Evolution, as many percieve it, is wrong.

[Zeno]

Note that I have no problem (Except the lack of fossilized and DNA evidence.) with evolution as it occurred after the first organism and perhaps there is a different word or theory for the creation of the universe that I'm refferring to and that I'm not aware of. It's the basis of the first evolutions that makes little sense to me. Somehow, somewhere, an organism was spontaneously generated (Can this be reacreated in a lab?) and after that, Darwinian evolution takes hold as the strongest survive, who happen to have that instinct for survival, and continue to change and adapt to their environment.

• There is no lack of fossil or DNA evidence, as both make more than compelling cases for evolution. My previous post addressed the fossil record. As for DNA, take a look at the mouse genome.
• The theory you are addressing really does have nothing to do with evolution. It's called abiogenesis and you can read about it. (here and here)
• It is survival of the fittest not the strongest. It's not about being the strongest, it's about being most effective in passing your genes on.

 

[Ryan2065]

Wonderful answers but it didn't hit on exactly what I meant. When the *first* micro-organism(s?) was(were?) created why did they keep moving? Why not just die out? When these first little organisms were created they already had a basic instinct to eat, reproduce, and grow which is the fundamental basis of evolution, as I understand it. I don't even know what the first organism was so I'm doing a little bit of guesswork here.

They were not that complex to start with... They were single celled bacteria. Would you say cells that are not alive but still split and create more of themselves have a basic instinct to eat, reproduce, and grow?

Also a good answer but it is only theoretically possible.

The sand example can work with throwing the sand... theoritically.

That is what I said... The difference between theoretically possible and practically possible is the number of tries you will do. If you only try 10 times to throw the sand and the chances you get this picture are 1/10^1000000 then this is practically impossible. However if you try 10^1000000 times then it becomes practically possible.

Evidence supports that the grains of sand will not ever create an intricate design, like a unicorn, a turtle, a human face, etc. If you could show me an experiment in which it is proven I would be very grateful, show me a setting in which this happens. (I know I'm being a bit of a liar here because I said if you could prove it mathematically I would be happy.)

Sand usually does not create "shapes" because from my experiences sand is usually the same color in most places. Look at the clouds though. People make a habit of looking up at the clouds to see what shapes they randomly made in the sky.

Note that I have no problem (Except the lack of fossilized and DNA evidence.) with evolution as it occurred after the first organism and perhaps there is a different word or theory for the creation of the universe that I'm refferring to and that I'm not aware of. It's the basis of the first evolutions that makes little sense to me. Somehow, somewhere, an organism was spontaneously generated (Can this be reacreated in a lab?) and after that, Darwinian evolution takes hold as the strongest survive, who happen to have that instinct for survival, and continue to change and adapt to their environment.

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

Life must exist before it starts diversifying, and so the origin of life (or abiogenesis) is a necessary precursor for biological evolution.[157] However, understanding that evolution has occurred and investigating how this happens does not require an understanding of the origin of life.[158] Nonetheless, abiogenesis is a subject which is often discussed under the general heading of evolution

Evolution does not including the origin of life. Obviously we need life to begin in order for evolution to occur so it makes sense to talk about it but a fairy could have farted and brought about the first living things and this wouldn't change evolution.

The universal constants of the universe do seem to support (an) underlying system(s). Something or things that exist outside of time (Like light) and controls or set these constants. I don't know whether that supports a god theory and I'm not about to arbitrarily state that it does.

Uhh... Ever hear of a light year? If light existed outside of time then terms like "light year" would be nonsense.

 

[Anti-World]

Uhh... Ever hear of a light year? If light existed outside of time then terms like "light year" would be nonsense.

Nope. Don't have time to answer, hope someone else will and I'll read up and those links so you probably wont hear from me in a while. Thanks for the replies guys. ^_^

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Uhh... Ever hear of a light year? If light existed outside of time then terms like "light year" would be nonsense.

I'll take the time to answer with a question: how long does it take for light, from its point of view, to travel from another galaxy to our eye ?

 

[fantome profane]

When the *first* micro-organism(s?) was(were?) created why did they keep moving? Why not just die out? When these first little organisms were created they already had a basic instinct to eat, reproduce, and grow which is the fundamental basis of evolution, as I understand it. I don't even know what the first organism was so I'm doing a little bit of guesswork here.

I don’t think you fully understand the concept. When these first micro-organisms first appeared they did not have the basic instinct to eat, reproduce, or grow. You ask why they did not just die out? Well certainly most of them did. Most of those first organisms would not have had the ability to react to their environment, and so died out rather quickly. Some that did have the ability to react to their environment may have reacted in such a way that was harmful to their own existence (i.e. absorbing toxins), and so they died out. But some very few may have reacted to their environment in ways that enhanced their own survival (i.e. absorbing nutrients), and in surviving passed on that trait. It would not be necessary to instil these traits into every micro-organism at the start. But through a process of natural selection every surviving micro-organism would have those traits to one degree or another.



Btw, I actually agree with the title of this thread. “Evolution, as many perceive it, is wrong”, but that is only because many people perceive evolution wrong.

 

[Ryan2065]

Nope. Don't have time to answer, hope someone else will and I'll read up and those links so you probably wont hear from me in a while. Thanks for the replies guys. ^_^

Hrm... A quick google search brings up a forum where this was asked...
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=74442&sid=eb01508a2bb843c2a800d01e5d3f422f
This is the best post from the physics geeks...

Anyone claiming light exists outside time has seriously misapplied special relativity.

If, of course, you know of a physics article that does prove that light exists outside of time then let me know.. Wikipedia doesn't even have anything on this "obvious" property.

I'll take the time to answer with a question: how long does it take for light, from its point of view, to travel from another galaxy to our eye ?

However many light years it takes... If a person went at the speed of light (lets pretend its possible) it would take 8 light minutes to get to the sun.

 

[fantome profane]

I'll take the time to answer with a question: how long does it take for light, from its point of view, to travel from another galaxy to our eye ?

However many light years it takes... If a person went at the speed of light (lets pretend its possible) it would take 8 light minutes to get to the sun.

Actually Rolling Stone has a point, sort of. I takes 8 minutes for light to get from the sun to the earth – from the perspective of the earth. But if I understand it correctly because of the time dilation factor it would take “no time” from the perspective of the photon. From the point of view of the photon the trip is instantaneous. In other words if a person traveled from the sun to the earth at the speed of light, his watch would indicate that no time had passed, but the person on earth would be standing there saying “what took you so long”.

But this does not mean the photon is “outside of time”. It still cannot make the trip before eight minutes pass on earth.


And I don’t see what any of this has to do with evolution.

 

[Anti-World]

Light never ages, therefore I say it exists outside of time. Light is just as old now as it was at the beginning of the universe. "Anyone claiming light exists outside time has seriously misapplied special relativity." Simply isn't true.
That really doesn't have much to do with evolution, I got off subject a little bit.

I read much of the writings that were previously shown and watched the videos. I understand completely the theory of evolution of the eye and other evolutions and understood them before I watched it. Also, I was looking over the internet trying to find the links between the species of human and all I saw were suppositions and hypothesis as to how they are related. Technically speaking, the fossil records don't show a real connection between human species. Perhaps someone could help me out with this?

Also, you may have noticed that every experiment relating to evolution states that evolution is not random, the experiments also demonstrated the idea that evolution is based off of "natural" constants and "goals". In nature the "goal" is a surviving organism and the "natural" constants would be things like gravity and the organisms deformations.
With this idea I would expect to see organisms that have "extra" features that they don't need but didn't prevent them from surviving, inexorably reminding me of the platypus.
I would also expect to see an organism or organisms that dominate other life-forms, like the human.
I wold also expect to see both beneficial and unbenificial deformations that are capable of inheritance in reproduction. This we see alot in human development and the massive differences while still remaining in our species is hard to deny. We see people that are allergic to light, bread, and milk and, on the other end, we have families that are more resilient to cancer and have longer life-spans. I, personally, am not allergic to mosquito bites.
So, time and again, I see evolution working and fulfilling basic logical assumptions about it.
Yet it doesn't disprove a god like many evolutionists tend to state. No matter what there are still the constants that, at the basis, makes evolution possible. If "god" controls the constants as I'm sure many theists would say then "god" not only isn't an idea in opposition of evolution but is necessary for it to work.
But my goal here wasn't to try to prove the existence of a "god" but a "guiding organizing designing process" ("the G.O.D. Process") which has not been denied by any evolutionists this far. Therefore, evolution, as many perceive it, seems to be actually right. The main dividing factor between creationists and evolutionists is the level of sentience that the universe has. Would that be a far-fetched assumption?

 

[painted wolf]

Technically speaking, the fossil records don't show a real connection between human species.

what do you consider "human". There are genetic links between H. sapiens and H. neanderthalis. We are seperate species to be sure but we are decended from a common ancestor.

The platypus has no "extra features" it doesn't need.

Evolution says nothing about God's existance or non-existance.

There are no significant differences ammong human beings... all the genetic differences are less than 1/10tb of 1% of our DNA.

wa:do

 

[s2a]

So, time and again, I see evolution working and fulfilling basic logical assumptions about it.

Yet it doesn't disprove a god like many evolutionists tend to state.

Hmmm.

I can't recall of many named scientists engaged in evolution sciences/disciplines as claiming that evolution theory "disproves [a/any] god". Perhaps you could share some notable quotes from more prominently affiliated scientists that would better support your assertion/insinuation "that many evolutionists tend to state" (ie, that "evolution disproves god"). Just who are these "evolutionists" that state such claims?

Last time I looked (which was coincidentally, today), scientific facts/findings/conclusions render/offer no religious (or faith-based) estimations/explanation as support.

What evolution theory "suggests"...is that supernaturalistically-derived cause/effect explanations are preternaturally unnecessary/irrelevant in rendering relevant/reasoned conclusions predicated upon empirical evidences.

Science serves to neither blame nor praise any claimed deities. "Evolution theory" remains sustainable/viable whether or not any "gods" exist.

If you were not born [existent] prior to JFK's assassination, then no one could rightly hold you accountable/responsible for the event that transpired. The (assumptive) fact that you played no part in that assassination, should not lead anyone to reasonably conclude that your absence from the event would yet (somehow) preclude/influence it's inevitable outcome.

Whether or not you "existed" in that place/time is utterly irrelevant, as to the circumstantial outcomes that prevailed. You can feel "guilty" as you please about your "scientific" irrelevance in (that) history, or you can choose to bear some personalized shame/guilt/sin for transpired events in which you had no say, nor could hope to effect any meaningful purpose/interference.

No matter what there are still the constants that, at the basis, makes evolution possible. If "god" controls the constants as I'm sure many theists would say then "god" not only isn't an idea in opposition of evolution but is necessary for it to work.

That's a pretty big "IF". ;-)

But then...theists, by definition, are compelled to believe in god.

But my goal here wasn't to try to prove the existence of a "god" but a "guiding organizing designing process" ("the G.O.D. Process") which has not been denied by any evolutionists this far.

Umm...most "evolutionary scientists" have yet to identify (much less contend/debate) any evidenced or veritable "guiding organizing designing process".

Therefore, evolution, as many perceive it, seems to be actually right.

That's the compelling nature of evidence, examination, experimentation, testing, and consistently independent validation at work for you...;-)

The main dividing factor between creationists and evolutionists is the level of sentience that the universe has. Would that be a far-fetched assumption?

"Far-fetched"? Maybe. Probably. Likely...

If "creationists" could present some hypothesis/model for testing the idea of a "cosmic consciousness/sentience/intelligence", what then would it entail/encompass? What would such a hypothesis seek to detachedly measure or evaluate? What testable, evaluative, or measurable data/evidence (of a "sentient" universe) is available for any prospective or conclusive findings in subsequent validation or disproof? Wouldn't the best "argument" against science be for faith-based adherents to "prove" that [a/any/their] "god exists"?

I wonder...
Why are stars (trillions of miles away) still being created? Why do they "die"? Why would any sentient entity of divine properties "create" a cosmos that "evolves"?

Why?

If "creation" is simply for the benefit/amusement/entertainment of our lone "sentient" species on this planet, then why not just "creatively paint" a static and unchanging "picture" of the cosmos for us all to admire or fear? What is gained (in divine "message") by randomly appearing comets, or eccentrically orbiting moons/asteroids? Why does our own moon have so many impact craters? What possible import or "impact" are such observable manifestations of a natural cosmos meant to convey or validate regarding some claimed supernatural "creator"?

The question that remains to be resolved is; "Is a [any] 'creator' necessary/requisite to (best) explain the observable existence of the cosmos"?

Proofs/disproofs (scientific or not) of any claimed deity/god/force/supernaturalism reside beyond the scope or interests of empirically-derived evaluations/estimations/conclusions.

If the claims of some/any existent "creator" are sooo compelling and (ultimately) inescapable/undeniable...then why is it sooo difficult to provide any measurable/testable/objectively observable evidences of same? Burdens of proof always reside amongst the claimants themselves, and not upon the skeptics to otherwise "disprove" any given claim of "fact/truth".

 

[Ryan2065]

Actually Rolling Stone has a point, sort of. I takes 8 minutes for light to get from the sun to the earth – from the perspective of the earth. But if I understand it correctly because of the time dilation factor it would take “no time” from the perspective of the photon. From the point of view of the photon the trip is instantaneous. In other words if a person traveled from the sun to the earth at the speed of light, his watch would indicate that no time had passed, but the person on earth would be standing there saying “what took you so long”.

But this does not mean the photon is “outside of time”. It still cannot make the trip before eight minutes pass on earth.

Ah, I see what he means now... Here is a good answer:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/headlights.html

What would the world look like in the reference frame of a photon? What does a photon experience? Does space contract to two dimensions at the speed of light? Does time stop for a photon?. . . It is really not possible to make sense of such questions and any attempt to do so is bound to lead to paradoxes. There are no inertial reference frames in which the photon is at rest so it is hopeless to try to imagine what it would be like in one. Photons do not have experiences. There is no sense in saying that time stops when you go at the speed of light. This is not a failing of the theory of relativity. There are no inconsistencies revealed by these questions. They just don't make sense.

I like that last response... The question does not make sense.

Light never ages, therefore I say it exists outside of time. Light is just as old now as it was at the beginning of the universe. "Anyone claiming light exists outside time has seriously misapplied special relativity." Simply isn't true.

If it is true that light does not exist in time then please give some evidence of this... I have searched with Google a few times now using different key words like "Does light exist outside of time" and other things like that... So far all I have found are physics websites saying No and many saying it goes against Special relativity. I don't even care if you can understand the math and physics behind whatever link you find, just find something to support your argument.

If you want to say God is outside of time then go ahead... Just don't bring light into it because light is not outside of time.

Yet it doesn't disprove a god like many evolutionists tend to state.

An argument like this makes as much sense as this argument:
I dropped my shoe and this proves I am a man!

Evolution in no way disproves God and does not event attempt to do this. Just walk away from people using that argument.

But my goal here wasn't to try to prove the existence of a "god" but a "guiding organizing designing process" ("the G.O.D. Process") which has not been denied by any evolutionists this far. Therefore, evolution, as many perceive it, seems to be actually right. The main dividing factor between creationists and evolutionists is the level of sentience that the universe has. Would that be a far-fetched assumption?

I believe the consensus with evolutionists is that evolution would have worked with or without some one / God helping it along. I do not think it would be possible to prove that God didn't help in evolution but it is possible to show that God is not needed for us to evolve to where we are today.

 

[fantome profane]

Also, you may have noticed that every experiment relating to evolution states that evolution is not random, the experiments also demonstrated the idea that evolution is based off of "natural" constants and "goals". In nature the "goal" is a surviving organism and the "natural" constants would be things like gravity and the organisms deformations.

That is correct, evolution is not random in that sense. Natural selection is not random selection, it selects organisms that survive. If you therefore wanted to say the “goal of evolution is survival” that statement would be accurate enough in a manor of speaking, but it doesn’t require an intelligent guiding force.

Yet it doesn't disprove a god like many evolutionists tend to state. No matter what there are still the constants that, at the basis, makes evolution possible. If "god" controls the constants as I'm sure many theists would say then "god" not only isn't an idea in opposition of evolution but is necessary for it to work.
But my goal here wasn't to try to prove the existence of a "god" but a "guiding organizing designing process" ("the G.O.D. Process") which has not been denied by any evolutionists this far. Therefore, evolution, as many perceive it, seems to be actually right. The main dividing factor between creationists and evolutionists is the level of sentience that the universe has. Would that be a far-fetched assumption?

Evolution does not disprove a “god”. It merely demonstrates that the development of diverse and complex biological organisms is possible without the need for a “guiding organizing designing” process. I understand that many people have good reasons for assuming that there is such a thing, and I will not comment of whether or not those assumptions are “far fetched”, I will simply point out that such an assumption is not scientific, and not necessary.

 

[Ryan2065]

That is correct, evolution is not random in that sense. Natural selection is not random selection, it selects organisms that survive. If you therefore wanted to say the “goal of evolution is survival” that statement would be accurate enough in a manor of speaking, but it doesn’t require an intelligent guiding force.

I might disagree here... Evolution happens because of random changes in the genes of an organism. After this random process, evolution is certainty not random, but can we say evolution is not random when it is in fact started by a random process?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you therefore wanted to say the “goal of evolution is survival” that statement would be accurate enough in a manor of speaking, ...

No, it would not. Evolution is an unintended consequence.

 

[fantome profane]

I might disagree here... Evolution happens because of random changes in the genes of an organism. After this random process, evolution is certainty not random, but can we say evolution is not random when it is in fact started by a random process?

I can say that it is not totally random. It is possible for something that has random elements to nevertheless follow predictable patterns. Natural selection is not random, but it must work from random elements.

No, it would not. Evolution is an unintended consequence.

Yes, I understand that there is no intention it the process of evolution. What I said I meant only “in a manor of speaking”. People have a tendency to personify everything, from inanimate objects to natural processes. And strangely enough sometimes this metaphor works, it can help people to relate to and understand something that they couldn’t before.

All I was trying to do was show the it is better to think of the “goal” of evolution as being organisms that can survive in their environment, rather than believe that the “goal” of evolution is greater and greater complexity and more “advanced” life-forms. And to do this I was using anti-world’s term, but I didn’t want to imply that evolution had any intentional component in the literal sense.


(you may notice that my posts tend to use a lot of “” quote signs)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

All I was trying to do was show the it is better to think of the “goal” of evolution as being ...

I see no value in pandering to misconceptions. It is "better" to repeatedly insist that evolution is not goal directed.

 

[fantome profane]

I see no value in pandering to misconceptions. It is "better" to repeatedly insist that evolution is not goal directed.

I promise I will try harder in the future boss.

 

[Ryan2065]

Natural selection is not random, but it must work from random elements.

So wouldn't evolution be random but natural selection follow the predictable patterns?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I promise I will try harder in the future boss.

Go and sin no more ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So wouldn't evolution be random but natural selection follow the predictable patterns?

It seems to me that saying "natural selection follows the predictable patterns" gets you little but tautology, i.e., the 'prediction' that those variants more able to survive will survive more ably.