1. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    28 Mar '11 14:55
    Just a question on how things evolved. Just thinking of the electric eel and how and why did that ability to generate electricity evolve? Not a common ability among life on earth to do that and apparently not a really needed thing to survive. Why did this creature need to "evolve" that when others in the same enviroment didn't?
  2. Standard memberua41
    Sharp Edge
    Dulling my blade
    Joined
    11 Dec '09
    Moves
    14434
    28 Mar '11 15:07
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Just a question on how things evolved. Just thinking of the electric eel and how and why did that ability to generate electricity evolve? Not a common ability among life on earth to do that and apparently not a really needed thing to survive. Why did this creature need to "evolve" that when others in the same enviroment didn't?
    Things don't need to evolve.
    But they do change over time.
    Sometimes the change is beneficial/efficient.
    Sometimes it's not.

    Electricity is a common and somewhat simple phenomenon.
    Just walk across a carpet dragging feet in wool socks.
  3. Standard memberrvsakhadeo
    rvsakhadeo
    India
    Joined
    19 Feb '09
    Moves
    36550
    28 Mar '11 15:40
    Originally posted by ua41
    Things don't need to evolve.
    But they do change over time.
    Sometimes the change is beneficial/efficient.
    Sometimes it's not.

    Electricity is a common and somewhat simple phenomenon.
    Just walk across a carpet dragging feet in wool socks.
    Many a times the defenders of Evolution use circular arguments. The essence of their defence is that this was the way the organism or its part has evolved automatically and this particular automatic stage of evolution has enabled the organism to survive/multiply better than its competitors lacking this particular stage of automatic evolution and hence the more successful automatic evolution is passed on to successive generations. Again some evolutions appear automatically in these succeeding generations and again the automatic evolution that causes a better chance of survival/multiplication of the group possessing it is passed on to succeeding generations. The evidence for these evolved generations is to be seen in the fossils of that organism. While fossils are there,many generations are sometimes not available in fossil form and fossil evidence is not a clinching evidence against a prime cause or intelligent design.
    The key word in the atheistic evolution theory is the word ' automatic".There is no prime cause and no intelligent design is involved.
    I am puzzled by the human brain which apart from its complications has two hemispheres which are having specialised functions. Please see adjoining thread and my question to amannion reg. scientific evidence which shows that this bicameral division of brain which have specialised functions was an adaption.
  4. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51560
    28 Mar '11 15:49
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    Many a times the defenders of Evolution use circular arguments. The essence of their defence is that this was the way the organism or its part has evolved automatically and this particular automatic stage of evolution has enabled the organism to survive/multiply better than its competitors lacking this particular stage of automatic evolution and hence th ...[text shortened]... shows that this bicameral division of brain which have specialised functions was an adaption.
    What's the 'atheistic evolution theory'?
  5. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    28 Mar '11 15:56
    Originally posted by ua41
    Things don't need to evolve.
    But they do change over time.
    Sometimes the change is beneficial/efficient.
    Sometimes it's not.

    Electricity is a common and somewhat simple phenomenon.
    Just walk across a carpet dragging feet in wool socks.
    But that electricity as well as lightning is not alive but just a reaction of opposing forces as with friction. Doesn't expain how a life form could evolve this by accident, chance or somehow decide to change something in it's body structure to be able to create this electical charge to hunt with or defend itself.
  6. Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    69643
    28 Mar '11 16:15
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    What's the 'atheistic evolution theory'?
    It is an easy way to set up straw man arguments. Mix up "atheism", "evolution", "abiogenesis", "big bang theory" etc. All of which are completely independent from each other.
  7. Standard memberua41
    Sharp Edge
    Dulling my blade
    Joined
    11 Dec '09
    Moves
    14434
    28 Mar '11 16:17
    Originally posted by galveston75
    But that electricity as well as lightning is not alive but just a reaction of opposing forces as with friction. Doesn't expain how a life form could evolve this by accident, chance or somehow decide to change something in it's body structure to be able to create this electical charge to hunt with or defend itself.
    Evolution might be able to explain HOW something changes. Genetic mutations.
    Remember, the creature doesn't actively think, "Oh, it would be quite nifty to develop and electrical charge for future generations. I'm going to push sodium ions through my nervous system so that one day something will accommodate it to allow for a charge." It's just a product of nature

    But it won't be able to explain WHY something changes. God.
    Why is it so hard to accept evolution? What's so wrong with God making a badass process such as evolution?
  8. Standard memberua41
    Sharp Edge
    Dulling my blade
    Joined
    11 Dec '09
    Moves
    14434
    28 Mar '11 16:21
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    Many a times the defenders of Evolution use circular arguments. The essence of their defence is that this was the way the organism or its part has evolved automatically and this particular automatic stage of evolution has enabled the organism to survive/multiply better than its competitors lacking this particular stage of automatic evolution and hence th ...[text shortened]... shows that this bicameral division of brain which have specialised functions was an adaption.
    Automatic? Like gravity or other laws of nature? What's wrong with that?
    If God/Creator set up such conditions so that they were "automatic", what's wrong with that?
  9. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    28 Mar '11 16:44
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    Many a times the defenders of Evolution use circular arguments. The essence of their defence is that this was the way the organism or its part has evolved automatically and this particular automatic stage of evolution has enabled the organism to survive/multiply better than its competitors lacking this particular stage of automatic evolution and hence th ...[text shortened]... shows that this bicameral division of brain which have specialised functions was an adaption.
    Automatic evolution's been abandoned.

    "Darwin knew that discontinuous variations or "sports" occurred, and that their effects were heritable, but he argued that such changes would not be important in evolution, which must occur gradually according to the doctrine of natura non facit salta (see gradualism). In Darwin's theory, infinitesimal hereditary variation arises automatically in response to the effect of "altered conditions of life" on "the sexual organs"; whenever conditions change, adaptation happens automatically (and by infinitesimal increments) as selection preserves fluctuations that fit the new conditions. That is, Darwin proposed a mechanism of automatic evolution, based on automatic variation that would always be present when needed.

    However, genetics showed that the kind of variation that arises automatically in response to altered conditions is not genetic variation, but non-heritable environmental variation. Heritable variation, by contrast, arises spontaneously by events of "mutation". This is how the discovery of genetics forced a re-appraisal of the mechanism of evolution — a re-appraisal that led to the rise of "mutationism"."


    But later...

    "At the time of the Darwin centennial in Cambridge in 1909, Mutationism and Lamarckism were contrasted with Darwin's “Natural Selection” as competing ideas; 50 years later, at the University of Chicago centennial [6] of the publication of The Origin of Species, mutationism (like Lamarckism) was no longer seriously considered."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutationism#The_discovery_of_genetics_challenges_Darwin.27s_theory
  10. Standard memberavalanchethecat
    Not actually a cat
    Joined
    09 Apr '10
    Moves
    14251
    28 Mar '11 17:11
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Just a question on how things evolved. Just thinking of the electric eel and how and why did that ability to generate electricity evolve? Not a common ability among life on earth to do that and apparently not a really needed thing to survive. Why did this creature need to "evolve" that when others in the same enviroment didn't?
    Electrosensitivity is pretty much normal in fish, and it turns out that the related discharge electric organs are not that uncommon either. I doubt that this well-researched and referenced paper will answer your questions satisfactorily due to your intellectual biases, but hey, you never know.

    http://electrochem.cwru.edu/encycl/art-f01-fish.htm
  11. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148570
    28 Mar '11 17:12
    Originally posted by galveston75
    Just a question on how things evolved. Just thinking of the electric eel and how and why did that ability to generate electricity evolve? Not a common ability among life on earth to do that and apparently not a really needed thing to survive. Why did this creature need to "evolve" that when others in the same enviroment didn't?
    I think you are being to vague when speaking about things evolve. Some creatures
    get fatter before winter, is that evolving or simply a standard on going process?
    Some creature my get larger or smaller but basically stay the same in all of their
    body parts, like dogs so is that evolving or simply breeding? What do you mean by
    evolving, please spell it out in greater detail.
    Kelly
  12. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    28 Mar '11 17:19
    Originally posted by ua41
    Evolution might be able to explain HOW something changes. Genetic mutations.
    Remember, the creature doesn't actively think, "Oh, it would be quite nifty to develop and electrical charge for future generations. I'm going to push sodium ions through my nervous system so that one day something will accommodate it to allow for a charge." It's just a product of nat ...[text shortened]... to accept evolution? What's so wrong with God making a badass process such as evolution?
    Because evolution contradicts the Bible and God's explination of creation. You can't have both or some diluted mixture of the two.
  13. Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    77354
    28 Mar '11 17:30
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I think you are being to vague when speaking about things evolve. Some creatures
    get fatter before winter, is that evolving or simply a standard on going process?
    Some creature my get larger or smaller but basically stay the same in all of their
    body parts, like dogs so is that evolving or simply breeding? What do you mean by
    evolving, please spell it out in greater detail.
    Kelly
    According to evolution all living things came from one origin. If that is true then the simple question I'm asking about the eel is not all beings have this ability to make within their body such a thing as this electrical charge to stun or even kill another animal. As with many species that have specific or specialized abilities as this eel, why and how did it develope this in time to survive a new surrounding? Did it happen overnight or if not how would this process even start if it needed it to survive? Either it would have it or it doesn't. Either it would or wouldn't survive.
  14. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    28 Mar '11 17:34
    Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
    Many a times the defenders of Evolution use circular arguments. The essence of their defence is that this was the way the organism or its part has evolved automatically and this particular automatic stage of evolution has enabled the organism to survive/multiply better than its competitors lacking this particular stage of automatic evolution and hence th ...[text shortened]... shows that this bicameral division of brain which have specialised functions was an adaption.
    “,,,and hence the more successful automatic evolution is passed on to successive generations ,,,”

    what does that mean? This is NOT our position. Nobody who understands evolution would say this so therefore you don't understand it. It is not “evolution” that is passed on to successive generations but adaptive characteristics.

    You post is muddled throughout.
  15. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    28 Mar '11 17:40
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    What's the 'atheistic evolution theory'?
    its the same thing as “theistic evolution theory” 😛
Back to Top