photosensitive cells or a mutation causing a lens relatively simple to form? They are accidents.

The first mutation that then caused successive mutations that further formed a complex organ is most definitely accidental. Many people here have explained that it is a number of times. However, anything that furthers that specific first-mutation once it has formed is always inevitable. Why? Because Evolution has a pattern to it. If a mutation is beneficial, and it alters the way an organism functions, that new functionality due to that mutation will always lead to further complexity and specialization within that mutation. If that mutation turns out not to be beneficial, it will either lay dormant or it will be breed out of successive generations.

Photosensitive cells are accidents, but those cups, those specialized eyes, they are all inevitable mutations due to the allowance for change in that species' behavior thanks to those photosensitive cells that were formed accidentally and subsequently selected for by natural selection.

originally posted by: kcgads
originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: kcgads
They are so relatively simple to accidentally form that it happened 40 times in nearly the same way. Why? Why would a cup always start forming under the photosensitive cells? Why does the lens always "accidentally" mutate and form exactly in just the right spot to be useful for vision?

I think you're conceiving the terms "Accidental" and "Inevitable" and the wrong way. Again, anything after that initial (and accidental) mutation of photosensitive cells is not an accident. The successive evolution of those photosensitive cells is inevitable if the organism that had that photosensitive cell mutation has a change in their behavior due to that mutation. That mutation allows them to do things they previously couldn't, there for it is no accident that we see that mutation evolve further and be more specialized due to the new environments it can now use to it's benefit and natural selection.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears as though you believe there's these set amounts of mutations after the photosensitive cells form. The image I posted earlier is the evolution of a specific type of eye. It is not the same path that every type of eye took in order to be at it's form right now. Evolution is always branching, never linear. This is due to how a mutation specializes for specific environments:



The term "inevitability" we use is not that a photosensitive cells will inevitably form a cup, but that they will inevitably evolve further into more complex organs, so long as the organism continues to have a need for it.

Evolution can be reversed in the embryonic stages:

Birds are thought to have evolved from dinosaurs, but have very different jaws. Bird-like dinosaurs such as the velociraptor have two bones at the tip of their upper jaws. In birds, those bones are fused to form a beak.

By blocking two proteins that are activated when chicken embryos grow their beaks, U.S. researchers caused their jaws to "revert" to a velociraptor-like snout. The changes were observed in chick embryos that developed until they were close to hatching.

To their surprise, the birds' palates, on the roof of their mouths, also became dinosaur-like.

"This was unexpected and demonstrates the way in which a single, simple developmental mechanism can have wide-ranging and unexpected effects," said Bhart-Anjan Bhullar, lead author of the study, in a statement from Yale University.

www.cbc.ca...

Velociraptor chickens... OMG, don't let them revert en masse.

a reply to: Ghost147

a reply to: kennyb72

A statement I made from an earlier post relating to ancient wisdom.

To date, it has been correct on just about everything that science has subsequently discovered.

Oooh look, from a Youtube link posted on ATS today, maybe it won't take as long as I thought. Thank you Ketsuko.


For those of you who can't access youtube, Upgrade, you know it makes sense.

a reply to: kennyb72

Christian fundamentalists will say the same exact thing regarding bible prophecy. They'll say it has mostly all happened. It's confirmation bias and forcing a square peg in a round hole. Just because something is ancient does not make it right. There is older knowledge that is dead wrong. I'm just wondering why you are using the O&C as a platform to promote Hylozoics, rather than addressing the topics in these threads or relating it.

So, you're just going to paste your own words on a science diagram and claim you made some kind of point? You can't prove that "awareness" has anything to do with any of that. If Hylozoics has been right about everything science has discovered (pure BS), then why are you so anti-science? Your view is purely subjective, and you keep acting like it's objectively proven and the rest of us are spiritually void because we don't realize that your guess is truth. I didn't think Hylozoic fundamentalists could exist, because enlightenment seems to be the exact opposite of your attitude toward science and your invalid generalizations about scientists.

a reply to: Barcs

Confirmation bias is indeed the key to this nonsense. If only the silly people who believe in this nonsense (and all other flavours of nonsense) could be objective enough to see it.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: kcgads
originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: kcgads

I think eyes are inevitable, yes.

You're starting to confuse me. In some posts you accept that some mutations are inevitable, and in others you're making it seem as though you believe all mutations are inevitable. Then you agree that some things aren't accidental and some are, and now in this most recent post you're forgetting what we touched upon earlier about the accidental mutations of photosensitive cells, and the inevitability of further complexity thereafter.

I now don't really know what you are and aren't having an issue with. It seems to change per post. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding of previous information that some of the comments here have?

originally posted by: kcgads
originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: kcgads
" Eyes, specifically, are relatively simple to form and progress"

Why? Why is a mutation causing a patch of photosensitive cells or a mutation causing a lens relatively simple to form? They are accidents.

The first mutation that then caused successive mutations that further formed a complex organ is most definitely accidental. Many people here have explained that it is a number of times. However, anything that furthers that specific first-mutation once it has formed is always inevitable. Why? Because Evolution has a pattern to it. If a mutation is beneficial, and it alters the way an organism functions, that new functionality due to that mutation will always lead to further complexity and specialization within that mutation. If that mutation turns out not to be beneficial, it will either lay dormant or it will be breed out of successive generations.

Photosensitive cells are accidents, but those cups, those specialized eyes, they are all inevitable mutations due to the allowance for change in that species' behavior thanks to those photosensitive cells that were formed accidentally and subsequently selected for by natural selection.

originally posted by: kcgads
originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: kcgads
They are so relatively simple to accidentally form that it happened 40 times in nearly the same way. Why? Why would a cup always start forming under the photosensitive cells? Why does the lens always "accidentally" mutate and form exactly in just the right spot to be useful for vision?

I think you're conceiving the terms "Accidental" and "Inevitable" and the wrong way. Again, anything after that initial (and accidental) mutation of photosensitive cells is not an accident. The successive evolution of those photosensitive cells is inevitable if the organism that had that photosensitive cell mutation has a change in their behavior due to that mutation. That mutation allows them to do things they previously couldn't, there for it is no accident that we see that mutation evolve further and be more specialized due to the new environments it can now use to it's benefit and natural selection.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears as though you believe there's these set amounts of mutations after the photosensitive cells form. The image I posted earlier is the evolution of a specific type of eye. It is not the same path that every type of eye took in order to be at it's form right now. Evolution is always branching, never linear. This is due to how a mutation specializes for specific environments:

The term "inevitability" we use is not that a photosensitive cells will inevitably form a cup, but that they will inevitably evolve further into more complex organs, so long as the organism continues to have a need for it.

They evolve eye PARTS independently. Octopii evolved rods and lenses in their eyes independently of vertibrates. Those would have had to have been the results of separate mutations at some point before natural selection took over. I don't see how this is possible if there weren't some sort of blueprint for vision. Vision needs lenses, rod, cones, specific eye parts. These parts had to at first been a random mutation if evolution is correct. Is it a matter of luck that octopii and vertibrates both formed lenses and rods with random mutations, right where they would be needed for vision (in the eye).

I can understand how there would be hundreds of types of eyes as the results of natural selection. That makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is that lenses would evolve independently. Or that rods would. And that the organism would be lucky enough to get these mutations where they would be useful for sight.

a reply to: kcgads

Somehow, I think that if you were truly curious about this, you'd have educated yourself already instead of pretending like you have a valid argument because you think there isn't an answer to your questions. This wiki article LITERALLY answers every one of your concerns about the evolution of the eye.

Evolution of the eye

Whether one considers the eye to have evolved once or multiple times depends somewhat on the definition of an eye. Much of the genetic machinery employed in eye development is common to all eyed organisms, which may suggest that their ancestor utilized some form of light-sensitive machinery – even if it lacked a dedicated optical organ. However, even photoreceptor cells may have evolved more than once from molecularly similar chemoreceptors, and photosensitive cells probably existed long before the Cambrian explosion.[11] Higher-level similarities – such as the use of the protein crystallin in the independently derived cephalopod and vertebrate lenses[12] – reflect the co-option of a protein from a more fundamental role to a new function within the eye.[13]

Shared traits common to all light-sensitive organs include the family of photo-receptive proteins called opsins. All seven sub-families of opsin were already present in the last common ancestor of animals. In addition, the genetic toolkit for positioning eyes is common to all animals: the PAX6 gene controls where the eye develops in organisms ranging from octopuses[14] to mice to fruit flies.[15][16][17] These high-level genes are, by implication, much older than many of the structures that they are today seen to control; they must originally have served a different purpose, before being co-opted for a new role in eye development.[13]

Sensory organs probably evolved before the brain did—there is no need for an information-processing organ (brain) before there is information to process.[18]

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh snap! That's the article I posted 5 pages ago that OP refused to read.

a reply to: GetHyped

Funny how it takes like all of 5 seconds to find it on Google by just typing "Evolution of eye". Shows how curious for answers this poster really is.

a reply to: kcgads

For the 3rd time, each mutation was INDIVIDUALLY beneficial at EACH stage of development. It didn't just evolve a lens or rod because it would help see in the future. They evolved because EVERY STEP of the process was beneficial, not just the end result. I have to wonder if you are even reading the posts, this has been explained by me 3 times, and probably others even more.

a reply to: kcgads

I absolutely agree with you kcgads, it would appear that the blueprint called for vision, and thats not just plain old vision, but stereoscopic vision at that, Why two eyes common across all species when one eye would most definitely suffice? Going by evolutionary reasoning, all early life forms would have developed one eye until the need for 3 dimensional vision became an advantage.

What real benefit for a ground based bug to develop stereoscopic vision, not to mention the wiring in its head or whatever, that must bring both sensors into focus, and into focus on what? if it has no awareness.

It has to be making sense of what it sees with those eyes otherwise it wouldn't have evolved them?

We are expected to believe, not just one species found two eyes beneficial through accidental mutation or natural selection, but all of them. The other thing that is interesting is the symmetry of life, being equal on both sides of it's body and the function of two ears, why? all developing independently of each other with the same characteristics.

The argument that vision must have been limited to detecting light and dark for tens of thousands of years before evolving into something more useful is not supported by logic. Two eyes have developed over vast amounts of time until it eventually revealed that it was worth the effort as the world gradually grew into focus.

"Jeez, I new those cones and rods and a clear lens with a retina would come in useful one day. In fact it's so useful I don't know how I ever survived without them". Me neither mate!

Again what advantage is having stereoscopic light grey and dark non vision. Evolutionists always gloss over details like this and try to make a nonsensical story fit, it but they all add up to one big question mark in my view.

a reply to: Barcs

I'm just wondering why you are using the O&C as a platform to promote Hylozoics

Because it is much more at home here than evolution theory is, go get your own forum instead of invading other peoples. ORIGINS AND CREATIONISM get it origins as in origins of life and creationism as in a creator. And don’t use the lame argument about origins of species. Origins has no place in evolution theory as you regularly remind me.

How many times have you argued that origins of life cannot be used in an argument about evolution and yet here you all are arguing in the ORIGINS AND CREATIONISM forum. You can’t have it both ways.

Ask management nicely, and maybe they will make one for you. We can all pop over occasionally and have tea and biscuits together. Go on, Shoo, clear off vamoose, until you learn to respect others views, as we will yours if we ever enter into the evolutionists forum.

Sign on door, Evo-boys rule OK, and keep the noise down!

You can take your little monkeys off the logo as well and replace is with stars and unicorns and er, no scrub that... Just stay out, unless you can learn to behave yourselves, alright.

So, you're just going to paste your own words on a science diagram and claim you made some kind of point?

You make it sound as though I have burned a copy of CD's Origin and Species, did it offend you fundamentalist evo-boys? I have a guilty secret, I drew a cartoon of Charles Darwin last night in stockings and suspenders.

I didn't think Hylozoic fundamentalists could exist, because enlightenment seems to be the exact opposite of your attitude toward science and your invalid generalizations about scientists

Hylozoic fundamentalists don't exist, it all appears to be part of your own persecution complex which could probably be fixed up by taking regular walks.

For the 3rd time, each mutation was INDIVIDUALLY beneficial at EACH stage of development. It didn't just evolve a lens or rod because it would help see in the future. They evolved because EVERY STEP of the process was beneficial, not just the end result. I have to wonder if you are even reading the posts

I wonder if you actually give any thought to what you post rather than just read it and accept it as gospel.

a reply to: kennyb72

You make a post like this and whine about how you're offended that others feel you come off as arrogant and condescending? Bravo Mr. Hypocrite! Thanks for demonstrating that you've never been interested in an actual discussion or debate, just pushing your own agenda devoid of any actual evidence. Your arrogance is pathetic and disgusting and utterly devoid of anything resembling civility. Best of luck with that in the future.

a reply to: peter vlar

You make a post like this and whine about how you're offended that others feel you come off as arrogant and condescending? Bravo Mr. Hypocrite! Thanks for demonstrating that you've never been interested in an actual discussion or debate, just pushing your own agenda devoid of any actual evidence. Your arrogance is pathetic and disgusting and utterly devoid of anything resembling civility. Best of luck with that in the future

Is that you Ghost?

One thing that did not evolve in evolutionists is a sense of humour. I say this respectfully and with a straight face, get your heads out of your collective a$$es and get a life.

Here, have a star, it may pacify you a little.

a reply to: kennyb72

Nope, it's just obvious to the rest of the members that your disposition is that of what it is.

a reply to: Ghost147

Nope, it's just obvious to the rest of the members that your disposition is that of what it is.

All... six of you


You wouldn't be a bass player too would you? I always had issues with bass players. Probably because they evolved with wide fingers, must be a trait.



Here, let me pollute your star pool as well, with CREATIONIST/ID stars.

originally posted by: kennyb72
it would appear that the blueprint called for vision, and thats not just plain old vision, but stereoscopic vision at that, Why two eyes common across all species when one eye would most definitely suffice? Going by evolutionary reasoning, all early life forms would have developed one eye until the need for 3 dimensional vision became an advantage.

Um, 2 eyes offers a big advantage over one. First, if one gets damaged, you can still see out of the other. Second you are dead wrong on the 3D vision. That only applies to animals that have eyes on the sides of their head, many fish and lizards for example. You can still see in 3D out of one eye, although the range wouldn't be as broad. What you are saying is like saying creatures evolved one leg first and then didn't get a second until the need arose for that. It's silly, and isn't the way evolution works in the least. It isn't based on what is needed. It's based on what helps them survive.

What real benefit for a ground based bug to develop stereoscopic vision, not to mention the wiring in its head or whatever, that must bring both sensors into focus, and into focus on what? if it has no awareness.

It is alive, it has a brain, it is aware of things. You keep assigning mystical properties to "awareness" with no evidence whatsoever. If you have a specific example instead of just making generalization of ground bug I can give you the advantages, but since you just talk in generalizations and obviously do not know much about evolution or science at all, I'm not expecting anything coherent from you.

We are expected to believe, not just one species found two eyes beneficial through accidental mutation or natural selection, but all of them. The other thing that is interesting is the symmetry of life, being equal on both sides of it's body and the function of two ears, why? all developing independently of each other with the same characteristics.

Do you even understand the concept of a common ancestor? It didn't evolve in ALL species. It evolved in a previous common ancestor and the trait was passed down to future generations.

Most creatures show biradial symmetry, which isn't equal on both sides, it simply means it is arranged with similar parts on each side. It's certainly not equal, although there are definitely organisms that show this. 2 ears offers an advantage because you can more accurately tell where the sound is coming from. Not difficult to comprehend.

The argument that vision must have been limited to detecting light and dark for tens of thousands of years before evolving into something more useful is not supported by logic. Two eyes have developed over vast amounts of time until it eventually revealed that it was worth the effort as the world gradually grew into focus.

LMAO at not being supported by logic. I don't think you even have the foggiest about what you are talking about here. It doesn't even make sense.

"Jeez, I new those cones and rods and a clear lens with a retina would come in useful one day. In fact it's so useful I don't know how I ever survived without them". Me neither mate!

Way to ignore all of the posts that have already explained this. Nah, you just want to pigeonhole and generalize everything while understanding none of it.

Again what advantage is having stereoscopic light grey and dark non vision. Evolutionists always gloss over details like this and try to make a nonsensical story fit, it but they all add up to one big question mark in my view.

Is that supposed to be a joke?

www.wisegeek.com...

The visual advantages that humans have as a result of stereoscopic vision are most obvious when compared to someone who doesn't have this ability, because he has lost the use of an eye, for instance. These individuals can make certain adjustments to account for the loss of depth perception, but it is largely impossible to regain all of what has been lost, regardless of these adaptations. Stereoscopic vision is also related to our ability to manipulate small objects with our hands. Similarly, some woodland animals use it to precisely navigate through branches and other forest environments where accurate depth perception is a matter of survival.

Just use google man, it's your friend. It wasn't difficult at all to find this.

"Those damn evilutionists glossing over details like how vision in 2 eyes is an advantage over 1. What a joke.

Because it is much more at home here than evolution theory is, go get your own forum instead of invading other peoples. ORIGINS AND CREATIONISM get it origins as in origins of life and creationism as in a creator. And don’t use the lame argument about origins of species. Origins has no place in evolution theory as you regularly remind me.

I know that I've addressed this claim already to you specifically. Funny how you just pretend it was never addressed when it suits your agenda and just repeat the same ol' drivel. Origin of species IS AN ORIGIN. Science savy folks say that Origin of LIFE itself is NOT part of evolution and they are dead right. Equivocation fallacy

Please explain what exact origins Hylozics explains? I guess we should just ignore all of the ignorant statements by science deniers, even though the motto of this site is "deny ignorance". Why won't you make your own thread about Hylozics instead of hijacking every evolution thread to promote your agenda? You still didn't answer the question. It's quite sad and you are promoting your views as a fundamentalist Christian does and supporting complete ignorance.

Go on, Shoo, clear off vamoose, until you learn to respect others views, as we will yours if we ever enter into the evolutionists forum.

Now THAT's rich, coming from YOU. The guy who has posted numerous attacks on scientists and science minded people, and that posted plenty of insults and generalizations of science even after being corrected and defends folks that post lies about it . You have generalized scientists with pathetic stereotypes and accused folks of being mentally incapable of understanding your world view. I respect and understand your view I just don't agree with it or think it is absolute truth as you do, completely via confirmation bias.

You make it sound as though I have burned a copy of CD's Origin and Species, did it offend you fundamentalist evo-boys? I have a guilty secret, I drew a cartoon of Charles Darwin last night in stockings and suspenders.

You really give yourself too much credit. Nobody is offended. We just call out ignorance where we see it and that "diagram" edit was precisely that.

Hylozoic fundamentalists don't exist, it all appears to be part of your own persecution complex which could probably be fixed up by taking regular walks.

So you don't believe the ancient knowledge described in Hylozoics to be literal truth? It sure sounds like you believe it to be and that's pretty much the definition of a fundamentalist. If the shoe fits....

I wonder if you actually give any thought to what you post rather than just read it and accept it as gospel.

I wonder if you actually can offer a rebuttal to my points instead of offering nothing of substance, strictly denial and ignorance.