Confused about evolution

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
KellyJay -

[b]You realize all you’re doing is developing a grand fantasy on the
origin of the eye don't you

That depends on what a "fantasy" is. You seem to imply that what I am suggesting is somehow ridiculous ...[text shortened]... er is part of an analogy, not the system we are talking about.

[/b]

"I am speculating; however my speculations are not unsupported by observation. For example, the various intermediate forms of the eye I suggested exist in nature."

You are claiming there are various intermediate forms of eyes
around, that is around today? As near as I can tell, like many things
about evolution there seems to be a bit of a disconnect on what we
seem to call things. For example, if we were speaking of dogs for
examples can we or could we say that we see the line of intermediate
forms of dogs running around today, from the simplest form of dog to
the most complex? Why would we assume anything, such as the
use of the word intermediate for descriptions, doesn't that
automatically simply assumes the evolutionary process is
responsible? That goes back to the train of thought, well we see X
therefore Y is true, it means nothing of the sort. I don't believe you
can at all claim there are intermediate forms of eyes, there are other
types of eyes, intermediate presumes a great deal, a great deal that
I'm at least not prepared to concede at this point.

That depends on what a 'fact' is. I do not describe the TOE as a fact because there is disagreement over whether it's a fact or not.

I will have to ask for your forgiveness on this point, I get into more
than a few discussions here, and some call evolution a fact while
others such as your self do have it correctly identified. Sorry to imply
anything else, when I end up talking to more than one person I guess
I simply morph everyone's views into one big disagreement, my bad.

No, I don't realize that. Are you saying this model is not even remotely possible? How do you know that?

We disagree here, but this is main discussion, I have not seen
anything that shows small changes in DNA produce anything that
would build some system such as an functionally complex as an
eye.

By the way, if you insist on talking about 'functional complexity', you should define the term, because I don't know what you mean by it. If you keep using it without clearly defining it you're being deceitful and manipulative.

You believe I’m attempting to be deceitful with you? I do not see why
you’d think such a thing, have I given you any reason to believe I’m
willing to treat you in such a dishonest manner? If you want to discuss
the words, "functionally complex" in greater detail, say so and leave
the insults out of this if you please. We can start another thread on
just those words if you want, there seems to be quite a bit on those
terms.

That doesn't really matter. I don't know. As long as some of them are beneficial, natural selection will cause them to accumulate. Kelly, do you understand the concept of natural selection?

Natural selection does not cause anything to accumulate, that would
be stricly those rules/laws that have to do with what gets encoded
into DNA to stay. Natural selection has to do with what survives and
what dies, which does not again have anything to do with DNA.

Well, no. I was taking your poor analogy and trying to fit it to what I was talking about. You're trying to apply aspects of the analogy that are not appropriate because the analogy is fairly poor.

You may think it is a poor analogy, I do not. It shows that you cannot
simply add systems or circuits within any operating computer without
bad or harmful results. Computers like living systems have a limited
amount of resources, adding new pieces haphazardly takes away
resources from vital parts of any living system. With the smaller life
forms such as cells, I imagine changes on micro levels would be
damaging immediately since cells are so small and tightly knit.
Kelly

Originally posted by Conrau K
When I asked 'is evolution a scientific fact?' I was not trying to impugn the validity of evolution. I wanted to know whether it is fact or theory. Put is this way, i have heard many poeple critisize creation theories but what you failto realise is that originally creation was the only subject of science. It may eventually become know that evolution is de ...[text shortened]... he chances of this defy probablility.
I do not dispute evolution just question its importance!

I wanted to know whether it is fact or theory.

Well, what is a 'fact' and what is a 'theory'?

...i have heard many poeple critisize creation theories

You're mixing up your terminology here. You're using a non-scientific meaning of the word 'theory' when you talk about 'creation theories'. There are no scientific creation theories.

There is sometimes confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it

is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,

is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,

has survived many critical real world tests that could have proven it false,

makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory, and

is the best known explanation, in the sense of Occam's Razor, of the infinite variety of alternative explanations for the same data.

This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics (with minimal interpretation), plate tectonics, evolution, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

This does not make sense. The eye is so complex that even a small distortion in its lense would render it useless.

That's not true. The marine snail Murex has a far different lens, and it's eye works. Nautilus doesn't even have a lens. It's eye works like a pinhole camera.

A light sensitive eye patch in your anal is not necassarily going to disappear from a species (these are called neutral mutations, such as blonde hair, blue eyes)

It takes biological resources to produce specific molecules like those in a light sensitive patch. If the patch does not help the organism, those organisms which do not have to waste resources on growing it will have a slight selective advantage. Blond hair and blue eyes for one thing are not neutral mutations; they are adaptive mutations which allow northern people to absorb more sunlight where it's scarce. In addition, the alternative to blonde hair and blue eyes is not no hair and no eyes, it's eyes and hair of a different color. This is not a good analogy.

The eye to be functional would have to located close to the brain (what are chances of that), have nerves, be an exact length.

It doesn't really matter what the chances of having the eye near the brain are. For one thing, eyes could be anywhere and be functional. Now the most efficient placement might be near the brain, but that doesn't mean the eye has to be there. Your statement that the eye must be near the brain is incorrect. Also, even if you were right, the light sensitive patch could evolve any number of times in random places but be naturally selected out of the gene pool until it happened to appear near enough to the brain for it to function.

Also the eye doesn't have to be an exact length to be functional. Why do you think that? Are you saying every animal from snail to blue whale has eyes of the exact same size? That's obviously not true.

Nerves were already present before the eye evolved, so again, the light sensitive patch would be selected against unless it was near any nerves it needed.

You make a lot of very definite statements about what is possible and necessary. How do you know all this? Do you really have any support for what you are saying? Make sure you critically analyze your beliefs. I know many evolutionists do not, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't. I am critical of my own.

Originally posted by TheBloop
It'd be nice if that worked both ways.... just because someone doesn't believe that God exists, does that then give THEM the right to degrade people who do believe by referring to their faith as a "crutch", and to claim that they're nothing but a bunch of brainwashed, mind-numbed robots?

There are enough comments from RHP evolutionists in these fo ...[text shortened]... ? They obviously think that they do.

So that right extends to all parties, on both sides.

Please don't talk about evolutionists as if we were all the same person with the exact same personalities and beliefs.

I think that people who believe in God are...not making the wrong choice exactly, but not evaluating what information is available properly and coming to the most likely conclusions. I think. Basically, yeah, they are making the wrong choice, but I don't know if I think those are the right words to use.

However there are many religious people who agree the TOE is probably correct.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Having simpler eyes and other complex eyes does not mean that
one came from another, it only means that there are simpler eyes
in comparison to others that are more complex. I'd also point out
that making up some steps that 'could have happen' does not mean
that they did, one would be required to prove the point, or it is just
a guess or however else you'd like to label it.
Kelly

You are right. There are other explanations for the existence of different kinds of eyes. TOE has not been proved beyond all possible doubt. However, the different kinds of eyes in question differ from one another only in very small ways. This means that it's not so unreasonable to think that perhaps the one kind of eye evolved into the next, and into the next, etc.

You talk about "prove" but what do you mean by that word? What is "proof" to you? Does it mean that there is no possible doubt? If so, then nothing has been proven, ever, except my existence and the existence of my perceptions.

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Read what I and others have posted on this and every other thread: evolution is a theory, which is slightly higher than fact on the meter of reliability in science. That is, facts get refuted and repudiated far more often than do theories in science. Creation(ism) has never succeeded as any more than a weak hypothesis. Calling it a theory is intellectually d ...[text shortened]... course in genetics and fail to learn the difference between facts, hypotheses, and theories?[/b]

evolution is a theory, which is slightly higher than fact on the meter of reliability in science

There's a meter of reliability which contains facts and theories with theories above facts? I've never heard of this. Can you provide a link?

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]"I am speculating; however my speculations are not unsupported by observation. For example, the various intermediate forms of the eye I suggested exist in nature."

You are claiming there are various intermediate forms of eyes
around, that is around today? As near as I can tell, like many things
about evolution there seems to be a bit of a disc ...[text shortened]... on micro levels would be
damaging immediately since cells are so small and tightly knit.
Kelly[/b]

Your comparison between dogs and eyes is awkward. Eyes range from light sensitive spots on planarians to the eyes in humans and molluscs, which are much more refined. Dogs lack as much of a range. A better comparison might be animals and eyes, or mammals and eyes possibly.

However if you want to compare dogs and eyes, then one end of the spectrum of dogs would be wolves or whatever it was humans domesticated, while at the other end might be the most extremely altered breeds like bulldogs. Intermediate forms would be other mastiffs possibly. The Alaunt would be the direct ancestor.

Why would we assume anything, such as the
use of the word intermediate for descriptions, doesn't that
automatically simply assumes the evolutionary process is
responsible?

Not necessarily. If we take planarian eyespots and human eyes as an example, the Nautilus pinhole camera type eye is intermediate in structure. Pleurotomaria's eyecup is intermediate in structure between planarian eyespots and Nautilus eyes.

I have not seen
anything that shows small changes in DNA produce anything that
would build some system such as an functionally complex as an
eye.

Well, I could try to convince you, but I am not interested in bothering right now. I've gone over evolution with you a number of times and you don't believe it's correct. I came to this thread to answer Conrau's question.

You believe I’m attempting to be deceitful with you?

I apologize for saying that. I don't think you are being intentionally deceptive. However you are using a scientifically meaningless term and I have already pointed this out to you.

If you want to discuss the words, "functionally complex" in greater detail, say so and leavethe insults out of this if you please. We can start another thread on just those words if you want, there seems to be quite a bit on those terms.

I have already started a thread for the purpose of discussing these words as well as a number of others. You participated in the thread, but you never defined the terms.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22541&page=1

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]"I am speculating; however my speculations are not unsupported by observation. For example, the various intermediate forms of the eye I suggested exist in nature."

You are claiming there are various intermediate forms of eyes
around, that is around today? As near as I can tell, like many things
about evolution there seems to be a bit of a disc ...[text shortened]... on micro levels would be
damaging immediately since cells are so small and tightly knit.
Kelly[/b]

Natural selection does not cause anything to accumulate, that would
be stricly those rules/laws that have to do with what gets encoded
into DNA to stay. Natural selection has to do with what survives and
what dies, which does not again have anything to do with DNA.

Natural selection does not create the traits, but it does determine which traits accumulate in a species and which do not. Which organisms survive and which do not does have something to do with DNA. You are mistaken.

You may think it is a poor analogy, I do not. It shows that you cannot simply add systems or circuits within any operating computer without bad or harmful results. Computers like living systems have a limited amount of resources, adding new pieces haphazardly takes away resources from vital parts of any living system. With the smaller life forms such as cells, I imagine changes on micro levels would be
damaging immediately since cells are so small and tightly knit.

Computers are not living organisms. They do not reproduce themselves. The only reproduction that takes place among computers is carefully controlled by humans. Therefore an equivalent evolutionary process cannot occur.

It shows that you cannot simply add systems or circuits within any operating computer without bad or harmful results.

No, it shows that one cannot add a camera that is designed for specific software to a computer without adding in the software as well. There's no reason one couldn't add a camera that was designed to interface with the software that was already there. Well, maybe there is a reason in computers; I don't know much about them. But by discussing computers you're setting up a strawman. Whatever you can or can't do with a computer is not necessarily relevant to what organisms can or can't do through the evolutionary process.

Out of curiosity - is it theoretically impossible to create a light sensitive device which could be attached to a keyboard such that light triggers the computer to type a letter? I can't imagine technicians could not do that if they wanted. If nothing else, a device could be made that could press keys and was triggered by the presence of light.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]evolution is a theory, which is slightly higher than fact on the meter of reliability in science

There's a meter of reliability which contains facts and theories with theories above facts? I've never heard of this. Can you provide a link?[/b]

I concocted the term "meter of reliability" for expressing the differences between fact and theory as scientists use the terms, compared to how the terms are used in everyday speech. Facts are confirmable observations; but, because technology has enhanced and improved our powers of observation, many scientific facts have undergone profound alteration, and even refutation. Many theories, evolution in particular, were developed on the basis of facts that have undergone terrific alteration though improved powers of observation. Yet, these changing facts have further strengthened the theory of evolution. For example, Darwin had but a dim idea regarding the process of selection, although he made some fairly astute observations of the effects of mutation. His theory pointed scientists in the directions that, a century after formulation of the theory, led to the discovery of DNA. This discovery, and intense continuing discovery of new facts concerning DNA and its processes of replication, mutation, and essential similarities among widely divergent species, has strengthened Darwins basic theory. Hence, the theory of evolution is now rooted in facts not even dimly imagined by the author of the basic theory. It seems clear to me, therefore, that from a scientific point of view, the theory of evolution has shown itself stronger, and perhaps more sound, than the facts from which it developed. That is, the theory is more reliable than the particular facts underlying it--a meter so to speak.

One might even demonstrate, as some have sought to do, that Darwin made some inaccurate observations regarding the finches in the Galapagos Islands. Yet, these criticisms of Darwin's observations nevertheless have served to confirm his theory. See http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon7finches.html for an overview of some of the controversy concerning Darwin's processes of observation, collection, and theorizing regarding the finches.

See the glossary at
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/lessons/lesson1/teach.htm for some clear definitions of fact, theory, hypothesis, and other critical terms.

Originally posted by TheBloop
It'd be nice if that worked both ways.... just because someone doesn't believe that God exists, does that then give THEM the right to degrade people who do believe by referring to their faith as a "crutch", and to claim that they're nothing but a bunch of brainwashed, mind-numbed robots?

There are enough comments from RHP evolutionists in these fo ...[text shortened]... ? They obviously think that they do.

So that right extends to all parties, on both sides.

Christians who dispute evolution are a small minority. The vast majority of practicing christians (including personal friends) are totally at ease with evolution. It is merely a small minority of redneck fundementalists who have a problem with evolution. Just because you're an ignorant redneck doesn't give you the right to speak on behalf of intelligent christians who have an understanding of science.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Christians who dispute evolution are a small minority. The vast majority of practicing christians (including personal friends) are totally at ease with evolution.

Your statement should be true. Sadly, it is not. According to a CBS poll in November 2004, and referenced in this morning's newspaper as a sidebar to an article regarding secularist and religious conflict in contemporary politics:

55% of Americans believe God created humans in their present form
27% of Americans believe humans evolved under God's guidance
13% of Americans believe humans evolved without the guidance of God

65% believe both evolution and creationism should be taught in schools
37% believe creationism should be taught instead of evolution

If the lenses of your eye were distorted even minimally they would not function properly. This is fact. It happens quite often. Poeple who have these defects wear glases. This does not mean that the lense has to be a constant size in all creatures that have eyes. I recognise that eye size does vary. But they do have to have very special properties that would be very improbable to just randomly occur.

Originally posted by Conrau K
If the lenses of your eye were distorted even minimally they would not function properly. This is fact. It happens quite often. Poeple who have these defects wear glases. This does not mean that the lense has to be a constant size in all creatures that have eyes. I recognise that eye size does vary. But they do have to have very special properties that would be very improbable to just randomly occur.

poor eyesight still confers an adaptive advantage over none

Originally posted by Wulebgr
55% of Americans believe God created humans in their present form
27% of Americans believe humans evolved under God's guidance
13% of Americans believe humans evolved without the guidance of God

65% believe both evolution and creation ...[text shortened]... ols
37% believe creationism should be taught instead of evolution

I'd be a little wary of those polls. For one the first one seems to have omitted the "Don't know" answer. It looks like it got around 5% of the vote.

The second one adds up to 102%. Even accounting for worst case scenario rounding (64.5% and 36.5% ) that isn't possible.

EDIT: Lies, damned lies and missing e's
EDIT2: 😵 I hate you

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Your comparison between dogs and eyes is awkward. Eyes range from light sensitive spots on planarians to the eyes in humans and molluscs, which are much more refined. Dogs lack as much of a range. A better comparison might be animals and eyes, or mammals and eyes possibly.

However if you want to compare dogs and eyes, then one end of the spectru ...[text shortened]... efined the terms.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22541&page=1

I remember that conversation, I forgot where it was. 🙂 Sorry, we have
been here before. I will start a thread on functionally complex and
we can hit it hard later.
Kelly

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I'd be a little wary of those polls. For one the first one seems to have omitted the "Don't know" answer. It looks like it got around 5% of the vote.

The second one adds up to 102%. Even accounting for worst case scenario rounding (64.5% and 36.5% ) that isn't possible.

EDIT: Lies, damned lies and missing e's
EDIT2: 😵 I hate you

I'm always wary of polls. I'm even more wary of thinking positively regarding the scientific knowledge of a population than consistently polls >50% not believing in evolution. Even asking the question whether someone "believes" in established science, it seems to me, contributes to the problem.

How anyone can call liberal media corporations that routinely conduct such polls helps account for the terrible gap between reality and the perceptions of substantial numbers of Americans. A "liberal" news broadcast would at least raise the question of why such ignorance abounds.