Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benjamin1973 said:
People may actually be on the verge of designing animals.
Click to expand...
This sort of deluded thinking is typical of evolutionist space-cadets who serious underestimate what is required to produce life. It’s the same atheist-inspired delusion that makes people believe life can pop up on other planets, given the right conditions.
Humans have zero chance of designing any living creature from inanimate matter. The complexities involved are way beyond the capacity of puny humans to overcome.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t say humans were going to design animals from inanimate matter. I said we will improve our ability to sequence DNA, something we already do but not very well.
 
No offense, but if you want to debate against evolution based on the complexity of the eye, then you might want to actually see what scientists say about it instead of making a bold assertion of the top of your head.

There are animals with all stages of photo-chemical processing, from simple photo-sensitivity in the skin, through very simple cup eyes, through the multi-faceted eyes of spiders, through to our own. It’s not as big a mystery, and not as impossible, as you think it is.

If you’d like to go through some actual research and evidence with me, and debunk that, then I welcome that process. But your argument it basically: “I can’t immediately imagine how something happened. So God did it, problem solved.”

A much more enlightened attitude would be to say something like, “God created all of nature. Let’s see what wondrous ways He’s caused things to come about.”
 
Techno2000 said:
The creatures that didn’t get the mutation improvement would still be out there reproducing and surviving.
Click to expand...
It would reproduce, but because it didn’t have the improvement, it would not reproduce as successfully. Over the generations, the improved version would out-breed it. Even a 1% improvement in reproductive success would show in the long run:

The process is rather like compound interest. As an example, take a stable population of 100 organisms; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the improved organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. Start with a population of 99 of the original organisms and 1 improved organism with the beneficial mutations. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:
Code: 
Generation  Normal    Improved
----------  -------  ----------
     0       99.00        1.00
     1       99.00        1.01
    10       99.00        1.10
   100       99.00        2.70
   500       99.00      144.77
   700       99.00     1059.16
  1000       99.00    20959.16
You can see how the small 1% advantage is amplified over the generations as the beneficial variant spreads through the population, overwhelming the number of the original unimproved organisms.

You can set this up on a spreadsheet easily enough if you want to play with the numbers.

rossum
 
I know. I guess ironical speaking doesn’t translate well to text. 😃
 
Maybe. And you can say the same thing about a tiny bat, a person, a dog, or any of the very many animals that have 2 bones in their forearms and five finger bones.
 
rossum said:
It would reproduce, but because it didn’t have the improvement, it would not reproduce as successfully.
Click to expand...
They would still be reproducing and surviving all the while its random mutation enhanced brothers and sisters are waiting millions of years for evolution to make them superior.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
They would still be reproducing and surviving all the while its random mutation enhanced brothers and sisters are waiting millions of years for evolution to make them superior.
Click to expand...
Please check back on your own questions, rather than trying, and failing, to remember them. We were discussing what happened when version 1.0 and version 1.1 were alive simultaneously. There was no million year wait, because version 1.1 was already around, in parallel with version 1.0. The two versions overlapped, just as birds and other dinosaurs overlapped. Non avian dinosaurs were first, then bird lived alongside other dinosaurs for a time, then just the birds were left when the other dinosaurs died out. Is that really so difficult to follow?

rossum
 
A single generation of what? For bacteria a generation can be 30 minutes. For humans about 20 years. In general, larger animals have longer generations; IIRC both whales and elephants have longer generation times than humans.

rossum
 
vz71 said:
How many years is a single generation?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t really matter. The stats for the impact of teratogens on the developing embryo explain why they are so devastating, because from one single cell we get about fifty different types of cells and to the order of tens of trillions in total. I believe 50% of all conceptions end in a miscarriage at three months time, when the baby’s own hormones take over the continuation of the pregnancy. In the case of cancer, there frequently occurs a disruption in the cells’ replication regulation. The cells not only look very different from others within the tissue they develop, but can grow at some very high rates. The development and maintenance of a body is tightly controlled and defects created during DNA replication can be corrected at a molecular level, or eliminated through our immune system.

Evidence that random mutations produce benefits is seen in the popular media - Doctor Manhattan, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, Spiderman, the X-Men, and of course, everyone’s favourite Godzilla, among others.

Clearly animals have changed over time, both in terms of the adult appearance and how they behave and the genetic material and cellular processes involved in their development from a single cell. Some people think it all happened randomly and somehow this is more likely than God simply creating them as they are. I’m not suggesting it that those are the only choices we have, but given only those two options, the latter would seem far more probable.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
They would still be reproducing and surviving all the while its random mutation enhanced brothers and sisters are waiting millions of years for evolution to make them superior.
Click to expand...
Please check back on your own questions, rather than trying, and failing, to remember them. We were discussing what happened when version 1.0 and version 1.1 were alive simultaneously. There was no million year wait, because version 1.1 was already around, in parallel with version 1.0. The two versions overlapped, just as birds and other dinosaurs overlapped. Non avian dinosaurs were first, then bird lived alongside other dinosaurs for a time, then just the birds were left when the other dinosaurs died out. Is that really so difficult to follow?

rossum
Click to expand...
Now you want to speed up evolution for your convenience. It supposedly took evolution 15 million years to make the whale.How long do you think the second rat (w2r) like creature would be in that stage the devoment ?
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Evidence that random mutations produce benefits is seen in the…
Click to expand...
… scientific literature. HbC protects against malaria: Modiano et al. (2001). Apo A-I Milano protects against atherosclerosis: Bielicki et al. (1997).

Most mutations are neutral, having no effect. Of those that do have an effect the great majority are deleterious, as you say. A few mutation are beneficial. Given a human population of 7 billion, since each of us has an average of 60 mutations, that is a total of 420 billion mutations over the whole human population. A few of those 420 billion mutations are beneficial.

rossum
 
Very good example. The eyeball needs an optic nerve connected to the brain which has the ability to “process” the image.
 
Post #4. “Some people” what? Have no sense of humor? Oh, I’ve been guilty of that alright. Anyway, that is a direct quote of Rick James, who fervently believed it. If it is patently offensive in an entertainment thread, then I will gladly remove it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top