Does the "Eye" and "Brain" kill Evolutionary Theory?

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Byrd

 

Thanks this made more sense.

Just to start out!! I dont think everything just appeared out of thin air. I know its a proses. Starting at a very small level and becoming bigger.

I believe in science its just that some things are better explained then others.

I know we are apes but our own species of ape. If you take away the razor and scissors you would start to see how ugly we could be.

I also know that DNA changes and that we do pass it on to our children. But what i am having a hard time of adding up is that we shape shift into something that looks totally different because of DNA transfers.

We might become smaller, taller,colored, white, loos hair, have more hair and become less resistant or more resistant because of DNA transfers. But it won't change who we are.

Does science define intelligence and appearances as a change of species just because they have started to shave, cut their hair, become fat because of the way they live or have evolved a system of learning ?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Here's a hypothetical that might help. Please bear with me.

Let's say that a massive world war ends civilization as we know it.
No phone, no lights no motor cars,
Not a single luxury,
Like Robinson Crusoe,
As primative as can be.
source: Gilligan

Now lets say that the small amount of survivors band together into 2 groups.
One group decides to move into abandoned buildings and live above the surface.
One group decides to move underground into sewers and sub-tunnels.

Let's focus on the group below ground.
The is little or no light underground.
The quarters are cramped and the ceilings low.
It's cold, wet and damp most of the time.

Over a very long period of time, the underground dwellers would adapt to their environment.
As example, the lack of sunlight would lighten their skin and cause vitamin absorption problems which the body would need to work out via mutation.

The cold, wet environment could spur extreme hair growth, muscular and vascular changes again due to mutations over many, many generations.

Since the quarters have low ceilings, movement would be bent forward so walking on all fours might be the fastest way to move around. This could lead to lengthening of the arms such as with the great apes.

The eyes would adapt to the darkness allowing them to see in lower light. Other senses such as hearing might substantially improve.

All these changes would be due to genetic mutation over many, many generations. If you add up all these genetic changes, there may be as much as a 2% difference in genetic makeup between the underground dwellers and the above ground dwellers.

Now lets say the above ground dwellers decide that because of their shrinking population, they want to move underground and breed with their underground dweller friends.

Now we haven't even discussed any genetic mutations to the above ground dwellers but lets ignore that for now.

Now we know that chimps have only a 2% genetic variance with humans.
We also know that chimps and humans cannot produce offspring. Why do you think chimps and humans cannot produce offspring?



[edit on 20-3-2009 by jfj123]

reply to post by jfj123


Ever read Elf Stones of Shannara by Terry Brooks. This books world is basically as you describe. Millions of years after a techno society nuclear war the people evolved into different races. One example is the dwarfs who evolved from people who worked in underground cities during the techno years.

Hawking has talked on this subject too in that he suggests we are reaching the point where we will start to evolve ourselves in directions we choose to go, so basically we will see start to see million year evolution happen in hundreds of years. Keeping that in mind, just think of what few 1000 years of this will do to us when even 10,000 years is hardly noticed in evolution.

Personally I'm not convinced that intelligence is an evolutionary good trait, and it would easily wipe itself out. It is also suggested that intelligence is a predator trait and that also doesn’t provide the best scenario for longevity.

reply to post by Byrd


I started another thread about how studying alcohol could help in measureing mutations in real time. I would like all the feed back I can get.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
reply to post by jfj123

 

Ever read Elf Stones of Shannara by Terry Brooks. This books world is basically as you describe. Millions of years after a techno society nuclear war the people evolved into different races. One example is the dwarfs who evolved from people who worked in underground cities during the techno years.

Hawking has talked on this subject too in that he suggests we are reaching the point where we will start to evolve ourselves in directions we choose to go, so basically we will see start to see million year evolution happen in hundreds of years. Keeping that in mind, just think of what few 1000 years of this will do to us when even 10,000 years is hardly noticed in evolution.

Personally I'm not convinced that intelligence is an evolutionary good trait, and it would easily wipe itself out. It is also suggested that intelligence is a predator trait and that also doesn’t provide the best scenario for longevity.

Very interesting post. Thanks for the info

I thought everyone might find this interesting

a Texas state Representative who — you might want to sit down, or maybe even lie on the floor as you read this — wants the Institute for Creation Research to be able to grant Master of Science degrees.

OK, I’ll let you comically rub your eyes with your fists for a second, then check that yes, you did indeed read that correctly. The ICR — a wretched hive of scum and villainy — thinks that it’s doing science research (and boy is it not), and it’s not fair that they can’t grant science degrees! Now, this is not really surprising, seeing that the ICR can’t grasp reality with both hands, a vice, and a lifetime supply of crazy glue, but still. It’s funny.

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

reply to post by flitstone42

Just because Evolution isn't true doesn't necessarily mean that a god created everything, or that there even is a creator. But from a scientific standpoint, Evolutionists are being dishonest because they are afraid that if they let go of their pet theory, they will be admitting defeat to the Creationists. But they should come up with a theory based on science, not speculation.

Thank you for putting your post so succinctly!!! I for one appreciate it.

I personally feel more answers come if more speculation regarding a Creator is allowed. But, realizing that science is limited and bound by its own laws, I cannot expect it.

Thank you! a *4U.

reply to post by jfj123


Theory can also mean:

"A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Darwin's Theory of evolution. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural...a guess or conjecture, contemplation or speculation." -Webster's

This explanation leaves room for human error of supposition.

reply to post by Astyanax

So there you have it: evolutionary theory is both alive and dead. It is alive in the world, and in science, with no evident danger to its continued health and success; and it is dead in the minds of creationists - as if anyone cares.

Actually, I think that there is a world of belief between the two. I am one who believes in a higher power, one with consciousness, but can also see how he/it could very easily implement micro-evolution. Why not?

I think the problem lies with creating differences where no differences need to be. It is obvious there is truth to evolution. Where it is not obvious or provable is; that it happened by chance.

It also explains why the majority of actual scientists who actually do the hands on work - believe in a Creator, or at least question it. That in itself adds credibility to the concept of a higher power, even without certifiable proof.

reply to post by MatrixProphet

Actually, I think that there is a world of belief between the two. I am one who believes in a higher power, one with consciousness, but can also see how he/it could very easily implement micro-evolution. Why not?

Better question: why?

If you believe in God, evolution (there is no such distinction as 'micro' and 'macro' in evolution) is a superfluous entity. Out with Occam's razor and away with it.

What you believe is not important: it's the truth that matters.

I think the honey bee kills evolutionary theory.

i mean, the life cycle of the worker bee is just incredible. here's a video on the foraging stage of the worker bee life cycle, doing its waggle dance, which is described as using vector calculus to communicate


before they are foragers, they maintain and build the hive.
before that, they maintain and feed the queen.

all this with a brain the size of a grain of sand

some have suggested this is an example of hive thinking, where the whole hive shares one brain, increasing their brain power. if such were the case, the forager wouldn't need the waggle dance as the other bees would instantly know the data since they'd be sharing the same brain.

reply to post by undo

I imagine that bees are automatons, pretty much. It's just that the algorithms they're designed to follow contain lots of IF > THEN instructions. But how does the complexity of honeybee behaviour disprove evolution? Is God thinking for every individual honeybee?

Gosh, I said 'designed to follow'. I must believe in intelligent design, then, after all. At any rate I'm sure Conspiriology will be along soon in one of his new disguises to tell me I do.

reply to post by Astyanax


mwahaha. well they are programmed. DNA/RNA is like a computer program.

reply to post by undo

Yes, but they are only programs that code for the manufacture of proteins.

These things are surprisingly mechanical. Light falls on a retinal cone, triggering the manufacture of an enzyme that causes a protein to flip from one shape to another and a neural signal starts off on its journey, the end result will be you seeing a certain colour in a certain part of your visual field. The DNA just contains the blueprint for a cell mechanism that manufactures the enzyme when light falls on it. Look at it that way and bee behaviour is no more difficult to understand than, well, human behaviour.

Which is, of course, not at all easy to understand. Life is complicated stuff.

reply to post by Astyanax

Better question: why?

Well, it certainly would explain far more regarding the transitional aspects of evolution and the complexity in design. I am too pragmatic. Explaining the fairy dust aspects of evolution is far harder to cognitively believe (without an intelligence), than the "magic" of a higher power. Of course, this is just one person's opinion.

What I don't understand is: the prejudice that so many have attaching a higher power to the cosmos, while others don't see a problem at all! I am speaking of the scientific community of which I am surrounded. It almost seems to be a threat!!! I am not attributing anything to you, but just the "sense" I get from my many atheist friends and family.

Why does this whole argument matter so much? What does it say to you, if there really is a God/Infinite/ID that was very involved in creating evolution, the cosmos and mankind?

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by jfj123

 

Theory can also mean:

"A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Darwin's Theory of evolution. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural...a guess or conjecture, contemplation or speculation." -Webster's

This explanation leaves room for human error of supposition.

There are many different definitions of the word theory HOWEVER, the generally accepted definition within the scientific context is the one I've posted many times.

reply to post by jfj123

There are many different definitions of the word theory HOWEVER, the generally accepted definition within the scientific context is the one I've posted many times.

Yes, I can appreciate that, so it explains tho the issues everyone has regarding the meaning of a word, because often it depends on the source and perspective.

As a writer and researcher, I have found it important to get many views because even within a community there can be very diverse understandings.

Hence, the knowledge that there is such diversity in thoughts and feelings about a Creator within a context or field, in which many are asking for proof. Showing that there are definitely no conclusions or subjectivity that are enough to sway the majority of experts.

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by jfj123

 

There are many different definitions of the word theory HOWEVER, the generally accepted definition within the scientific context is the one I've posted many times.

Yes, I can appreciate that, so it explains tho the issues everyone has regarding the meaning of a word, because often it depends on the source and perspective.

As a writer and researcher, I have found it important to get many views because even within a community there can be very diverse understandings.

Hence, the knowledge that there is such diversity in thoughts and feelings about a Creator within a context or field, in which many are asking for proof. Showing that there are definitely no conclusions or subjectivity that are enough to sway the majority of experts.

I think you'll find that within the scientific community, there is no diversity as to the definition of a Scientific Theory.

I also think, upon researching the subject of evolution, you'll find that there is enough evidence to solidify the majority of experts. Most experts agree with evolution.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by jfj123]

reply to post by jfj123

I also think, upon researching the subject of evolution, you'll find that there is enough evidence to solidify the majority of experts. Most experts agree with evolution.

I don't disagree. Except this isn't what I was saying. Please re-read my former post. Thanks.

i believe in evolution but also in Intelligent Design.

an eye could be evolved without ID, a brain is harder to explain.

reply to post by MatrixProphet

Well, it certainly would explain far more regarding the transitional aspects of evolution and the complexity in design.

No, I mean what would be the point of it to God? Why not just create the world fully formed, instead of having this thing called evolution? What good would that do?

Explaining the fairy dust aspects of evolution is far harder to cognitively believe (without an intelligence), than the "magic" of a higher power. Of course, this is just one person's opinion.

Well, it's an apparently reasonable opinion - till you realize that you then have to explain the higher power.