Evolution?

Originally posted by galveston75
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 ...[text shortened]... ed it to survive? Either it would have it or it doesn't. Either it would or wouldn't survive.

“...Did it happen overnight ...”

no.

“...or if not how would this process even start if it needed it to survive? ...”

it never “ needed” it to survive because, at least initially in the evolutionary process, it was not essential for survival. It merely gave a relative (“relative” compared with NOT having it) survival advantage and that was enough for natural selection to select for it.

You can survive without your hearing. You would be disadvantaged for not having hearing and you would find life harder but you can still make-do and survive without hearing. So hearing is not “needed” in that sense. But hearing still gives a relative survival advantage and that is why we evolved to have hearing.

Originally posted by galveston75
Because evolution contradicts the Bible and God's explination of creation. You can't have both or some diluted mixture of the two.

The Bible doesn't say much about creation except that God did it and it took 6 days.
Where's the contradiction?

Evolution:

1. There is a correlation between the genetic code of parents and offspring.
2. Some parents have more offspring than others

Therefore:
3. The characteristics of the genetic code of the parents who have more offspring will be more prevalent in the next generation relative to those who have less offspring.

Who disagrees?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Did it happen overnight ...”

no.

“...or if not how would this process even start if it needed it to survive? ...”

it never “ needed” it to survive because, at least initially in the evolutionary process, it was not essential for survival. It merely gave a relative (“relative” compared with NOT having it) survival advantage and that was e ...[text shortened]... hearing still gives a relative survival advantage and that is why we evolved to have hearing.

Then if it didn't need it why and how did it go that direction and why didn't other life forms such as a trout not have that happen also. Did it not need it either or would it not help it catch food or defend itself with it? Doesn't seem to be much direction here with that process of logic.
If the eel didn't really need it then why not grow or let something else develope like hands or wings?
So lets say this eel in it's basic form has been around for hundreds of thousands of years and surviving just fine within it's surroundings. What in it's enviroment would possible trigger this mysterious change it would have to some how come up without any thought process to happen. If it needed it because of some change, how long would it take for this physical change to happen to become a fully and capable working system? If it's not a fully working and capable working system from the beginning then what good does it do this eel in the thousands and thousands of years would it take to work with affectiveness?
If that could really work then we should be able to put all the needed hardware and software that would improve a naval ships radar defences in a bag and throw it on the deck of a naval ship and wait and see if that ship can improve itself on it's own. At least that should be a great start for that ship to do that as opposed to some thoughtless eel being able to recreate itself physically.

Originally posted by ua41
The Bible doesn't say much about creation except that God did it and it took 6 days.
Where's the contradiction?

Contradiction? Are you serious?

Originally posted by Palynka
Evolution:

1. There is a correlation between the genetic code of parents and offspring.
2. Some parents have more offspring than others

Therefore:
3. The characteristics of the genetic code of the parents who have more offspring will be more prevalent in the next generation relative to those who have less offspring.

Who disagrees?

What does that have to do with evolution?

Originally posted by galveston75
Contradiction? Are you serious?

Yes.

Edit: What contradiction? Does evolution say god couldn't have started it? Does the Bible say evolution couldn't have happened?

Originally posted by galveston75
What does that have to do with evolution?

That is evolution in a nut shell.

Originally posted by galveston75
What does that have to do with evolution?

Goodness grief, i thought you'd studied evolution all your life?!

Originally posted by galveston75
Then if it didn't need it why and how did it go that direction and why didn't other life forms such as a trout not have that happen also. Did it not need it either or would it not help it catch food or defend itself with it? Doesn't seem to be much direction here with that process of logic.
If the eel didn't really need it then why not grow or let som ...[text shortened]... to do that as opposed to some thoughtless eel being able to recreate itself physically.

“...Then if it didn't need it why and how did it go that direction ...”

because it goes whichever direction natural selection takes it.

“...and why didn't other life forms such as a trout not have that happen also. ...”
…......................................................
….......................................................
...If the eel didn't really need it then why not grow or let something else develope like hands or wings? ...”

answer to both questions above:

because, presumably, they never had a point in their evolution where it would have been of an immediate survival advantage to have a mutation that would give rise to the first stage of this particular line of change.

“...Did it not need it either ...”

correct.

“...Doesn't seem to be much direction here with that process of logic. ...”

it isn't a process of “logic”.

“...What in it's enviroment would possible trigger this mysterious change it would have to some how come up without any thought process to happen. ...”

it may had evolved from another organ which had a different function such as giving it an electric sense (which can require the production of electricity just as it does in some fish with an electric sense that live today) and then a mutation occurred that allowed that some organ to occasionally give other fish a very slight electric shock and this mutation gave an immediate survival advantage and so was selected for and then evolution continued until that organ came better and better at preforming that new function at the detriment of the old function which was eventually lost. So there may not have been anything specific in the environment to “trigger” this.

“...If it needed it because of some change, ...”

it didn't “need” it in the sense I think you mean by the word.

“...how long would it take for this physical change to happen ...”

does the word “change” in the above refer to a change in the environment or a change to the anatomy of the living thing?

“....to become a fully and capable working system? ...”

the 'system' was always “working”. It is just a question of its changing function and how well it works both of which would change as it evolves.

“...If it's not a fully working and capable working system from the beginning ...”

but it was “working” from the beginning -it may have started with a different function or even the same function but much simpler and cruder and less effective but it always had enough functionality to give an adaptive advantage to be selected by natural selection.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Then if it didn't need it why and how did it go that direction ...”

because it goes whichever direction natural selection takes it.

“...and why didn't other life forms such as a trout not have that happen also. ...”
…......................................................
….......................................................
...If the ...[text shortened]... nough functionality to give an adaptive advantage to be selected by natural selection.

Lol. Sorry but true direction never happens by accident. True direction is purposefull and with a direct and needed function, not a "maybe".
If this unseen wisdom that all life forms have, as your implying, to improve our future lifes physically, then as global warming gets worse as it is, what do evolutionist forsee all life forms doing "now" to survive this later? I'm not aware that my body is growing more sweat glands that I'm aware of to pass that on to my offspring. In fact humans that live their whole lifes in hotter climates don't have more then ones who live in colder ones.

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol. Sorry but true direction never happens by accident. True direction is purposefull and with a direct and needed function, not a "maybe".
If this unseen wisdom that all life forms have, as your implying, to improve our future lifes physically, then as global warming gets worse as it is, what do evolutionist forsee all life forms doing "now" to surv e their whole lifes in hotter climates don't have more then ones who live in colder ones.

There is generally held to be no 'direction' to evolution. The Darwinian theory simply proposes that if it gets hot, those organisms which like a hot climate will prosper, while those which prefer it cooler will not. The idea that an organism may change to suit it's environment and then pass on those acquired characteristics is more akin to Lamarck's theory, which is not widely subscribed to.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
There is generally held to be no 'direction' to evolution. The Darwinian theory simply proposes that if it gets hot, those organisms which like a hot climate will prosper, while those which prefer it cooler will not. The idea that an organism may change to suit it's environment and then pass on those acquired characteristics is more akin to Lamarck's theory, which is not widely subscribed to.

Damn, I was thinking about going for a swim so I can get some gills.

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol. Sorry but true direction never happens by accident. True direction is purposefull and with a direct and needed function, not a "maybe".
If this unseen wisdom that all life forms have, as your implying, to improve our future lifes physically, then as global warming gets worse as it is, what do evolutionist forsee all life forms doing "now" to surv e their whole lifes in hotter climates don't have more then ones who live in colder ones.

“...Lol. Sorry but true direction never happens by accident. True direction is purposeful ...”

I assumed you didn't mean “ purposeful direction” by “direction”. OK, so that just means I didn't mean “direction” with “purpose” but rather without “purpose” (like a river has a direction without purpose) -so what?
-this is just semantics.

As avalanchethecat just stated: “There is generally held to be no 'direction' to evolution.” -as in the narrower meaning of 'direction' you have given the word.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Lol. Sorry but true direction never happens by accident. True direction is purposeful ...”

I assumed you didn't mean “ purposeful direction” by “direction”. OK, so that just means I didn't mean “direction” with “purpose” but rather without “purpose” (like a river has a direction without purpose) -so what?
-this is just semantics.

As avala ...[text shortened]... ection' to evolution.” -as in the narrower meaning of 'direction' you have given the word.

Another observation. Many humans have lived not only their entire lifes in cold climates but so have their ancestors for many thousands of years and lets say they've always been hunters of reindeer.
Others have lived in a tropical climate for thousands of years and have fished by diving under water.
Why do we see no evolutionary differances going on with these two groups that would help them better survive or even thrive in their particular enviroment, as was just jokingly said about gills? Should we not see something going on here yet?