Philosophy/Science: Growing Ears For A Sound You Did Not Know Existed!

[freesoulhope]

The evolution of the biological instruments which helps the organism to perceive a three dimensional world of time, space and matter, by its self, has no regognition; evolution is blind; despite this, we cannot deny that evolution has happened on a micro and macro scale.

Yet imagine a phenomon like growing ears for a sound your’ve never heard.

Why should an eye evolve when the organism doesn’t concieve or sense that there is anything “to see”. Doesn’t this prove that there is a programmer for the program? When nature develops instruments for things it cannot know or sense, how can it account for its self Logically with out a God to give it a helping hand?

Can anyone solve the puzzle with out suggesting the intervention of a “Creator”?

Have fun

 

[RobNY]

The evolution of the biological instruments which helps the organism to perceive a three dimensional world of time, space and matter, by its self, has no regognition; evolution is blind; despite this, we cannot deny that evolution has happened on a micro and macro scale.

Yet imagine a phenomon like growing ears for a sound your’ve never heard.

Why should an eye evolve when the organism doesn’t concieve or sense that there is anything “to see”. Doesn’t this prove that there is a programmer for the program? When nature develops instruments for things it cannot know or sense, how can it account for its self Logically with out a God to give it a helping hand?

Can anyone solve the puzzle with out suggesting the intervention of a “Creator”?

Have fun

I think you have natural selection backwards. I’ve always had it presented to me, not as a species striving to become better, but a rather more negative concept. It’s not that the strong are reaching upwards, straining to get better, it’s that the weak are slowly but surely weeded out, leaving only the strong with the most advantageous attributes. If it was as you characterized it then I think your point would be valid, but I don’t think it is quite that way.

-Rob

 

[Mirdath]

If the evolution of the eye ‘proved’ anything, it would be that octopi are in fact God’s chosen creatures. Octopus eyes evolved independently of human eyes and they’re better than ours.

To be slightly – only slightly – more serious, no, it doesn’t prove anything. Light and sound are environmental stimuli and have always been. When life was still in the single-celled organism stage, it reacted to light through photosynthesis. Which itself proves nothing either, as various organic and inorganic chemicals react to light as well. Sound is even simpler, as it consists entirely of vibration.

Sorry, the argument from design doesn’t fly.

 

[freesoulhope]

To be slightly – only slightly – more serious, no, it doesn’t prove anything. Light and sound are environmental stimuli and have always been.

Eviromental stimuli, doesn’t tell me why an organism should develop organs that are for things that it cannot concieve. I know that an eye evolved; An organ senses light; but how does it follow that any organism should develop an eye purely by nature or blind chance? Evolution does not concieve of a world that needs to be seen? It is blind. An organism senses an enviroment around it, but does not concieve of an enviroment like you do; and since it does not think or desire at levels such as a one celled organism or mere chemical compounds, there is no reason for it to develop an eye or an ear for hearing; even if its more complex

 

[Mirdath]

Eviromental stimuli, doesn’t tell me why an organism should develop organs that are for things that it cannot concieve. I know that an eye evolved; An organ senses light; but how does it follow that any organism should develop an eye purely by nature or blind chance? Evolution does not concieve of a world that needs to be seen? It is blind. An organism senses an enviroment around it, but does not concieve of an enviroment like you do; and since it does not think or desire at levels such as a one celled organism or mere chemical compounds, there is no reason for it to develop an eye or an ear for hearing; even if its more complex

By nature, because primitive organisms (from which all else evolved) reacted to light by producing nutrients. Photosynthesis requires light; it acts as an on/off switch depending on light level. Seeking out light, then, is a good thing for the survival of the organism – we see this in plants that grow towards light sources. It only stands to reason that that faculty could grow to a more specialized end, that of sight, when life became rather more fast-paced than the slow growth of vines.

Note also that cave fish, who have no light to see by, are sightless. The faculty deteriorates without an environment in which it is appropriate.

 

[freesoulhope]

It only stands to reason that that faculty could grow to a more specialized end, that of sight, when life became rather more fast-paced than the slow growth of vines.

Light sensory in plants is one thing, Sight is another. Why should sight be an end to light sensitivity?

 

[freesoulhope]

I think you have natural selection backwards. I’ve always had it presented to me, not as a species striving to become better, but a rather more negative concept. It’s not that the strong are reaching upwards, straining to get better, it’s that the weak are slowly but surely weeded out, leaving only the strong with the most advantageous attributes. If it was as you characterized it then I think your point would be valid, but I don’t think it is quite that way.

-Rob

Seeing would be an advantage; but only in a world were there is something to see; and if the world is 3 dimentional. How has blind evolution actualised something it has not conception of. The organism itself has no conception of it? If there is an answer that does not involve God programing it in, fine, but i want to see it.

 

[Mirdath]

Light sensory in plants is one thing, Sight is another. Why should sight be an end to light sensitivity?

You can imagine a basic eye as a field of on/off switches. Each one reacts to various levels of light, providing you with a grainy black and white image. In fact, that’s how most mammals see. It’s an extension of a general on/off switch – more is always better, no? Ever since life left the plant phase to become mobile, it’s needed to sense where it’s going, to find food, and to avoid predators. In a lighted environment, a map of what everything looks like by luminosity is the most obvious solution, especially when you already have general sensitivity to light; mapping with sound bursts (sonar) works well too, though note that creatures which use this method are more active at night or underwater, where there is less light.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This has nothing to do with Catholic apologetics. Please post in the water cooler section.

 

[CarlosG]

This has nothing to do with Catholic apologetics. Please post in the water cooler section.

This is not entirely true. It has to do with the teleological argument (loosely at least) which was one of St Thomas Aquinas’ arguments in the Summa.
“Now whatever lacks knowledge cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is directed by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”

 

[Leperchaun]

Ignoring the environmental stimuli argument, you are looking at it backwards. A lack of perceived benefit doesn’t mean a lack of benefit, and mutations are not chosen how to be made, they are selected for after they are made (albeit there are selective pressures that are inherent and genetically ingrained and therefore areas of genetic code more likely to mutate, but that’s beyond the scope of the question).

Think of it this way. I dig dirt every day. I have nice big hands, and they are pretty effective. Somehow I obtain a shovel. I may not have chosen said shovel, but since it makes me work better I will keep it. This is not to say the shovel is the only tool handed me in my time digging. I was given a hammer, a saw, and a variety of other things, but they didn’t help me and took more effort to do the same thing, so they weren’t selected. Heck maybe I was even handed a screwdriver after I got the shovel, but I didn’t keep it because it didn’t help me either. But if you observe the long run, the only significant change is that I went from using my hands to using a shovel, you won’t really see all the other tools, because it didn’t take very long to figure out they weren’t useful.

In this way many beneficial mutations are still random, but appear systematic in the long run, because the non-beneficial ones are not as successful in staying in the population and are therefore difficult to observe.

So while I believe in a divine hand guiding evolution, this argument isn’t going to give the Intelligent Design camp a leg up, nor will it begin to phase any supporters of evolutionary theory.

 

[freesoulhope]

Ever since life left the plant phase to become mobile, it’s needed to sense where it’s going, to find food, and to avoid predators.

“Need” is a false concept in explaining the evolution of blind un-desiring, un-programmed organisms. " I Need food, but if i am blind to that need, it is not reasonable that i should satisfy it. Take for instance pain, If i have a broken arm, but i do not conciously feel it, then i run the risk of causing more damage; since there is no reason why i should protect something i do not concieve of. We as conscious humans experience and project upon the natural world what we are logically concious of, and this is why, in my opinion, some people cannot see the need for a creator; they wrongly project human attributes to it; are awareness of things.

Why should a simple Organism decide that it would need to sense where it is going? Why should it care that it is eaten by a predator or even conceive of being eaten as a threat? The fact is, it doesn’t; yet it is working as if it does. Where moving from lifeless Chemical compounds to an organic life that is blindly striving to live; developing organs for a 3 dimensional world it does not conceive of; and that the organs themselves are making them more aware of. Where has that desire come from? And if its not desire, but merely a blind program, then how can such a program develop blindly an instinctual/desire to live, when it has no conception of life to reflect upon, and no creator to program it? I don’t see how natural selection or evolution as a whole can account for this phenomenon; and is failing, in my eyes, to do so.

A one celled organism has no subjective desire, yet it strives to multiply and live as if it has a desire to live. My having a subjective conscious desire to live, makes sense, because I my self can reflect upon life and desire it; place value upon it. Nature does not. And in this lies the problem, since evolution does not explain the desire; it only shows us how evolution works.

 

[freesoulhope]

You can imagine a basic eye as a field of on/off switches.

An eye is not an eye until it’s an eye; and an organisms blind sense of light, does not suggest to me, that it should develop sight or that sight should be a necessity of an organism that does not desire it.

The fact that an eye develops around the central nervous system, shows rational order and a fulfillment of a rational “need” in an organism that is blind of what it “needs” to survive; it simply hasn’t got a clue what’s happening. We know, being conscious, that it is rational in a survival of the fittest situation that a living organism will benefit from the use of eyes in a world where there are predators or obstacles; but a simple organism does not know.

If it needs to see a predator, then sight is needed; but if sight is not conceived of, and evolution is blind of its environment; then I don’t see how there can be, practically or logically, any such thing as a “blind necessity” with out the interference of a creator.

 

[freesoulhope]

" I Need food, I have an instictual desire for it. But if i am blind to that need, it is not reasonable that i should satisfy it. Take for instance “pain”; If i have a broken arm, but i do not conciously feel it or have any conception of the danger of having a broken arm or the disabling effects of it, then unfortuantly i shall run the risk of causing more damage; since there is no reason why i should protect something i do not concieve of. Why should i protect it or develop tools for which i am oblivious of? The need is not apparent to me, therefore i shall not fix it."