Confused about evolution

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have just completed a brief unit on genetis and remain sceptical about evolution. I find it difficult to comprehend that a series of mistakes in our genes past on to offsrping can cause for instance the complex structure of the eye to develop.
I know the eye is extremely necssary to most mammals survival but can't see how it could be caused by what re ...[text shortened]... against evolution (althouhg it could be) but more of difficulty for me to understand evolution.

I think you live under a bridge. Are you waiting for Bill goat Gruff?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Another question. Is evolution a scientific fact?

The observations made of natural phenomena are facts. The theory of evolution is a concept that unifies those facts. The validity of the concept may be debated. The utility of the concept can be tested.

Thats how science works

Originally posted by Conrau K
Another question. Is evolution a scientific fact?

It's a scientific theory in the scientific method's sense of the word and not the folk word that means guess.
For example creationism is only a hypothesis because there is no underlying science to support it, seeing how it rests on one single unprovable factor.Whereas : evolution has science laws, theories , tests and evidence in abundance that give is an extremely high degree of certainty.

In a semantic environoment that calls creation a theory .the meaning of theory wouldn't cover evolution and in that case you would have to call evolution either a Law of a fact.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
The observations made of natural phenomena are facts. The theory of evolution is a concept that unifies those facts. The validity of the concept may be debated. The utility of the concept can be tested.

Thats how science works

In other words your conclusions are facts; you look at what you see
and what you think about those facts must be true, because it binds
them altogether for you in your mind?
Kelly

I know the eye is extremely necssary to most mammals survival but can't see how it could be caused by what really is a series of mistakes in gene replication.
This is not necassarily an argument against evolution (althouhg it could be) but more of difficulty for me to understand evolution.[/b]

Here is a currently accepted model for the evolution of the eye:

It's well known that genes change over time in a species. There is variation. It is perfectly conceivable that a light sensitive patch might appear due to variation. This by itself would be an advantage to the organism that evolved it, and therefore this organism would be more likely to survive and bear offspring. Over time the variety with light sensitive patches would become the norm.

Likewise, the light sensitive patch could over time shift into a depression, because a light sensitive patch in a depression would be more effective (I suppose because it would allow the organism to tell which direction the light came from).

Then the entrance to the depression could shrink, creating a pinhole camera type eye.

From here, the addition of a lens of clear tissue isn't far fetched.

Now, all kinds of other random alterations probably also occurred - like an organism which had it's light sensitive patch on a protuberance, or buried under a thick layer of opaque skin, or placed inside it's rectum. However, these other variations were not as advantageous as the process that I described. Therefore, they did not lead to increased reproductive success and these traits did not accumulate in the genome.

Does that help?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Here is a currently accepted model for the evolution of the eye:

It's well known that genes change over time in a species. There is variation. It is perfectly conceivable that a light sensitive patch might appear due to variati ...[text shortened]... i]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html[/i]

That is a great leap don't you think, a light sensitive patch just occurs
and gives an advantage? Not only did this patch just appear, the
changes that caused the patch were also permanently encoded into
the DNA and passed down to everyone. Not to mention how would that
advantage be useful; unless there was something that was able to
understand light and what it was it is useless. It would be like adding
an input port to a computer that gives it a camera hookup, but
without the software that makes that camera useful, it does nothing
for the computer or the user.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Between the ears of some it is.
Kelly

Evolution is accepted as a scientific fact among the vast majority of scientists. Basically, if you consider biology as a science, you must consider evolution as scientific fact. The question of whether or not it is true, is another story.

Originally posted by yousers
Evolution is accepted as a scientific fact among the vast majority of scientists. Basically, if you consider biology as a science, you must consider evolution as scientific fact. The question of whether or not it is true, is another story.

I can consider biology a science while at the same time, not accept
evolution as a fact. If you cannot, I'd say we now see where the issue
is.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is a great leap don't you think, a light sensitive patch just occurs
and gives an advantage? Not only did this patch just appear, the
changes that caused the patch were also permanently encoded into
the DNA and passed down to everyone. Not to mention how would that
advantage be useful; unless there was something that was able to
understand light ...[text shortened]... software that makes that camera useful, it does nothing
for the computer or the user.
Kelly

The fact that it occurred or that it was encoded in DNA is not a great leap. All kinds of bizaare things occur as a result of genetic change.

You make an interesting point when you bring up the fact that a light sensitive patch would be useless without accompanying behavioral response to the sensation of light being present.

It seems to me that the light sensitive patches probably evolved from another structure that was already associated with a behavioral response. This way, only the "camera" is new, and it taps into the same "software" that the keyboard was using. Now, I don't know much about worms (which are the organisms which almost certainly developed the first eyespots), but I imagine they have some sort of mechanism for being attracted to certain stimuli and/or repulsed by other stimuli. Touch or pain are likely candidate for pre-sight sensation which would lead to an attraction or avoidance response.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The fact that it occurred or that it was encoded in DNA is not a great leap. All kinds of bizaare things occur as a result of genetic change.

You make an interesting point when you bring up the fact that a light sensitive patch would be useless without accompanying behavioral response to the sensation of light being present.

It seems to me th ...[text shortened]... ikely candidate for pre-sight sensation which would lead to an attraction or avoidance response.

You realize all you’re doing is developing a grand fantasy on the
origin of the eye don't you, this is evolution a fact of science?
You realize so far there is nothing written so far here suggests
these things were remotely possible. So far except the lone hope
of those that believe the process is real and is responsible for all
of our functionally complex systems within us, there is not logical
reason for believing this at all.

Another behavioral response governed by another structure in what
a single cell, a multi-cell creature? You know if your creature with
the new and improved light sensitive patch; instead got a hold of a
heat sensitive patch it could still die by getting to hot. Even if were
to move toward heat source if there was not some understanding
evolved, some mechanism that would alert this, blind, death, dumb
creature that its new feeling has a cause associated with it, it is all
meaningless. All you are doing is attempting to move the light
sensitive patch into an unknown behavioral mechanism and calling
it problem more than likely solved.

I understand there are some bizarre things as a result of genetic
change and how many of them are good?

I understand you want to say that a camera could use the keyboard
software to work, but it does not work that way. It is all bits of
information, but like all information it must be inputted, it must be
processed, it must then if required go to an output device of some sort
that can use it. I promise you, if you hook up your keyboard some
how to you monitor it will not work just having those two things
connected together if you can manage that.
Kelly

Evolution is based entirely on chance. However neither do I believe in the creation. The Creation stories (such as Genesis) are in fact based on a rudimentary science. They are falsifiable. So is evolution. But it is manifest that poeple cling to evolution which is highly improbable (though not impossible) so as to undermine poeples faith in God (which is just as improbable). Belief in evolution is just as a great a leap in faith as belief in God. If we were to re-run the creation of life on eath according to evolutionists we would end up with a different result 2- billion years later. I find the whole precariousness of evolution to be dissatisfying to me. But then again i always have considered biology as a very tawdry science.
God does not play with dice (Einstein)

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The fact that it occurred or that it was encoded in DNA is not a great leap. All kinds of bizaare things occur as a result of genetic change.

You make an interesting point when you bring up the fact that a light sensitive patch would be useless without accompanying behavioral response to the sensation of light being present.

It seems to me th ...[text shortened]... ikely candidate for pre-sight sensation which would lead to an attraction or avoidance response.

A good place to start is phototaxis since all plants have it.
even bacteria does , light is EMR. There's no reason whatsoever that life wouldn't adapt to it's presence.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Another question. Is evolution a scientific fact?

Where did you complete a course in genetics and fail to learn the difference between facts, hypotheses, and theories?

Evolution is a theory: it has successfully accounted for several generations of new facts, and has pointed researchers in the right direction to discover many of these facts (the existence of DNA for example).

"Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change." http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

Originally posted by chinking58
Evolution stands as a valid theory, as does creationism

You are half correct.

Evolution is a well-tested theory that has withstood generations of scientific inquiry in several disciplines of science, some of which did not even exist when evolution was first proposed--the science of genetics for example.

Creationism is not even a valid scientific hypothesis, although creationism has put forth several hypotheses that have been quickly refuted as untenable on the basis of facts. The young earth (6000-10,000 years) hypothesis in one example of an easily refuted hypothesis put forth by creationists.

Originally posted by Phledos
Hi, I have studied evolution through and through, and I think it is very illogical.

The idea is, something very complex, 'such as the eye' can be created by accidents, with a probabiltiy of 1 in (an uncountable amount.)

It seems crackers.

Ask yourself can you make a digital camera. Many people would find it very very difficult.
Now, can you creat ...[text shortened]... eate a much more simpler device.

Bye from Tim or Phledos, or whatever you want to call me. 🙂

Hello young Troll