< A positive genetic mutation (one that adds information to the genome) has never occurred.
Let's assume that positive genetic mutations occur in order that a new genome can be formed and advance the species thus further in the pyramid of life. However, a positive genetic mutation (one that adds information to the genome) has never occurred. A group of scientists tried to create a positive genetic mutation in flies by exposing them to large amounts of radiation. However, flies came out with 9 wings that did not have enough nerves connected to them to fly properly, 1 leg, 12 legs and no wings, etc. In the process no mutation occurred that added information to the genome. It has been tried and tried countless times by scientist and no mutation has ever occurred that added information to the genome of any creature. No matter how much fossil evidence a scientist may claim to have that are "transitional" the dots between species can never be connected until positive genetic mutations are proven to exist.
- A. R.
< STRONG Evolution has much less time to work with than given.
Biology: Concepts & Connections1 states that "the oldest fossils of eukaryote cells" are 2.2 billion old. And the Cambrian explosion happened .5 billion years ago, which means walking animals were around.
Thereby, it's really 2.2 billion years that evolution has to work its magic with DNA to make human beings from the oldest eukaryote cells, NOT 4 billion years.
1 Biology: Concepts & Connections. 5ed. Page: 298. Authors: Campbell, Reece, Taylor, Simon.
>> It could still happen.
Say we go with a low estimate: 1 billion years. Mutations in genes can result in large amounts of information being duplicated, which is a major source of raw material for evolving new genes. "Tens to hundreds of genes" can be duplicated in animal genomes every million years. Say just 10 genes are mutated every million years. One billion years is ONE THOUSAND million years. That's 10^1000. That's a one with a THOUSAND zeros after it. A HUGE number of mutations, plenty for evolution to take place. And that's a conservative estimate.
[student]
< STRONG Lesson from Life: the Precise Sequencing Needed to Build Something.
How to Build a City Example- Cells are more than just buildings, they are like cities. Cities are much more complex than just buildings.
- Must dig and line up water ways, sewage systems, gas lines
- Then line up all the roads requiring that each house be reachable by road
- Then lay out property lines and enforce ability to build houses
- Then add electric lines requiring that each house gets access
- Make water/electric usage enforcements: set up meters for each house
Within the cells, they do all these similar functions.
On top of that, they work as a a "perfect" team to build and operate something millions times bigger than them, the human body.
How to Build a Skyscraper Example
Building a house or a skyscraper is extremely difficult.
1. requires machines developed by other massive machines, to develop more machines. Literally, it’s hierarchy of machines. Includes techniques to build mass producing factories
a. sawing devices
b. electricity
c. huge metal forging
d. truck hauling of heavy equipment
e. mass production of cement
2. apparatus instruments (measuring tools) are complex and require special handling in order to work right.
a. Measuring tape (automatic rewinding)Growing & Expanding Human Bodies
b. Ruler (probably metallic for whether conditions)
c. Laser sighting OR strings- to level ground
d. Pencil or pen
All human bodies grow from very small (quarter’s size) to large. Just as how the human body is difficult to build by itself, to build while being active and expanding is much harder. We don’t do this with buildings... expanding the size of it while it’s still being utilized.
Instead, we have to close off some parts of a facility just to do this. It’s too difficult to have people walk around construction sites to get to their classes/work because of all the detours. Yet the human body knows how to enforce and maintain these detours.
>> Building a house is much more crude and narrow than building a living organism.
Computer scientists should know enough about genetic algorithms to know that the outline they have there for "building a building" is a crude, narrow-minded way of building a building. Besides which, this assumes that humans popped, fully formed, into existence, and completely ignores the point of evolution, that things started simple and gained complexity over time through small random changes.
[student]
< STRONG Aging Problem.
If unguided evolution existed, then why doesn't it take care of wiping out aging as the leading factor of death for all animals?Surely there must be a mechanism that could be taken out through chance, especially if other complex developments like the brain came through.
If animals were able to knock off this gene, then we could expect to see animals passing on these genes that make the animals age forever. But we don’t.
>> This argument simplifies the matter of aging.
After all, evolution HAS made progress at overcoming the problem of aging: how long do fruit flies live? How long do spiders live? Lizards? Birds? Elephants? Humans? There's a general trend there, and there are TONS of theories as to how exactly aging is linked to genes (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging#Biological_theories). But aging is a complex process, and each organism undergoes aging in a different way; heck, each PART of an organism ages differently, for different reasons. Truthfully, science doesn't fully comprehend aging yet, but there's progress, and plenty of theories that go beyond your article's "intentional dying mechanism."
[student]
< Able to Repair itself, but can’t stop Aging?
If the body is able to replace its systems on a cycle and able to repair damages in a day, then how come it can't repair the damages of age?
Therefore, there is an intentional dying mechanism.
>> WEAK Age is caused by the mutations of the blood and immune cells.
Eventually, the cancer cells overwhelm the system, hence why we start to deteriorate over time.
< STRONG But if that’s true, then there should be lots of mutations as the sex cells reproduce, and therefore cause the baby to be really old.
At that, if our sex cells have cancer, then the whole line of descendants would become more corrupted over time.
< STRONG Cambrian Explosion
The Cambrian explosion discovery is taken as fact, where many species just suddenly appear in a small time frame and that this time period is like about 500 million years ago (notice not billions; only .5 billion. This means evolution has much less time to work its magic).
What caused the Cambrian explosion?
>> WEAK It’s explained in a way, since scientists have discovered that some species evolve much quicker than others.
So, it’s easy to see it happening in the explosion itself.
< STRONG It doesn’t really answer the question.
The Cambrian Explosion affected millions of organisms at one time.
It could not have been simply species evolving faster than other species, as almost all the species just came into existence in one period of time.
>> There are PLENTY of theories as to why that happened.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#Possible_causes_of_the_.E2.80.9Cexplosion.E2.80.9D) Increase in oxygen levels, evolution of complex eyes, an arms race between predators and prey, increase in plankton diversity, etc etc. Heck, it might have been a combination of these things. But the thing I find strange here is a tacit acknowledgment that the Cambrian explosion occurred AT ALL. After all, intelligent design affords for no Cambrian period in the first place, no explosion, no nothing. Just... poof.
[student]
< STRONG Entropy Problem.
We understand how hard entropy is in life. Given time and other destructive devices (sun light, water, hurricanes, extreme temperatures, moths, bugs, bacteria, etc) things deteriorate rapidly. It's faster to deteriorate than to build things by random chance.
Our bodies, plants, and animals have systems to fix scratches, bacteria invasions, etc CONSTANTLY. There are more problem causers than there are random chance problem fixers.
>>You'll always have constant energy input. [duplicate]
This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
- Talk Origins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
>> Open system means constant energy input.
Constant energy input means that forces of nature will remain productive and active to keep trying to create something.
< STRONG But this constant energy input can drive destructive things just as it drives plants to produce.
Thus that energy to drive evolution will kill itself.
>> The entropy argument is not even worth arguing against.
It stems from a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. People seem to think that just because the universe tends toward chaos, order is prohibited. It isn't, obviously, when energy is added to a system, and random bolts of energy are plentiful in nature. See also radiation, the sun, and lightning, as well as the research into what spark truly caused the first life, which would have been a simple thing indeed. (People are already forming complex proteins in primordial soup using electric sparks. Go figure.)
[student]
< STRONG Entropy Problem (Anecdotal)
We see it in our own work and professional lives. Toilets last only 7 years or so before a part breaks such as the handle or a screw that became bad (personal experience of Comder).Cars need about 20 years, and NEED constant oil, filter, fluid replacements, wheel rotations, etc. Eventually, cars experience severe damages and need whole systems to be replaced. Don't get started with computers, esp Windows.
Cell phones, computers, TVs, cars... all the product of intelligence, yet all have to get replaced and fixed.
< STRONG Human Body is Way too Complex and Advanced.
The following are how the human parts are complex and much advanced than today’s technology.Brain
Don’t get any neuroscientist started with the brain. But nonetheless, here’s the features of the brain:
Details of everything brain does as opposed to standard computers
1. Eyes- Processing of two extremely high definition cameras simultaneously in real time.
a. Brain immediately tries to understand the information2. Ears- Processing of audio from two ears
b. Brain immediately creates visual memory
c. Brain immediately recalls from memory to understand the new visual information…. Visual recognition.
d. creates stereo vision
a. Brain immediately tries to understand the information3. Nerves/Muscles- Controls all systems of the body
b. Brain immediately creates audio memory
c. Brain immediately recalls from memory to understand the new visual information…. audio recognition.
d. Brain creates 3D sound direction information using stereo audio
a. Motor (legs, feet, arms, fingers)4. Sense- Inputs from other Sensors
b. Regulates digestive system
c. Regulates Immune system
d. Regulates Cardio/Respiratory system
a. Variable pressure sensing and location5. Balance- handles connection between motor and balance systems to create balance in walking
b. Variable heat/cool sensing and location
c. Good feeling sensations (from massages)
d. Precise taste and smell
e. Creates balance information from the ear canals
Heart
Doctors say, the heart is the most efficient pump known to man.
Energy Creation
Scientists say that the respiratory creation of energy is about 40% efficient, which is the highest efficiency known, compared to cars' combustion, which is a mere 4%.
Lubricant fluids
Lubricant fluids between the joints are the most efficient and smooth among all fluids there is.
>> Arguments like this, "look how complex the human body is, evolution just COULDN'T do that," don't have any substance to them.
They are just an inability to understand evolution, on the reader's part.
[student]
< STRONG Human body's repairing systems are too complex for macro evolution to develop.
It repairs itself much better than we can repair our cars.
Look at your skin that recently got cut and how the body handles it.
The first thing that happens is that the body sends out clogging hormones to stop the bleeding. The outside blood dry up and form a protective barrier. All the while, the body sends signals to get the right proteins and machines into the cut site. The immune system fights off the infection, while the builders build a new layer underneath the clogged "skin." When the new skin is nearly finished, the pain receptors stop sending pain signals and touching the cut doesn't cause pain. The body knows what is repaired and what isn't, and so that's why you get pain with cuts and no pain with healed cuts. Amazing.
>> Evolution would obviously favor organisms that could heal over time over organisms that would die as soon as they were cut.
Again, this argument stems from the fact that people look too closely at humans as a counter example, without realizing that most of our traits, our abilities, are shared with all organisms, and likely developed over millions of years. Besides, if we were designed intelligently, why can't we grow back arms? Why would we have the ability to cure ourselves of all sorts of diseases, but not have the ability to regenerate a limb, as starfish do? I'll tell you why: regenerative ability is inversely linked to complexity. We can regenerate our livers, which are pretty dumb, but not our fingers (which are much more complex). See the article on regeneration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regeneration_(biology)) for more on this.
[student]
< STRONG That's missing the point.
Of course macro evolution would favor such... the problem is the repairing system being created, not being selected.
< STRONG Human body won’t shut down if there is major damage done.
If the leg is cut, and the artery is cut off, the body still functions.If there is a cut or infection, the body still functions.
With the way humans handle malfunctions in their projects, it takes intelligence and thinking to figure out proper detours and temporary functions for the system that is shut done.
< STRONG We not being able to recreate a functional cell disproves macro evolution.
This would prove at a MUCH higher success (but totally) quickly that macro unguided evolution is true.With today's technology, computers, excessive database capabilities, and intelligence, we should be able to create a fully functional reproductive self-energy-providing self-repairing cell that matches the capability of the modern bacteria or human cell.
The assertion is that 500 million years of time + mutation should equal to our current technology, computers, excessive database capabilities, and intelligence with little time.
If we CAN'T create a functional cell with all our intelligence, THEN, that should prove macro unguided evolution as false.
Again, if it's TOO hard for us to recreate a fully functional cell, then (with the cell defined as the most basic form of life), how can we fathom the creation of the super complex human body?
We are giving random unguided chance too much credit by saying it created the human body.
>> As for creating a cell, or intelligence: there's progress.
Oh lord is there progress. Just do a google search. There's some crazy scary stuff out there about breakthroughs in AI.
[student]
< What does progress in AI have to do with the cell?
Would AI help us create a functional cell?
< STRONG Fruits and the human body work so well together.
Get a fruit and eat it. Was it designed for you or designed randomly? Most of the fruits you eat are hand held. Only a few are armed held, like pumpkins, watermelon, and a few others and that's it. Only a few are finger sized: grapes and tomato grapes. All are edible. Did we grew with all the trees so that they bear fruit for our size?Did all the trees evolve to produce the most nutritious stuff known to man? Not just that, but they were made to be bio-degradable easily into the environment. Most of our products aren't bio-degradable.
>> Bananas were not designed to be eaten.
They were originally small, hard, red things filled with seeds. It was through SELECTIVE BREEDING by humans for DESIRED CHARACTERISTICS that we produced the squishy yellow fruit we know today. Selective breeding! It is the same for MOST fruits and vegetables. They were designed specifically for us because WE DESIGNED THEM.
[student]
< Were the small, hard, red things filled with seeds, useful at the beginning?
In order for primates to selectively breed the bananas, they must have placed some value in them at the beginning, such as eating them even when they are bad, so that they can selectively breed them.If they don't eat them,our primates don't select/breed them.
< How do you know "we" designed them?
What if the yellow bananas were around during these other species of small, hard, red things filled with seeds?
< STRONG No designed signals from aliens, except the signals from the laws in the universe.
When we look out into space to find any intelligible communication from aliens, we look for a particular pattern to differentiate nature from aliens.
We look for:
Improbable object + specification (details) = recognizable event = design = information.
But there's no information in distant universes with recognizable patterns that might be coming from aliens.
But there is immense info in the cell, the DNA, and the laws of the universe.
In DNA, there's 3 billion individual characters… that’s a lot of information.
< STRONG DNA is too complex for us to comprehend
Bill Gates said "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created."
- http://www.discovery.org/a/3059
>> Bill Gates is not a biologist, nor has he ever studied biology.
What Bill Gates says about DNA means absolutely nothing. This is an argument from authority. If DNA is a program, it is loaded with unnecessary code, something that no intelligent agent would ever put into their programs. Also, the most advance computer programs are not written by a single person. Several programmers write out different parts which are put together by other programmers. It would seem that calling DNA a program favors polytheism over monotheism. Of course the argument against that is that God is all knowing so he could do it himself, which leads me back to junk DNA.
- http://riotingmind.blogspot.com/2009/12/faith-chapter-2-part-2.html
< STRONG DNA is a multi-dimensional record of information.
It folds on itself in 3D form to create particular protein sequences.
That's too hard for chance to make.
< STRONG Some great scientists were creationists.
The man that came up with the big bang theory later was quoted "there is no possibility that all things came to be by chance, only a higher intelligence that we may call God could be responsible for our existence”Almost every known evolutionist (including Darwin) denounced the religion as the farce that it is. Almost every well known scientist (Isaac Newton) was a devout creationist. Some research could blow your mind...
[unknown source]
>> Go read some Richard Dawkins on that subject.
The way that Einstein viewed God and the way that religion views God are very different. That, and many famous scientists HAD to be religious, or risk being KILLED.
[student]
< Einstein didn't have to be killed.
He made really great humble quotes about God.
< STRONG Acknowledgments from Evolution Biology Book.
"The origin of vertebrate jaws from these skeletal parts illustrate a general feature of evolutionary change: New adaptions usually evolve by the modification of existing structures.”“As a mechanism of adaptation, evolution is limited by the raw material with which it must work;”
“evolution is generally more of a remodeling process than a creative one.”
- Biology, Campbell Reece Mitchell. 5th edition. Pa 637
< Blind at Birth Causes Difficulty to Pass On Genes
Lots of animals have the fewest basic abilities to actually live at birth.
Examples:
Baby kittens- being blind and helpless, they still know how to feed off of its mother.
Kangaroos- being blind and only with strong hind legs, they somehow crawl into the pouch of the mother to feed.
>> "Blind at birth" is far from the truth;
it's explained through instinct (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instincts), in particular the Baldwin Effect. For a specific example, see imprinting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)).
[student]
< Coconuts Hard to Open, especially Back in the Day with few tools.
The coconut is so hard to break and yet its fruit is so sweet and delicious.Developing (by evolving) the perfect sweetness for human consumption requires it to be used and opened a lot to be selected.
But many “primitive” humans do not have the down-to-earth knowledge that a coconut is meant to be eaten, and how to open coconuts.
But somehow, people (including indigenous people) got that knowledge, but from where? Did they assume with induction that all balls grown on trees are fruits?
>> Coconuts did not "develop the perfect sweetness" for human consumption, anymore than the Death Cap Mushroom "developed" the perfect ability to kill us.
Coconuts are hard to open because coconut trees that have fruit that's easy to open would have all their fruit opened and consumed by animals, and no seeds would survive. That they happen to be edible is only a consequence of the fact that plants use many of the same nutrients animals do. Coconuts developed defense against eating so they could survive. There are many, many plants that have fruit that is easy to eat, but is poisonous. That's their defense.
[student]
< That's missing the point.
[need details]
< Website Development Difficulty (Anecdotal)
I, Comder, am trying to build my website in the most automatic and least resistance as possible. I find it difficult. I have to think through the plan consistently and compare the plans to see if they are better.
A lot of times, a plan may contain one set back, just one, and it ruins the whole thing.
How much worse for evolution.
>> Anecdotal evidence is useless, and shouldn't even be included in an article like this.
If "just one mistake" ruins this guy's entire website, 1. that's a consequence of the design system of web pages as designed by humans, not a biological consequence of nature, and 2. he's not a very good programmer.
[student]
< Millions of Years vs Intelligence.
We humans have CLEARLY been around for 3000 years. Yet, we come no where close to creating the human body in its complexity. We had some degree of blindness for 2900 years in which we didn't intend on creating a human body, but civilization and tech. But for the last 100 years, a lot of scientists, but a few compared to the rest of the world, are having immense trouble recreating the body and the brain, even with the vast knowledge base and technology, and yet are still NO WHERE CLOSE.
Computers vs Human Brain
Sure, computers are logical devices, but our brains are much more complex than computers. It would take a super powerful computer to understand our voice well, to understand vision, to move in complex patterns, to monitor pressure and heat in the entire body, to grow, to digest, to extract energy and use it, etc. It's incredible.Yet no computer has been invented to do all these things at once. Yet the brain does them.
Computers can’t recharge like the Body
Our computers can't even recharge itself without outside help. It needs this multi-billion dollar facility to generate energy. Is solar panel enough? It needs a household-roof of solar panels set up to keep a computer alive at full power.<< WEAK Computers run on electricity.
They can't recharge themselves because we haven't built into them a metabolic process that produces energy. Our bodies have the ability to turn plant and animal matter into, among other things, energy in the form of Adenosine triphosphate (ATP). We turn over our body's weight in ATP every day.
[student]
> That's the point.
We can't build a metabolic process that produces energy as small as our bodies. We don't have the technology. If you want to build a nuclear reactor, that's a large reactor with plenty of dangerous waste. The human body doesn't do this and is a lot more efficient.
< Why is there a big difference between Animals and Humans
Why is that humans are the only ones who:- Design and dress themselves?
- Stop having fur
- Build cities
- Build tools
- etc
< No living transitions.
Why is there a big difference between 2 species like monkey and humans? Shouldn't there be some transitions alive?Shouldn't the transitions between primitive humans and modern humans still be living? Or shouldn't therea be wealth of living developed versions of a modern monkey and a modern human.
>> There are apes, chimps, guerillas, monkeys.
Those are our living transitions.
>> Just go look up missing links on Wikipedia.
[student]
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
