Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution and eyes

janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

How do you explain these things?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.

Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.


How do you explain these things?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 5:28:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.

Isn't that pretty much an argument from incredulity? It just seems so unlikely that it probably didn't happen like that, even though best evidence thus far indicates it...

Its not an "Accident" that beneficial trait is continued. Its like stating creatures that survive survived simply by accident rather than all the traits that were bred into said creature that helped it to the current point.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 6:43:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 5:28:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.

There is no "right" order in the sense of following a pre determined goal. Unguided processes just do what they do. life which is better suited to it's environment gets a better chance of passing on it's genes while those that don't get discarded in the long line of life forms we know as the extinct.

There is nothing lucky about such a process that in order to get to this point took billions of years of things striving to surviving, with a step by step increments all the while the waste of those that did not make it being discarded by the way side.

I think the real insight to evolution is the question as to why there is DIVERSITY of life.

More premitive human thought was like, hmmmmmm penguin needs a colder environment ergo God created cold environment to suit penguins.

It's this kind of thinking that is at play when you hear things like, well if the sun wasn't where it was we wouldn't exist !!! what are the chances !!!.............implying the sun was made for us in mind............probably not, just like it probably isn't the case that cold environments were made for penguins.

Life evolves to suit the enviroment, and we are part of that process. It's just our fellow humans have some interesting ideas that they are part of some grand master plan and thus the things that exist like the sun and this universe was done with humans (maybe cock roaches too ?) as a predetermined goal.......................humans are funny.


Isn't that pretty much an argument from incredulity? It just seems so unlikely that it probably didn't happen like that, even though best evidence thus far indicates it...

Its not an "Accident" that beneficial trait is continued. Its like stating creatures that survive survived simply by accident rather than all the traits that were bred into said creature that helped it to the current point.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 9:43:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.

There were probably a ton of mutations where new parts developed in the "wrong" spots. If you had 1,000,000 people all flip a coin 20 times, one of them would probably wind up flipping all heads or all tails for those 20 times. It actually might happen for a couple of people. And if you just looked at the person who had it happen, you'd think it was something special. But when you consider that 999,999 other people did not flip the same side 20 times in a row, you realize it's practically inevitable rather than appearing to be fated. That's the kind of stuff we're talking about with evolution. Every single generation of every organism has mutations. Most are silent, some are harmful, but sometimes they're beneficial. But you don't see all the "failed" mutations, so you think it's something more than it is.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

How do you explain these things?

Dinosaurs had hollow bones for tens of millions of years before some developed feathers. And feathered, hollow-boned dinosaurs existed for millions more years before the first bird wing evolved. You seem to be thinking that these changes happened over a few generations, which just isn't the case.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 10:03:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

How do you explain these things?

I agree that it is pretty unlikely for a simple organism, ie bacteria, to evolve until it becomes a bird. Advantageous mutations are an unlikely event, although you must take into account that the selection of those mutations is highly likely provided they offer an advantage to the individual over the rest of the population. So for one part (advantageous mutations for flight appearing) we have an unlikely event, and for the other part (the accumulation of advantageous mutations in a population) we have a very likely event. I believe it is because of the first case (the unlikeliness of advantageous mutations appearing) that evolution takes so much time to create new species.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 10:07:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The earth is certainly no garden of Eden, at least 80% of the earth's surface is uninhabitable for humans.

I doubt that fact helps intelligent design advocates.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 1:06:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 5:28:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.

Isn't that pretty much an argument from incredulity? It just seems so unlikely that it probably didn't happen like that, even though best evidence thus far indicates it...

Its not an "Accident" that beneficial trait is continued. Its like stating creatures that survive survived simply by accident rather than all the traits that were bred into said creature that helped it to the current point.

The best evidence indicates to ME that the mutations causing changes and adaptation aren't random.

I agree on the second paragraph.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 1:12:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 6:43:59 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:28:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.

There is no "right" order in the sense of following a pre determined goal. Unguided processes just do what they do. life which is better suited to it's environment gets a better chance of passing on it's genes while those that don't get discarded in the long line of life forms we know as the extinct.

There is nothing lucky about such a process that in order to get to this point took billions of years of things striving to surviving, with a step by step increments all the while the waste of those that did not make it being discarded by the way side.

I think the real insight to evolution is the question as to why there is DIVERSITY of life.

More premitive human thought was like, hmmmmmm penguin needs a colder environment ergo God created cold environment to suit penguins.

It's this kind of thinking that is at play when you hear things like, well if the sun wasn't where it was we wouldn't exist !!! what are the chances !!!.............implying the sun was made for us in mind............probably not, just like it probably isn't the case that cold environments were made for penguins.

Life evolves to suit the enviroment, and we are part of that process. It's just our fellow humans have some interesting ideas that they are part of some grand master plan and thus the things that exist like the sun and this universe was done with humans (maybe cock roaches too ?) as a predetermined goal.......................humans are funny.


Isn't that pretty much an argument from incredulity? It just seems so unlikely that it probably didn't happen like that, even though best evidence thus far indicates it...

Its not an "Accident" that beneficial trait is continued. Its like stating creatures that survive survived simply by accident rather than all the traits that were bred into said creature that helped it to the current point.

I don't see there has to be a "predetermined goal". Just chemicals reacting to their environment, within the laws of nature. Some things are more likely than others to happen, thus things like convergence happen in evolution.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 1:30:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.

Yes and no.

If you had a deck of 52 cards, and i asked you to pick a 3 of clubs. It would be really really really lucky to get it on the first try.

But what if i gave you a thousand tries? If you picked up a 3 of clubs on your 138th try, would you consider that lucky?

The same goes for evolution. This is something that has been going on for hundreds of millions, billions of years. Youre essentially getting thousands upon thousands of tries to draw that 3 of clubs.

Now, if lets say I ask you to draw a 3 of clubs, and then a 4 of clubs, and then a 5 of clubs, and so forth until you reached a king of clubs.

Now, the thing about evolution, is that traits are saved(as long as the organism keeps having offspring that carry that gene/phenotype). They dont magically dissapear.

So, its like drawing a 3 of clubs, and putting it aside, and then trying again and again until you draw a 4 of clubs, putting it aside, etc etc until you reach the king of clubs.

What you end up with, is a row of neatly stacked cards ranging from 3 of clubs to king of clubs.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 1:31:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 1:06:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:28:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.

Isn't that pretty much an argument from incredulity? It just seems so unlikely that it probably didn't happen like that, even though best evidence thus far indicates it...

Its not an "Accident" that beneficial trait is continued. Its like stating creatures that survive survived simply by accident rather than all the traits that were bred into said creature that helped it to the current point.

The best evidence indicates to ME that the mutations causing changes and adaptation aren't random.

I agree on the second paragraph.

Mutations are random. Evolution is not.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 1:39:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 9:43:53 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.

There were probably a ton of mutations where new parts developed in the "wrong" spots. If you had 1,000,000 people all flip a coin 20 times, one of them would probably wind up flipping all heads or all tails for those 20 times. It actually might happen for a couple of people. And if you just looked at the person who had it happen, you'd think it was something special. But when you consider that 999,999 other people did not flip the same side 20 times in a row, you realize it's practically inevitable rather than appearing to be fated. That's the kind of stuff we're talking about with evolution. Every single generation of every organism has mutations. Most are silent, some are harmful, but sometimes they're beneficial. But you don't see all the "failed" mutations, so you think it's something more than it is.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

How do you explain these things?

Dinosaurs had hollow bones for tens of millions of years before some developed feathers. And feathered, hollow-boned dinosaurs existed for millions more years before the first bird wing evolved. You seem to be thinking that these changes happened over a few generations, which just isn't the case.

In the lab, why is the trait that shows up is what is needed for the organisms environment? The right trait to digest a certain sugar, extra tails to make a bacteria swim faster.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 1:57:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 1:39:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 9:43:53 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.

There were probably a ton of mutations where new parts developed in the "wrong" spots. If you had 1,000,000 people all flip a coin 20 times, one of them would probably wind up flipping all heads or all tails for those 20 times. It actually might happen for a couple of people. And if you just looked at the person who had it happen, you'd think it was something special. But when you consider that 999,999 other people did not flip the same side 20 times in a row, you realize it's practically inevitable rather than appearing to be fated. That's the kind of stuff we're talking about with evolution. Every single generation of every organism has mutations. Most are silent, some are harmful, but sometimes they're beneficial. But you don't see all the "failed" mutations, so you think it's something more than it is.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

How do you explain these things?

Dinosaurs had hollow bones for tens of millions of years before some developed feathers. And feathered, hollow-boned dinosaurs existed for millions more years before the first bird wing evolved. You seem to be thinking that these changes happened over a few generations, which just isn't the case.

In the lab, why is the trait that shows up is what is needed for the organisms environment? The right trait to digest a certain sugar, extra tails to make a bacteria swim faster.

You just don't see the "wrong" traits. There are new traits showing up in other bacteria that are going unnoticed because they don't confer an advantage in that particular setting. The lab environment has nutrients A and B in it. If some bacteria develop the ability to digest nutrient G, no one would ever know because G isn't present. There is no area for those bacteria to move into where their ability to digest G is relevant, so they just appear to be normal organisms being out-competed by the new multi-flagellar bacteria. Basically, the lab environment is so controlled that the niches that new mutations might allow a population to fill in the wild simply don't exist.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 2:19:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 10:03:27 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

How do you explain these things?

I agree that it is pretty unlikely for a simple organism, ie bacteria, to evolve until it becomes a bird. Advantageous mutations are an unlikely event, although you must take into account that the selection of those mutations is highly likely provided they offer an advantage to the individual over the rest of the population. So for one part (advantageous mutations for flight appearing) we have an unlikely event, and for the other part (the accumulation of advantageous mutations in a population) we have a very likely event. I believe it is because of the first case (the unlikeliness of advantageous mutations appearing) that evolution takes so much time to create new species.

But I am talking of the unlikeliness of a spot of light sensitive skin developing, and then a cup evolving, and then a cornea developing, and then a lens. All in the right place (together, creating an even more unlikely system).
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 2:46:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 10:07:30 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
The earth is certainly no garden of Eden, at least 80% of the earth's surface is uninhabitable for humans.

I doubt that fact helps intelligent design advocates.

Good thing I'm not an intelligent design advocate then.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 2:53:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 1:30:48 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.

Yes and no.

If you had a deck of 52 cards, and i asked you to pick a 3 of clubs. It would be really really really lucky to get it on the first try.

But what if i gave you a thousand tries? If you picked up a 3 of clubs on your 138th try, would you consider that lucky?

The same goes for evolution. This is something that has been going on for hundreds of millions, billions of years. Youre essentially getting thousands upon thousands of tries to draw that 3 of clubs.



Now, if lets say I ask you to draw a 3 of clubs, and then a 4 of clubs, and then a 5 of clubs, and so forth until you reached a king of clubs.

Now, the thing about evolution, is that traits are saved(as long as the organism keeps having offspring that carry that gene/phenotype). They dont magically dissapear.

So, its like drawing a 3 of clubs, and putting it aside, and then trying again and again until you draw a 4 of clubs, putting it aside, etc etc until you reach the king of clubs.

What you end up with, is a row of neatly stacked cards ranging from 3 of clubs to king of clubs.

Good points. But consider.

The lens ended up right in the perfect spot for a lens to be a useful adaptation in the eye.

Why didn't it end up on a liver or an elbow instead? It ended up right where it would be useful.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 2:57:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 1:57:53 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 4/3/2015 1:39:41 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 9:43:53 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.

There were probably a ton of mutations where new parts developed in the "wrong" spots. If you had 1,000,000 people all flip a coin 20 times, one of them would probably wind up flipping all heads or all tails for those 20 times. It actually might happen for a couple of people. And if you just looked at the person who had it happen, you'd think it was something special. But when you consider that 999,999 other people did not flip the same side 20 times in a row, you realize it's practically inevitable rather than appearing to be fated. That's the kind of stuff we're talking about with evolution. Every single generation of every organism has mutations. Most are silent, some are harmful, but sometimes they're beneficial. But you don't see all the "failed" mutations, so you think it's something more than it is.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

How do you explain these things?

Dinosaurs had hollow bones for tens of millions of years before some developed feathers. And feathered, hollow-boned dinosaurs existed for millions more years before the first bird wing evolved. You seem to be thinking that these changes happened over a few generations, which just isn't the case.

In the lab, why is the trait that shows up is what is needed for the organisms environment? The right trait to digest a certain sugar, extra tails to make a bacteria swim faster.

You just don't see the "wrong" traits. There are new traits showing up in other bacteria that are going unnoticed because they don't confer an advantage in that particular setting. The lab environment has nutrients A and B in it. If some bacteria develop the ability to digest nutrient G, no one would ever know because G isn't present. There is no area for those bacteria to move into where their ability to digest G is relevant, so they just appear to be normal organisms being out-competed by the new multi-flagellar bacteria. Basically, the lab environment is so controlled that the niches that new mutations might allow a population to fill in the wild simply don't exist.

Is there actual evidence for that? Are there DNA tests done that show multiple random mutations in the ones that died out and didn't make it? All I've seen evidence for is the ones who had advantageous adaptations.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 3:30:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 2:53:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 1:30:48 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.

Yes and no.

If you had a deck of 52 cards, and i asked you to pick a 3 of clubs. It would be really really really lucky to get it on the first try.

But what if i gave you a thousand tries? If you picked up a 3 of clubs on your 138th try, would you consider that lucky?

The same goes for evolution. This is something that has been going on for hundreds of millions, billions of years. Youre essentially getting thousands upon thousands of tries to draw that 3 of clubs.



Now, if lets say I ask you to draw a 3 of clubs, and then a 4 of clubs, and then a 5 of clubs, and so forth until you reached a king of clubs.

Now, the thing about evolution, is that traits are saved(as long as the organism keeps having offspring that carry that gene/phenotype). They dont magically dissapear.

So, its like drawing a 3 of clubs, and putting it aside, and then trying again and again until you draw a 4 of clubs, putting it aside, etc etc until you reach the king of clubs.

What you end up with, is a row of neatly stacked cards ranging from 3 of clubs to king of clubs.

Good points. But consider.

The lens ended up right in the perfect spot for a lens to be a useful adaptation in the eye.

Why didn't it end up on a liver or an elbow instead? It ended up right where it would be useful.

Now? Yes. but at the time? How do you know it didnt end up on a liver or an elbow, but that those who had lenses on a liver or elbow died off, and the one with a lense on its photosensitive cells survived?
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 3:51:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 3:30:52 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:53:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 1:30:48 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.

Yes and no.

If you had a deck of 52 cards, and i asked you to pick a 3 of clubs. It would be really really really lucky to get it on the first try.

But what if i gave you a thousand tries? If you picked up a 3 of clubs on your 138th try, would you consider that lucky?

The same goes for evolution. This is something that has been going on for hundreds of millions, billions of years. Youre essentially getting thousands upon thousands of tries to draw that 3 of clubs.



Now, if lets say I ask you to draw a 3 of clubs, and then a 4 of clubs, and then a 5 of clubs, and so forth until you reached a king of clubs.

Now, the thing about evolution, is that traits are saved(as long as the organism keeps having offspring that carry that gene/phenotype). They dont magically dissapear.

So, its like drawing a 3 of clubs, and putting it aside, and then trying again and again until you draw a 4 of clubs, putting it aside, etc etc until you reach the king of clubs.

What you end up with, is a row of neatly stacked cards ranging from 3 of clubs to king of clubs.

Good points. But consider.

The lens ended up right in the perfect spot for a lens to be a useful adaptation in the eye.

Why didn't it end up on a liver or an elbow instead? It ended up right where it would be useful.

Now? Yes. but at the time? How do you know it didnt end up on a liver or an elbow, but that those who had lenses on a liver or elbow died off, and the one with a lense on its photosensitive cells survived?

I can see why something with a detrimental mutation would die off. But would something with a neutral mutation necessarily die off? If a lens on your liver isn't detrimental, why would the organism be more likely to die off? Why don't we see tons of plants and animals with neutral random mutations(with unnessasary parts) all around us?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 4:00:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 3:51:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 3:30:52 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:53:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 1:30:48 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.

Yes and no.

If you had a deck of 52 cards, and i asked you to pick a 3 of clubs. It would be really really really lucky to get it on the first try.

But what if i gave you a thousand tries? If you picked up a 3 of clubs on your 138th try, would you consider that lucky?

The same goes for evolution. This is something that has been going on for hundreds of millions, billions of years. Youre essentially getting thousands upon thousands of tries to draw that 3 of clubs.



Now, if lets say I ask you to draw a 3 of clubs, and then a 4 of clubs, and then a 5 of clubs, and so forth until you reached a king of clubs.

Now, the thing about evolution, is that traits are saved(as long as the organism keeps having offspring that carry that gene/phenotype). They dont magically dissapear.

So, its like drawing a 3 of clubs, and putting it aside, and then trying again and again until you draw a 4 of clubs, putting it aside, etc etc until you reach the king of clubs.

What you end up with, is a row of neatly stacked cards ranging from 3 of clubs to king of clubs.

Good points. But consider.

The lens ended up right in the perfect spot for a lens to be a useful adaptation in the eye.

Why didn't it end up on a liver or an elbow instead? It ended up right where it would be useful.

Now? Yes. but at the time? How do you know it didnt end up on a liver or an elbow, but that those who had lenses on a liver or elbow died off, and the one with a lense on its photosensitive cells survived?

I can see why something with a detrimental mutation would die off. But would something with a neutral mutation necessarily die off? If a lens on your liver isn't detrimental, why would the organism be more likely to die off? Why don't we see tons of plants and animals with neutral random mutations(with unnessasary parts) all around us?

It wouldnt be more likely to die off. But the problem here is that the organism with the lense next to its photosensitive cells, is more LIKELY to survive.

And yes, we do have animals around us with neutral random mutations. Humans are a great example of this. Do you think your earlobe is useful? What about having hair on your arms and legs? and then of course theres things like polydactyly, which is having extra fingers and toes, which is actually a dominant trait.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 4:13:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 2:57:36 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there actual evidence for that? Are there DNA tests done that show multiple random mutations in the ones that died out and didn't make it? All I've seen evidence for is the ones who had advantageous adaptations.

All I described was the process of evolution, explicitly mentioning the part that you seem to be missing. The evolutionary process goes like this: A) mutations occur in a population > B) selective pressures are applied > C) beneficial mutations allow some members of the population to reproduce more than others under those selective pressures. So you're asking if there's evidence that A occurs? The research for that goes back at least 50 years. Here's one example that is at least specific to this discussion:

http://www.sciencemag.org...
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 4:28:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 4:00:04 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 3:51:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 3:30:52 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:53:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 1:30:48 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.

Yes and no.

If you had a deck of 52 cards, and i asked you to pick a 3 of clubs. It would be really really really lucky to get it on the first try.

But what if i gave you a thousand tries? If you picked up a 3 of clubs on your 138th try, would you consider that lucky?

The same goes for evolution. This is something that has been going on for hundreds of millions, billions of years. Youre essentially getting thousands upon thousands of tries to draw that 3 of clubs.



Now, if lets say I ask you to draw a 3 of clubs, and then a 4 of clubs, and then a 5 of clubs, and so forth until you reached a king of clubs.

Now, the thing about evolution, is that traits are saved(as long as the organism keeps having offspring that carry that gene/phenotype). They dont magically dissapear.

So, its like drawing a 3 of clubs, and putting it aside, and then trying again and again until you draw a 4 of clubs, putting it aside, etc etc until you reach the king of clubs.

What you end up with, is a row of neatly stacked cards ranging from 3 of clubs to king of clubs.

Good points. But consider.

The lens ended up right in the perfect spot for a lens to be a useful adaptation in the eye.

Why didn't it end up on a liver or an elbow instead? It ended up right where it would be useful.

Now? Yes. but at the time? How do you know it didnt end up on a liver or an elbow, but that those who had lenses on a liver or elbow died off, and the one with a lense on its photosensitive cells survived?

I can see why something with a detrimental mutation would die off. But would something with a neutral mutation necessarily die off? If a lens on your liver isn't detrimental, why would the organism be more likely to die off? Why don't we see tons of plants and animals with neutral random mutations(with unnessasary parts) all around us?

It wouldnt be more likely to die off. But the problem here is that the organism with the lense next to its photosensitive cells, is more LIKELY to survive.

And yes, we do have animals around us with neutral random mutations. Humans are a great example of this. Do you think your earlobe is useful? What about having hair on your arms and legs? and then of course theres things like polydactyly, which is having extra fingers and toes, which is actually a dominant trait.

The earlobe is a great example of the ear conforming to the golden mean. An efficient morphology.

About the polydactyly, why is five fingers necessarily better than six? Appendages and digits follow fractal rules of branching in morphology.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 4:46:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 4:28:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:00:04 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 3:51:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 3:30:52 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:53:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 1:30:48 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.

Yes and no.

If you had a deck of 52 cards, and i asked you to pick a 3 of clubs. It would be really really really lucky to get it on the first try.

But what if i gave you a thousand tries? If you picked up a 3 of clubs on your 138th try, would you consider that lucky?

The same goes for evolution. This is something that has been going on for hundreds of millions, billions of years. Youre essentially getting thousands upon thousands of tries to draw that 3 of clubs.



Now, if lets say I ask you to draw a 3 of clubs, and then a 4 of clubs, and then a 5 of clubs, and so forth until you reached a king of clubs.

Now, the thing about evolution, is that traits are saved(as long as the organism keeps having offspring that carry that gene/phenotype). They dont magically dissapear.

So, its like drawing a 3 of clubs, and putting it aside, and then trying again and again until you draw a 4 of clubs, putting it aside, etc etc until you reach the king of clubs.

What you end up with, is a row of neatly stacked cards ranging from 3 of clubs to king of clubs.

Good points. But consider.

The lens ended up right in the perfect spot for a lens to be a useful adaptation in the eye.

Why didn't it end up on a liver or an elbow instead? It ended up right where it would be useful.

Now? Yes. but at the time? How do you know it didnt end up on a liver or an elbow, but that those who had lenses on a liver or elbow died off, and the one with a lense on its photosensitive cells survived?

I can see why something with a detrimental mutation would die off. But would something with a neutral mutation necessarily die off? If a lens on your liver isn't detrimental, why would the organism be more likely to die off? Why don't we see tons of plants and animals with neutral random mutations(with unnessasary parts) all around us?

It wouldnt be more likely to die off. But the problem here is that the organism with the lense next to its photosensitive cells, is more LIKELY to survive.

And yes, we do have animals around us with neutral random mutations. Humans are a great example of this. Do you think your earlobe is useful? What about having hair on your arms and legs? and then of course theres things like polydactyly, which is having extra fingers and toes, which is actually a dominant trait.

The earlobe is a great example of the ear conforming to the golden mean. An efficient morphology.

What is a "Golden mean". How is it "Efficient" morphology. I dont understand, could you elaborate?

About the polydactyly, why is five fingers necessarily better than six? Appendages and digits follow fractal rules of branching in morphology.

In most cases, the 6th finger is non-functional. Its like having a huge wart, that protrudes from your hand.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 5:14:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 4:13:22 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:36 PM, janesix wrote:
Is there actual evidence for that? Are there DNA tests done that show multiple random mutations in the ones that died out and didn't make it? All I've seen evidence for is the ones who had advantageous adaptations.

All I described was the process of evolution, explicitly mentioning the part that you seem to be missing. The evolutionary process goes like this: A) mutations occur in a population > B) selective pressures are applied > C) beneficial mutations allow some members of the population to reproduce more than others under those selective pressures. So you're asking if there's evidence that A occurs? The research for that goes back at least 50 years. Here's one example that is at least specific to this discussion:

http://www.sciencemag.org...

It is possible I'm missing something.

Random mutation and natural selection as a means of evolution just isn't "clicking" for me. So I have to keep picking at the problems I see, until it DOES click, or I figure out another method for evolution. Until one or the other happens, it's still a fun mystery.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 5:45:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 4:46:56 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:28:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:00:04 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 3:51:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 3:30:52 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:53:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 1:30:48 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.

Yes and no.

If you had a deck of 52 cards, and i asked you to pick a 3 of clubs. It would be really really really lucky to get it on the first try.

But what if i gave you a thousand tries? If you picked up a 3 of clubs on your 138th try, would you consider that lucky?

The same goes for evolution. This is something that has been going on for hundreds of millions, billions of years. Youre essentially getting thousands upon thousands of tries to draw that 3 of clubs.



Now, if lets say I ask you to draw a 3 of clubs, and then a 4 of clubs, and then a 5 of clubs, and so forth until you reached a king of clubs.

Now, the thing about evolution, is that traits are saved(as long as the organism keeps having offspring that carry that gene/phenotype). They dont magically dissapear.

So, its like drawing a 3 of clubs, and putting it aside, and then trying again and again until you draw a 4 of clubs, putting it aside, etc etc until you reach the king of clubs.

What you end up with, is a row of neatly stacked cards ranging from 3 of clubs to king of clubs.

Good points. But consider.

The lens ended up right in the perfect spot for a lens to be a useful adaptation in the eye.

Why didn't it end up on a liver or an elbow instead? It ended up right where it would be useful.

Now? Yes. but at the time? How do you know it didnt end up on a liver or an elbow, but that those who had lenses on a liver or elbow died off, and the one with a lense on its photosensitive cells survived?

I can see why something with a detrimental mutation would die off. But would something with a neutral mutation necessarily die off? If a lens on your liver isn't detrimental, why would the organism be more likely to die off? Why don't we see tons of plants and animals with neutral random mutations(with unnessasary parts) all around us?

It wouldnt be more likely to die off. But the problem here is that the organism with the lense next to its photosensitive cells, is more LIKELY to survive.

And yes, we do have animals around us with neutral random mutations. Humans are a great example of this. Do you think your earlobe is useful? What about having hair on your arms and legs? and then of course theres things like polydactyly, which is having extra fingers and toes, which is actually a dominant trait.

The earlobe is a great example of the ear conforming to the golden mean. An efficient morphology.

What is a "Golden mean". How is it "Efficient" morphology. I dont understand, could you elaborate?

About the polydactyly, why is five fingers necessarily better than six? Appendages and digits follow fractal rules of branching in morphology.

In most cases, the 6th finger is non-functional. Its like having a huge wart, that protrudes from your hand.

"The Fibonacci numbers are Nature's numbering system. They appear everywhere in Nature, from the leaf arrangement in plants, to the pattern of the florets of a flower, the bracts of a pinecone, or the scales of a pineapple. The Fibonacci numbers are therefore applicable to the growth of every living thing, including a single cell, a grain of wheat, a hive of bees, and even all of mankind.

Plants do not know about this sequence - they just grow in the most efficient ways. Many plants show the Fibonacci numbers in the arrangement of the leaves around the stem. Some pine cones and fir cones also show the numbers, as do daisies and sunflowers. Sunflowers can contain the number 89, or even 144. Many other plants, such as succulents, also show the numbers. Some coniferous trees show these numbers in the bumps on their trunks. And palm trees show the numbers in the rings on their trunks."

http://jwilson.coe.uga.edu...

I will also address your other question, but it will take some time as I have to do a few chores.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 6:15:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 1:06:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:28:50 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.

Isn't that pretty much an argument from incredulity? It just seems so unlikely that it probably didn't happen like that, even though best evidence thus far indicates it...

Its not an "Accident" that beneficial trait is continued. Its like stating creatures that survive survived simply by accident rather than all the traits that were bred into said creature that helped it to the current point.

The best evidence indicates to ME that the mutations causing changes and adaptation aren't random.

Post hoc propter ergo hoc.

I agree on the second paragraph.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 6:37:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 4:46:56 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:28:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:00:04 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 3:51:04 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 3:30:52 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:53:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 1:30:48 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/3/2015 5:17:00 AM, janesix wrote:
At 4/3/2015 4:44:14 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.


Because its not 100% random. Mutations and traits that helped the creature in question to survive passed on, while those with an inferior set of traits didn't, or were put to extinction as superior variants dominated the scape. As a for instance, lets say a simple creature with a sensitive eye spot (more so than its peers) could find prey easier due to that sensitivity. Because it was better at finding food, obviously its survivability increased, such so that the sensitive eyespot trait began to dominate the surrounding areas through the generations. With that gene being mingled with similar genes in other potential mates, it might give rise to an eyespot that is both sensitive and directional, meaning the creature becomes even MORE efficient.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

Since all those traits are optimal for flight, pretty good. A bird that had heavy bones wouldn't live for very long, would it? Lighter bones over time meant faster take offs, less energy being spent for powered flight, which potentially meant more time for finding a mate rather than foraging for food, though you can't look at evolution as one drastic change to another.



How do you explain these things?

I am pointing to the likelihood (or NON likelihood) of all these things happening, in the right order, in the right place. I already know the regular explanation.

Lots and lots of lucky accidents.

Yes and no.

If you had a deck of 52 cards, and i asked you to pick a 3 of clubs. It would be really really really lucky to get it on the first try.

But what if i gave you a thousand tries? If you picked up a 3 of clubs on your 138th try, would you consider that lucky?

The same goes for evolution. This is something that has been going on for hundreds of millions, billions of years. Youre essentially getting thousands upon thousands of tries to draw that 3 of clubs.



Now, if lets say I ask you to draw a 3 of clubs, and then a 4 of clubs, and then a 5 of clubs, and so forth until you reached a king of clubs.

Now, the thing about evolution, is that traits are saved(as long as the organism keeps having offspring that carry that gene/phenotype). They dont magically dissapear.

So, its like drawing a 3 of clubs, and putting it aside, and then trying again and again until you draw a 4 of clubs, putting it aside, etc etc until you reach the king of clubs.

What you end up with, is a row of neatly stacked cards ranging from 3 of clubs to king of clubs.

Good points. But consider.

The lens ended up right in the perfect spot for a lens to be a useful adaptation in the eye.

Why didn't it end up on a liver or an elbow instead? It ended up right where it would be useful.

Now? Yes. but at the time? How do you know it didnt end up on a liver or an elbow, but that those who had lenses on a liver or elbow died off, and the one with a lense on its photosensitive cells survived?

I can see why something with a detrimental mutation would die off. But would something with a neutral mutation necessarily die off? If a lens on your liver isn't detrimental, why would the organism be more likely to die off? Why don't we see tons of plants and animals with neutral random mutations(with unnessasary parts) all around us?

It wouldnt be more likely to die off. But the problem here is that the organism with the lense next to its photosensitive cells, is more LIKELY to survive.

And yes, we do have animals around us with neutral random mutations. Humans are a great example of this. Do you think your earlobe is useful? What about having hair on your arms and legs? and then of course theres things like polydactyly, which is having extra fingers and toes, which is actually a dominant trait.

The earlobe is a great example of the ear conforming to the golden mean. An efficient morphology.

What is a "Golden mean". How is it "Efficient" morphology. I dont understand, could you elaborate?

About the polydactyly, why is five fingers necessarily better than six? Appendages and digits follow fractal rules of branching in morphology.

In most cases, the 6th finger is non-functional. Its like having a huge wart, that protrudes from your hand.

Golden mean and the human ear

http://www.goldennumber.net...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 8:38:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

How do you explain these things?

But fully functioning and well developed eyes are seen in trilobites and other animals int he Cambrian explosion.

The fossil evidence is lacking for eyes, it is assumed that earlier stages of eyes evolved. And that these eyes were independently evolved among creatures, and that such a feature spread fast.

A lot of special pleading.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2015 8:51:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/3/2015 8:38:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/3/2015 2:57:39 AM, janesix wrote:
Eyes supposedly evolved over millions of years in stages. If mutations are random, how likely is it that each new part "randomly" evolved in the exact spot it needed to be in to make the eye work?

And for each type of eye, this supposedly happened multiple times independently. That's even MORE unlikely.

Same goes for birds. How likely is it that the same type of animal just happened to evolve feathers, lightweight bones, wings etc, enabling them to fly? Unlikely.

How do you explain these things?

But fully functioning and well developed eyes are seen in trilobites and other animals int he Cambrian explosion.

The fossil evidence is lacking for eyes, it is assumed that earlier stages of eyes evolved. And that these eyes were independently evolved among creatures, and that such a feature spread fast.

A lot of special pleading.

I understand how eyes evolved. There is a lot of evidence for eye evolution. There are plenty of animals with different stages of development. Like Jelly fish having just photo receptors, and some animals having photo receptors and a partial cup etc. I don't see how it evolved randomly or accidentally.

I am not sure what special pleading means.