Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True? Part Two

[vz71]

My interpretation was an exact quote.

 

[vz71]

Which in its turn shows that the human senses are not 100% reliable. Saying, “It sure looks designed to me” is not a reliable design detector

Now wait a second here.
Evolution likewise doesn’t hold to the same scrutiny.
I do not see labs independently repeating results of evolution, nor do I see it providing any meaningful predictions to test for.

Your argument suffers from the same problem.

 

[Aloysium]

Techno2000:

Random mutations supposedly work by seeing into the future and creating a animal fit for it’s new environment.

You should first acquaint yourself with the principles of the theory, then you may gain a capacity to describe its processes to others.

Let’s forgo the personal comments. It isn’t a statement as to how evolution works, but where it fails. Superficially, the Theory of Evolution might make sense, but try to explain certain phenomena stretches it to the absurd.

The issue that is being addressed is a specific example - how an angler fish came to be that way. It supposedly did so one spontaneous genetic mutation at a time, one different working protein after another.

But, let’s examine what we see. I’m pretty sure everyone’s reaction is that it is a great symbol for the scary things that lie in the dark. It is particularly gruesome because its lure is the light. A bit of hope, something really cool and chomp, we’re done. A pretty awesome creature to be sure.

Let’s go with Natural Selection first. It can’t explain the ugliness that we all witness. Being horrific looking doesn’t make it more fitting to its environment. Perhaps if we approach it as a lack of beauty, we can understand how such qualities would be unimportant in the dark. At this point what is natural selection would have to be expanded beyond the physical into the instinctual, with the whole can of worms it opens up as to how that can exist while revealing the nonsense that is the Cartesian mind-body duality. Of course, we can deny what we see; pushing ideaology can feel more comfortable than pursuing the truth.

Going after what drives speciation, random mutation at a genetic level is already being shown to be a false lead. Buffalo’s link to a Nature article on how gene deletion is a major factor was very interesting. That finding resonates with the fact that it is through such processes that the zygote, the one-cell person, creates the placenta, umbilical cord, brains and bones and skin and heart and lungs and liver and kidneys and intestines and pancreas and thyroid and everything including the vocal chords of a baby screaming in the middle of the night. From what I see, everything comes from small beginnings, grows and flowers; but that’s another story.

So, how did the glowing lure develop one step at a time. Perhaps it began as a luminescent tilaka (in Hinduism, the mark worn on the forehead), which then grew like a polyp. I’m thinking not random, sorry.

To the guys out there wanting hard numbers, you are out of luck. Believe what seems most credible to you. I’m going to go with there being an over-riding structure to what we consider matter today, that makes this sort of stuff happen, like we move all sorts of neurotransmitters when we think, and see and hear and feel. That soul, if you will, is also what drives the shaping of all the diversity. This is not to deny that organisms that die cannot procreate.

And, we all should know who is behind all this wonder.

TLDNR - the question to which you responded makes sense.

 

[Techno2000]

But every nature documentary I ever see tells me how perfectly suited for its environment whatever creature is.

Right, If evolution worked overnight I wouldn’t see any problem.But evolution has a huge Lag-Time that has to be accounted for.If the Military knows some of their soldiers are going to face a cold wet environment in a few days, they will provide the necessary equipment , immediately for their survival… not millons of years later.

 

[Techno2000]

vz71:

Techno2000:

.The problem I see is that this takes an eternity to do.

I see another problem.
While the fish is changing, so is the environment.

For the theory to hold, the fish must always be unsuited in some way to the environment.

But every nature documentary I ever see tells me how perfectly suited for its environment whatever creature is.

Your interpretation of those nature documentaries is in error. No creature is absolutely perfect for its environment.

Just perfect enough to survive,which they do.

 

[Techno2000]

Superficially, the Theory of Evolution might make sense, but try to explain certain phenomena stretches it to the absurd.

The Devil is in the details.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Rau:

Techno2000:

Random mutations supposedly work by seeing into the future and creating a animal fit for it’s new environment.

You should first acquaint yourself with the principles of the theory, then you may gain a capacity to describe its processes to others.

Let’s forgo the personal comments. It isn’t a statement as to how evolution works, but where it fails. Superficially, the Theory of Evolution might make sense, but try to explain certain phenomena stretches it to the absurd.

The issue that is being addressed is a specific example - how an angler fish came to be that way. It supposedly did so one spontaneous genetic mutation at a time, one different working protein after another.

But, let’s examine what we see. I’m pretty sure everyone’s reaction is that it is a great symbol for the scary things that lie in the dark. It is particularly gruesome because its lure is the light. A bit of hope, something really cool and chomp, we’re done. A pretty awesome creature to be sure.

Let’s go with Natural Selection first. It can’t explain the ugliness that we all witness.

Ugliness is a human interpretation and not a scientific description of what the anglerfish has. Therefore it needs no “explanation” of how it came to be. Also consider what I said earlier about the light and people’s difficultly with it.

 

[buffalo]

Investigation could continue. Perhaps he knew that neo-Darwinism would fall.

 

[buffalo]

Humans recognize design, since it was cognized. Our intuition tells us the universe is top down not bottom up.

 

[Aloysium]

Ugliness is a human interpretation and not a scientific description of what the anglerfish has. Therefore it needs no “explanation” of how it came to be. Also consider what I said earlier about the light and people’s difficultly with it.

Science is a human interpretation of reality. The question then has to do with what are these “interpretations”, be they beauty, or science, or mythical stories, all about. Evolution would have us as apes, hominids if you like, who became mankind, which is part of a larger story that would see such features as mathematics evolving from the touch/smell/taste/see basic feelings of a unicellular creature. Consideration should be given to the fact that all the while, we are individually one being, who is organized as such:

top down not bottom up

If one restricts science to the purely physical, it should so remain and not delve into stories, like evolution, that are way beyond its pay grade.

Speaking about stuff that is beyond one’s pay grade, I think Quantum Mechanics could be a light out of that tunnel, demonstrating as it does that photons can exist as individual particles or as waves in a beam of light part an experimental apparatus. Entanglement may come to be understood as being part of something bigger, like a galaxy for example, where a pair of subatomic particles may show up at opposite ends when the entanglement system collapses.

Continuing along those lines in reference to your link to a previous post, when God created light, it’s not photons, but more like prime matter, the plasma that existed before quarks and other very small stuff was brought into existence. That light is what everything is ultimately made of, the physical reality of God’s infinite compassion. Something like that.

 

[rossum]

I do not see labs independently repeating results of evolution, nor do I see it providing any meaningful predictions to test for.

Every medical lab is checking for the evolution of resistance in bacteria. Every herbicide manufacturer is checking for the evolution of resistance in weeds. Every insecticide manufacturer is checking for the evolution of resistance in insects.

Predictions? Darwin made two:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

and

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

For a more modern prediction:

These findings, together with the limited pathology of HbAC and HbCC compared to the severely disadvantaged HbSS and HbSC genotypes and the low betaS gene frequency in the geographic epicentre of betaC, support the hypothesis that, in the long term and in the absence of malaria control, HbC would replace HbS in central West Africa.

– Source: Modiano et al (2001) Haemoglobin C protects against clinical Plasmodium falciparum malaria.

Just because anti-evolution sources do not mention something does not mean that it does not exist.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The issue that is being addressed is a specific example - how an angler fish came to be that way. It supposedly did so one spontaneous genetic mutation at a time, one different working protein after another.

First point. Many deep sea organisms have lights, see Firefly squid. Some land animals do as well, such as fireflies. Light generation, bioluminescence, is not uncommon.

Specifically some bacteria produce light. Some of those bacteria live symbiotically in the Anglerfish’s lure.

Given bioluminescence, all that is then needed is a stalk to hold the light. Anglerfish adapted an already existing bony spine in their neck for the job.

Evolution often uses modified pre-existing components, in this case bacteria and a bony spine. Adapting something already existing is usually easier than building something new completely from scratch.

rossum

 

[vz71]

Evolution, as it is being understood in this thread, is being used to explain where all of the different animals came from. Likewise the same with plants, and whatever other life forms.

So far, the only lab tests I have seen indicate a a bacteria staying a bacteria…or a plant staying a plant.
I have never seen a laboratory example of one animal becoming a different animal altogether.

I don’t see a dog coming out of an experiment on a turtle.

BUT…the support for evolution expects us to believe this happens without a laboratory test.
I am expected to believe evolution based upon lab tests indicating a species staying a species (albeit with a different property). SHOW ME a dog with turtle parentage.

Thus far I have a reasonable story, and some tests showing how a change can be propagated through a species, but no species being radically transformed.
Nature has cows, and Angelfish, and humans. Surely we can utilize this theory and force an evolution in a lab to produce likewise radical differences…can’t we?

If not, why the mockery of those that disbelieve what is (for lack of a better term) faith?

 

[rossum]

So far, the only lab tests I have seen indicate a a bacteria staying a bacteria…

Your lack of relevant knowledge is showing here. At the level of “bacteria” there are only three different types of life: Arche, Bacteria and Eukaryotes.

Do some research into how many different forms the overall designation Eukaryote covers. Hint: if it is big enough to see, then it is a Eukaryote.

rossum

 

[Rau]

Let’s forgo the personal comments.

It was not intended as a personal comment but as a response to yet another post which incorporated nonsense (“seeing into the future”), which can only be born of ignorance or an intentional attempt to ridicule. In all charity, I assumed the former.

 

[Aloysium]

some bacteria produce light. Some of those bacteria live symbiotically in the Anglerfish’s lure.

Given bioluminescence, all that is then needed is a stalk to hold the light. Anglerfish adapted an already existing bony spine in their neck for the job.

Evolution often uses modified pre-existing components, in this case bacteria and a bony spine. Adapting something already existing is usually easier than building something new completely from scratch.

rossum

I can’t deny, that is some pretty weird stuff. It is amazing how life adapts, individual organisms-within-an-environment undergoing transformation The difference lies in the overall conceptual framework that we use to understand how this happens.

I would agree that adaptation is easier than building something from scratch. We should bear in mind that for something to adapt, it must already exist. Human beings did not temporally exist at some point, or at least it’s outside our normal way of understanding time, and there was nothing to adapt. Adam was a new creation.

Back to angler fish bizarreness:

The male, which is significantly smaller than the female, has no need for such an adaptation. In lieu of continually seeking the vast abyss for a female, it has evolved into a permanent parasitic mate. When a young, free-swimming male angler encounters a female, he latches onto her with his sharp teeth. Over time, the male physically fuses with the female, connecting to her skin and bloodstream and losing his eyes and all his internal organs except the testes. A female will carry six or more males on her body.
(Nat. Geo.)

Interestingly, look at how loosely and nonchalantly “evolved” is used - in the vagueness of the term, the Theory of Evolution sneaks into another children’s magazine. The project for today kids, is to outline the series of steps that made this happen. Clearly this has happened, the trick is to figure out what spin of DNA random glitches led to this.

 

[Rau]

Investigation could continue. Perhaps he knew that neo-Darwinism would fall.

Or perhaps he didn’t see the gross conflict with the Faith that some here do, and which leads them to reject it entirely?

 

[rossum]

Interestingly, look at how loosely and nonchalantly “evolved” is used - in the vagueness of the term, the Theory of Evolution sneaks into another children’s magazine. The project for today kids, is to outline the series of steps that made this happen. Clearly this has happened, the trick is to figure out what spin of DNA random glitches led to this.

Not all species of Anglerfish have the reduced males, some have males the same size as the females. The species with parasitic males are not common, having large ranges. Hence it is an advantage for males to stay with a female when he finds one. Rather than swimming alongside, it is more efficient to hitch a ride. If you’re hitching a ride, then it is difficult to catch your own food. Why not suck some blood as food? Being small means you need less food, and won’t be such a burden on the female.

There are very obvious advantageous slopes from hitching a ride to a small exo-parasite.

Was that really so difficult to work out?

Adam was a new creation.

Not in my Buddhist scriptures he wasn’t. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you cannot expect everyone else to follow them, especially when you do not have any non-scriptural evidence to support your ideas.

rossum

 

[vz71]

So are you going to address the point?

 

[Aloysium]

Was that really so difficult to work out?

Aloysium:

Adam was a new creation.

Not in my Buddhist scriptures he wasn’t. You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you cannot expect everyone else to follow them, especially when you do not have any non-scriptural evidence to support your ideas.

rossum

Not difficult at all and pretty amazing; all it involves is being spoon-fed information.
Thinking that one has worked out evolutionary theory on the other hand, it being being incongruous with the truth, should lead one to reflect that one has gone astray.

Your Buddhist text do not speak of the temporal creation of mankind, since it is irrelevant to who Gautama Buddha was, a man who reached enlightenment, and the message he taught, which has some remarkable similarities to scripture. Their truth lies in ontological reality and they require a really sharp master to translate. You should be aware of where such evidence is to be found.