Racial ascendance

[Jumi]

Mutations maybe blind, but some help survival and some hinder it. Groups with the trait that helps survival are more likely to pass them on whereas the other group will die out, hence we can predict that what evolves in a given environment is more likely to be useful in that environment.

 

[Skwim]

If we are all descended from Adam how are there different people with different features like Chinese and black.....?

Good point, but more to the point; If we are all descended from Noah ( 4,320 ± 11 years ago) which the Bible implies we are, how are there different people with different features like Chinese and black.....? People who are known to exist a short time after Noah. Ramses III died in 1155 BC, only 1150 years after the flood yet had a Nubian depicted on his tomb

Different nationalities depicted in tomb of Ramses III:
Libyan, Nubian, Syrian, Bedouin, Hittite
source​

 

[Intojoy]

If we are all descended from Adam how are there different people with different features like Chinese and black.....?

Demons

 

[Jumi]

Demons

Were they already invented back then?

 

[psychoslice]

Simple, evolution, that simple.

 

[JoStories]

Strictly speaking, the theory of evolution does make testable predictions.
Organisms evolve to adapt to an environment, and such adaption can be predicted to some extent.

That is true and when one factors in genetics, one gets a greater degree of predictability. Hence, northern Europeans, living in less sunlight, would have adapted and that would then influence genetics to lead to lighter skin and hair, versus people living in Africa. Loci on specific genes can change quite more often than realized.

 

[JoStories]

But I mean, contrived in the sense that such complexity should come from such ridiculous odds in the first place and then occasionally mutating into something better. If it was a story, it would sound made up, science fiction.

Not really. Species adapt regularly, including humans. Over time, given that people intermingle, meaning Blacks with Whites and so on, one would expect and be able to predict that skin color would become more ubiquitous. Other adaptations occur as well. It is not really that difficult to understand that as humans evolved and moved about, adaptations occurred.

 

[JoStories]

The point I was making which you seem to have missed is that there are many more systems on a rocket and therefore more likely to fail if just one of those systems or parts is not made correctly, functioning correctly or installed correctly. It is far more plausible that something simple will work. This time I will say a ball. All it has to do is roll.

It is not my understanding of mutations. They are blind as they have no direction. I am sure of that, unless we are at cross purposes here. There has to be parameters to then shape this 'selection' of variety so that the best are "selected" through the process of NS itself. To say it can bring about such complexity, to me, is mindboggling. I don't doubt the process however, but that the process should exist and work, I find so contrived as to be ridiculous. The only way it seems plausible is to say there is a multiverse with every possible universe in it, and so then ours can exists.

Mutations are not blind. They have function in that they assist the species to either become more adept at survival or less so. Some mutations are not in our best interests and are, hence, then selected to be discarded by the species of which that mutation occurred. We evolved from primates, originally walking very stooped over and over time, our bodies saw the benefit of two legs and a more upright posture. Thus, we have heritable traits of biological populations over many generations. Those processes give rise to increasing diversity over time. This then leads to speciation, anagenesis and possibly extinction in some cases.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Mutations are not blind.

Mutations are blind. You need to check your sources.

They have function in that they assist the species to either become more adept at survival or less so

You are now looking at it from an argument point of view, from one standing back and looking at the whole

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, I properly groked that meaning.
I explained why you're wrong.

You're correct about this.

That's where natural selection comes in.
Beneficial mutations are passed on, & increase in frequency.
The deleterious ones fade away.

I'm not boggled by it.
But system design was my field, so I'm comfortable with stuff happening this way.

I'm happy with a single universe.
While there could be more, I don't need them.

I refute that sir, and I will have at you again, and dash you with my glove.

Anything more complex is more likely to go wrong due to the number of parts and systems involved. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

 

[Revoltingest]

I refute that sir, and I will have at you again, and dash you with my glove.
Anything more complex is more likely to go wrong due to the number of parts and systems involved. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

You don't believe my rocket v bicycle analogy?
Some niches are best filled by simple organisms, eg,
living in the interstices of rocks miles below the surface of the Earth.
And other niches are best filled by complex organisms, eg,
omnivores who hunt, fish, scavenge & eat plants.
Subterranean extremophiles, despite their simplicity, would
fail utterly at bringing down a woolly mammoth with spears.

Another in the analogy war....
You & I are using computers which are vastly more complex than a slide rule.
But computers are reliable enuf to displace the simple reliable slide rule in its
environment, ie, people who need to calculate things.
Superior function is what matters. This trumps simplicity.

For those unfamiliar with one, here is one of mine...

 

[Robert.Evans]

You don't believe my rocket v bicycle analogy?
Some niches are best filled by simple organisms, eg,
living in the interstices of rocks miles below the surface of the Earth.
And other niches are best filled by complex organisms, eg,
omnivores who hunt, fish, scavenge & eat plants.
Subterranean extremophiles, despite their simplicity, would
fail utterly at bringing down a woolly mammoth with spears.

Another in the analogy war....
You & I are using computers which are vastly more complex than a slide rule.
But computers are reliable enuf to displace the simple reliable slide rule in its
environment, ie, people who need to calculate things.
Superior function is what matters. This trumps simplicity.

I don't deny what you're saying; but I'm not really arguing that. I am arguing that the slide rule is far more easy to make than a PC and has less to go wrong than a PC and needs less research before it is made than the PC. The PC requires a whole lot of work, understandings and effort to get to the place where it now sits. A slide rule doesn't as is hardly going to go wrong. When was the last time you heard of a slide rule crashing?
Simple is best, not complex; which takes me back to the same idea as first stated, that it seems far too much of an assumption that life could become so complex and yet work. Why should it strive for such complexity and what are the chances that those complexities should work? Now if you are saying there is a form of intelligence behind it, then fine. But blind chance being shaped by the natural environment, that is hard to accept. It is the reason that a lot of creationists think it so difficult to swallow as a theory.
But if it were following ideas already known, then that would be a different thing altogether. Without it, I see no reason why complex would ever arise. One could imagine someone putting the three parts of a slide rule together if they had never seen one before; but to do that with a PC is just not realistic, unless training is involved. And that to me reveals that something else is needed other than natural selection.

For those unfamiliar with one, here is one of mine...

You own a slide rule? Wow! You've got everything haven't ya!

 

[Revoltingest]

The PC requires a whole lot of work, understandings and effort to get to the place where it now sits. A slide rule doesn't as is hardly going to go wrong. When was the last time you heard of a slide rule crashing?

And despite the greater fallibility & cost of computers, they've replaced slide rules.
Why?
Evolution results in greater complexity when it's the most successful approach.
Minimizing failure does not define the fitness function in evolution.
Reproductive success is what matters, & that balance between simplicity & complexity will differ in different environmental niches.

Simple is best, not complex.....

The above is a truism which must be applied judiciously.
I've always used the simplest approach to solve engineering problems.
But some problems require more complex solutions.

I'm so ancient, that I actually worked on mechanical military flight control systems (F18).
But nowadays, fighter aircraft have eschewed this for fly-by-wire controls.
They're more complex, so why select them?
They work better!
(Dynamically unstable aerodynamic designs offer better performance, but no human could react quickly or precisely enuf to fly them.)

....it seems far too much of an assumption that life could become so complex and yet work. Why should it strive for such complexity and what are the chances that those complexities should work? Now if you are saying there is a form of intelligence behind it, then fine. But blind chance being shaped by the natural environment, that is hard to accept. It is the reason that a lot of creationists think it so difficult to swallow as a theory.
But if it were following ideas already known, then that would be a different thing altogether. Without it, I see no reason why complex would ever arise. One could imagine someone putting the three parts of a slide rule together if they had never seen one before; but to do that with a PC is just not realistic, unless training is involved. And that to me reveals that something else is needed other than natural selection.

Ah, the old argument of incredulity.
I don't even ask "Why?".
Things just are.

You own a slide rule? Wow! You've got everything haven't ya!

I own several of them.
One must select the right one for each occasion, lest one commit a fashion faux pas.

 

[leibowde84]

I though evolution wasn't supposed to "predict" anything.

Where did you get th that crazy idea? It's used to make predictions all the time.