Darwin's Theory | True?

[Subduction Zone]

Am I speaking in an alien language or something. None of what I said is nonsensical.

I understand it simply.

Environmental pressures alone produce things fine. But they don't produce the eye which has the purpose of seeing the environment.

I realize you understand the mechanics of the eye. Environmental pressures alone can't account for the fact that it exists with purpose. To see.

You are taking a purely physical process and attributing its ingeniousness to environmental pressures alone.

No eye had to ever exist. It's constructed. If a mindless process was the only thing working all you would get is garbled complexity, no eye.

It's far from perfect but it has obvious purpose. To see.

Body plans are not a mindless natural, inevitable result. That is your bias talking. Body plans are intentional constructs. Thus the word plan.

I don't need to understand its detailed workings to understand its function and purpose.

What you post demonstrates that you do not know what you are talking about at all and you have to use bogus arguments. I would suggest that you try to use evidence instead of wild handwaving.

And yes, evolution can explain the "purpose" of the eye. Drop the bogus terms and you will be able to debate better. The eye does not have a purpose it has a function. Loaded words should not be used in a debate.

 

[Polymath257]

Am I speaking in an alien language or something. None of what I said is nonsensical.

I understand it simply.

Environmental pressures alone produce things fine. But they don't produce the eye which has the purpose of seeing the environment.

I realize you understand the mechanics of the eye. Environmental pressures alone can't account for the fact that it exists with purpose. To see.

Yes, it can. The 'purpose' is survival value. And, for the eye, being able to see is what confers survival value.

You are taking a purely physical process and attributing its ingeniousness to environmental pressures alone.

No eye had to ever exist. It's constructed. If a mindless process was the only thing working all you would get is garbled complexity, no eye.

Mutation is random, but natural selection is not. It selects those mutations that promote survival (actually, it promotes those mutations that increase gene transfer).

And survival is a very powerful promoter of optimal structures.

It's far from perfect but it has obvious purpose. To see.

More importantly, to promote survival by seeing.

Body plans are not a mindless natural, inevitable result. That is your bias talking. Body plans are intentional constructs. Thus the word plan.

No, body plans are those that *survive* in competition with other body plans. Differential survival tends to produce optimal solutions (or nearly so).

I don't need to understand its detailed workings to understand its function and purpose.

But you do need to dig a bit deeper.

 

[osgart]

Yes, it can. The 'purpose' is survival value. And, for the eye, being able to see is what confers survival value.


Mutation is random, but natural selection is not. It selects those mutations that promote survival (actually, it promotes those mutations that increase gene transfer).

And survival is a very powerful promoter of optimal structures.



More importantly, to promote survival by seeing.



No, body plans are those that *survive* in competition with other body plans. Differential survival tends to produce optimal solutions (or nearly so).



But you do need to dig a bit deeper.

I'm fine with what you say but that doesn't explain purpose and function arising. It explains their survival and promotion in the environment.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm fine with what you say but that doesn't explain purpose and function arising. It explains their survival and promotion in the environment.

And the point is that survival in the environment both requires function as well as promoting optimal function. Mutation allows for change of function, which also allows for optimization.

The term 'purpose' is nothing more than how the function applies to survival.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm fine with what you say but that doesn't explain purpose and function arising. It explains their survival and promotion in the environment.

The environment and changes in the environment determines purpose and function arising.

 

[ecco]

Evolution... will not explain the purposes we see in nature that emerge over time. It relegates the purposes to some arbitrary happening.

Why would a concept that addresses how nature changed over the course of millions of years need or want to explain so-called purposes?

It does not relegate a non-existent purpose to anything.

The conclusion many draw is that life purposelessly invents novelty through random variation and natural selection.

No one I know has concluded "that life purposelessly invents novelty through random variation and natural selection". Who are these "many" people you refer to?

I don't see the point in going round and round about arguing that creative purpose exists in nature. Either you see the simple evidence of it or you dismiss it as unintentional functions that arise gradually from complexity.

If there were any evidence, other than the blind faith that a magic man in the sky purposely did something, more people might believe you. After all, we are evidence-driven.

 

[Astrophile]

Do you really believe that you were an Ape?

Yes, but not any living species of ape.

and do you believe that if you leave an Ape for a thousand years.. would he actually ever evolve to be a human?

No; that isn't how evolution works. The living species of apes have adapted to life in the environment of tropical forests. If those environments remain, or are preserved, as they are now, the apes will remain well adapted to them. If these environments are destroyed, the apes will become extinct. Even if the apes were able to adapt to changes in their environments, they would not evolve into modern humans; they would become different species of apes. Also, a thousand years is not long enough for one genus of ape to evolve into another; it is 7-8 million years since the evolutionary lines leading to chimpanzees and humans diverged.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, but not any living species of ape.



No; that isn't how evolution works. The living species of apes have adapted to life in the environment of tropical forests. If those environments remain, or are preserved, as they are now, the apes will remain well adapted to them. If these environments are destroyed, the apes will become extinct. Even if the apes were able to adapt to changes in their environments, they would not evolve into modern humans; they would become different species of apes. Also, a thousand years is not long enough for one genus of ape to evolve into another; it is 7-8 million years since the evolutionary lines leading to chimpanzees and humans diverged.

Here's the problem I have with that. The unidentified so-called common ancestor of the ape family supposedly leading to humans is still out there. Unidentified, hardly questionable since it's not there.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, it can. The 'purpose' is survival value. And, for the eye, being able to see is what confers survival value.


Mutation is random, but natural selection is not. It selects those mutations that promote survival (actually, it promotes those mutations that increase gene transfer).

And survival is a very powerful promoter of optimal structures.



More importantly, to promote survival by seeing.



No, body plans are those that *survive* in competition with other body plans. Differential survival tends to produce optimal solutions (or nearly so).



But you do need to dig a bit deeper.

There are some organisms that do not see, they survive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are some organisms that do not see, they survive.

So what? Why even bring that up?

 

[Polymath257]

There are some organisms that do not see, they survive.

Yes, in their environment. The question is whether the appropriate mutations have shown up and then been fixed in the population, conveying survival value.

 

[Astrophile]

Here's the problem I have with that. The unidentified so-called common ancestor of the ape family supposedly leading to humans is still out there. Unidentified, hardly questionable since it's not there.

Look at this 'family tree'. It identifies Orrorin and Sahelanthropus as being near to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, and Ouranopithecus as being near to the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorilla. Kenyapithecus appears to be near to the common ancestor of orang-utans and the African apes.

How do you interpret the australopithecines? The 'family tree' makes Ardipithecus the common ancestor of Paranthropus and Preanthropus on the one hand and Australopithecus and Homo on the other, with Australopithecus being a direct ancestor to Homo.

Seeing that we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, how can you say that the common ancestors of humans and apes are unidentified and not even there?

 

[Loaai]

Look at this 'family tree'. It identifies Orrorin and Sahelanthropus as being near to the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, and Ouranopithecus as being near to the common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees and gorilla. Kenyapithecus appears to be near to the common ancestor of orang-utans and the African apes.

How do you interpret the australopithecines? The 'family tree' makes Ardipithecus the common ancestor of Paranthropus and Preanthropus on the one hand and Australopithecus and Homo on the other, with Australopithecus being a direct ancestor to Homo.

Seeing that we are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, how can you say that the common ancestors of humans and apes are unidentified and not even there?

So I should believe that the universe, life, humans (being the only advanced creatures) were all created through a coincidence after another after another. How did life even start on this planet? How did regular atoms on this only planet transition from regular working based on chemistry to Biochemistry?

Logic says this is not a coincidence. There is a creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So I should believe that the universe, life, humans (being the only advanced creatures) were all created through a coincidence after another after another. How did life even start on this planet? How did regular atoms on this only planet transition from regular working based on chemistry to Biochemistry?

Logic says this is not a coincidence. There is a creator.

Nope, not "coincidence". Why use loaded language? By the way, you should start with evolution. That is well understood. Abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. That only means that there are some important unanswered questions. It does not mean that there is any evidence against it.

And why believe? Evolution is well supported by evidence. The beliefs of creationists are not. Abiogenesis is supported by evidence. A magic sky daddy poofing things into existence is not supported by evidence. Now I am sorry for the "magic sky daddy" claim. But it is an example of loaded language. It is the sort of language that you used.

By the way, all of your atoms in your body are still "regular atoms". Life is merely an emergent property of complex biochemistry. There does not appear to be any need of them being needed to be imbued with any special purpose.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Logic says this is not a coincidence. There is a creator.

No, not "logic". Your religious belief says that.

 

[YoursTrue]

So I should believe that the universe, life, humans (being the only advanced creatures) were all created through a coincidence after another after another. How did life even start on this planet? How did regular atoms on this only planet transition from regular working based on chemistry to Biochemistry?

Logic says this is not a coincidence. There is a creator.

Yup. That's how I see it now. I didn't always. God exists. When I was in high school, college and beyond, I believed (fell for) the theory of evolution because that's what was taught, no emphasis in school or religions I associated with on creation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When I was in high school, college and beyond, I believed (fell for) the theory of evolution because that's what was taught

So, you just took it on authority and didn't bother to actually study the subject and find out how scientists came to those conclusions?

In fact, didn't your teacher explain how it was all figured out?



If the reason you accept(ed) any scientific theory, is merely "because that's what I was taught", then either you didn't pay much attention OR you had a really bad teacher.

, no emphasis in school or religions I associated with on creation.

There's no emphasis in science classes in schools on astrology either.
You know why? Because it's pseudo-scientific bullsquirt.

Only science is studied in science classes. Religion and superstition has no place in it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yup. That's how I see it now. I didn't always. God exists. When I was in high school, college and beyond, I believed (fell for) the theory of evolution because that's what was taught, no emphasis in school or religions I associated with on creation.

You should not conflate accepting reality, such as the fact that life is the product of evolution, as denying the existence of God. There are many Christians, probably the majority, that accept that man is an evolved creature and believe in the Christian God. One does not need to believe the myths of Genesis to be a Christian. In fact one is usually a better Christian if one does so. For example those Christians do not believe in a lying God. Creationists that believe in the myths of Genesis do believe in a lying God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here's the problem I have with that. The unidentified so-called common ancestor of the ape family supposedly leading to humans is still out there. Unidentified, hardly questionable since it's not there.

That makes little sense. Why do you think that we need to find a specific ancestor between people and other apes? And you forgot that you are still an ape. Your objection has no merit.

 

[Loaai]

So, you just took it on authority and didn't bother to actually study the subject and find out how scientists came to those conclusions?

In fact, didn't your teacher explain how it was all figured out?



If the reason you accept(ed) any scientific theory, is merely "because that's what I was taught", then either you didn't pay much attention OR you had a really bad teacher.



There's no emphasis in science classes in schools on astrology either.
You know why? Because it's pseudo-scientific bullsquirt.

Only science is studied in science classes. Religion and superstition has no place in it.

Religion does not oppose science, science proves God exists! Till now mate there are no explanations for how that shift between chemistry and bio-chemistry occurred billions of years ago, millions upon millions of religious people (Muslims, Christians and Jews) are among the best scientists in the world though they believe in God.

Einstein was a Jew, when he came up with his studies at the time well known scientists at the time made fun of him, and they even called his studies "Jewish science" and now we take his work as one of the most revolutionary and most advanced! don't be racist against religion and only approve science, you're free to believe whatever you want, but you have to always keep in mind that religion and science do not oppose each other. In fact, They support one another!