Functionally complex

Originally posted by Wheely
The mutation that amazes me the most is the one where the flower, the nectar and the bee must have worked it all out at around the same time.

I'm happy with a non-nectar collecting bee that discovered it quite liked collecting nectar when it arrived and the the non-flowering nectar which didn't collect as many bees as the flowering one but when you just look at the results, it's quite amazing.

yes, its pretty amazing

Originally posted by Wheely
The mutation that amazes me the most is the one where the flower, the nectar and the bee must have worked it all out at around the same time.

I'm happy with a non-nectar collecting bee that discovered it quite liked collecting nectar when it arrived and the the non-flowering nectar which didn't collect as many bees as the flowering one but when you just look at the results, it's quite amazing.

Actually polination of flowers by insects cirtainly predates bees. Insects predate flowers. There was a non nectar collecting insect (and still are) and there are non-flowering plants too.
The idea of getting an insect to help with polination has evolved more than once, and within flowering plants has taken on so many different forms. Even bats and birds have been recruited for polination.

Almost all of lifes processes are amazing but that in no way implies inteligence in thier design or rules out processes such as evolution.
I find the way that sand settling out of muddy water forms lovely patterns and layers amazing, but I still know that the main force behind it is gravity and simple physics can explain the process.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Almost all of lifes processes are amazing but that in no way implies inteligence in thier design.

And neither did I.

Actually, I don't understand what the religious objection to evolution is. Can't their god have created evolution as the mechanism to make all the flowery, buzzy, running things we see around us. Presumably, god would know exactly at what point to mutate something and in what way in order to make a hedgehog at the time he wanted hedgehogs to appear.

Originally posted by Wheely
And neither did I.

Actually, I don't understand what the religious objection to evolution is. Can't their god have created evolution as the mechanism to make all the flowery, buzzy, running things we see around us. Presumably, god would know exactly at what point to mutate something and in what way in order to make a hedgehog at the time he wanted hedgehogs to appear.

Actually there is no reason to think that God would want a hedgehog in particular or that he would get involved in meddling with mutations.
The basic processes of evolution work and have been proven to be taking place all around us today. Even most fundamentalist Christians with at least a basic science education agree with that. However they realise that this implies the possibility that every life form evolved from a single cell. So they try to find reasons why this is not possible. Hence the claim that increasing 'functional complexity' is not possible. That is claiming that life forms to change and evolve but do not become more complex. This arguement is fundamentally flawed as it would imply that all life is either maintaining an exactly constant value of 'functional complexity' or their 'functional complexity' is reducing. Since virus' change quite dramatically over short periods of time we would expect them to become quite 'functionaly uncomplex' very quickly and thus stop working. We do not observe this at all.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually there is no reason to think that God would want a hedgehog in particular or that he would get involved in meddling with mutations.
The basic processes of evolution work and have been proven to be taking place all around us today. Even most fundamentalist Christians with at least a basic science education agree with that. However they realise tha ...[text shortened]... nctionaly uncomplex' very quickly and thus stop working. We do not observe this at all.

Creationists are just trying to give themselves a little pat on the back and remind themselves that they are special.

Originally posted by Wheely
The mutation that amazes me the most is the one where the flower, the nectar and the bee must have worked it all out at around the same time.

I'm happy with a non-nectar collecting bee that discovered it quite liked collecting nectar when it arrived and the the non-flowering nectar which didn't collect as many bees as the flowering one but when you just look at the results, it's quite amazing.

Your model does not seem likely. More likely pollen and bees evolved independently. The bees began to eat the pollen, and so nectar evolved to distract the bees. Then colorful flowers evolved. Of course, all elements were evolving together, but nectar and colorful flowers evolved due to selection pressures caused by the bees.

http://www.raci.org.au/chemaust/docs/pdf/2004/CiA%20March2004p4.pdf.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually there is no reason to think that God would want a hedgehog in particular or that he would get involved in meddling with mutations.
The basic processes of evolution work and have been proven to be taking place all around us today. Even most fundamentalist Christians with at least a basic science education agree with that. However they realise tha nctionaly uncomplex' very quickly and thus stop working. We do not observe this at all.

This arguement is fundamentally flawed as it would imply that all life is either maintaining an exactly constant value of 'functional complexity' or their 'functional complexity' is reducing. Since virus' change quite dramatically over short periods of time we would expect them to become quite 'functionaly uncomplex' very quickly and thus stop working. We do not observe this at all.

An excellent point. This is strong evidence against the idea that all mutations are harmful and result in loss of "useful information" or "functional complexity" or whatever phrase you want to make up.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Answer me Kelly. Is the sun not becoming more "functionally complex"? Hydrogen is being converted to heavier atoms, surely more complex. I cannot believe that you would say that the sun is not functional.

I can mix chocolate in my milk and get chocolate milk too, I can light
a match and also get reactions, what I don't get with either of those
is something that goes beyond the natural outflow of those reactions.
I don't get brains, bones, skin, fins, gills, leaves, bark, hair, or fur
along with other assorted odds and ends.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I can mix chocolate in my milk and get chocolate milk too, I can light
a match and also get reactions, what I don't get with either of those
is something that goes beyond the natural outflow of those reactions.
I don't get brains, bones, skin, fins, gills, leaves, bark, hair, or fur
along with other assorted odds and ends.
Kelly

Another direct question sidestepped by KJ...

Originally posted by KellyJay
I can mix chocolate in my milk and get chocolate milk too, I can light
a match and also get reactions, what I don't get with either of those
is something that goes beyond the natural outflow of those reactions.
I don't get brains, bones, skin, fins, gills, leaves, bark, hair, or fur
along with other assorted odds and ends.
Kelly

I dont quite understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the chemical reactions that produce fur for example are somehow not 'natural outflows' but the products of a match burning (another chemical reaction) are. What is unnatural about fur. What are the distingushing factors for you to claim a difference? When did you last get fire from your chocolate milk? Just because you cant get 7 from 2+2 does not make 7 more special than 4.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I dont quite understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the chemical reactions that produce fur for example are somehow not 'natural outflows' but the products of a match burning (another chemical reaction) are. What is unnatural about fur. What are the distingushing factors for you to claim a difference? When did you last get fire from your chocolate milk? Just because you cant get 7 from 2+2 does not make 7 more special than 4.

Reactions pure and simple, chemical and otherwise will run their course
if it is just water flowing down a hill mixing with dirt creating mud. That
too is just the same thing, it is what it is when you mix the two;
however, that mud, and whatever other material doing something
quite unique such as forming into life, getting a genetic code that starts
to change over and over becoming something that was never here
before witnessed only alleged. Evolutionist believers only have
arguments to the claims that theses things took place, they look at
small changes here, where things are what they are and remain so
and say it is evidence. You start with dogs you end with dogs, you
start with bacteria you end with bacteria, there is only the belief that
suggests more is taking place, that more has taken place.

The processes of the reactions within the sun will run out when the fuel
is spent, the match burning will go out when the fire consumes the
wood or paper, typically if left along processes will deteriorate to
disorder over time, what evolutionist believes claim is that once life
started from non-life, it while left alone simply got more and more
complex with each passing generation, functions sprang up that
never before were seen. The reactions when certain things mix will
run their course in due time, the belief that nonliving material became
something more and has continued to become something more is a
belief, which goes against what we see and know today, it is a belief!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Reactions pure and simple, chemical and otherwise will run their course
if it is just water flowing down a hill mixing with dirt creating mud. That
too is just the same thing, it is what it is when you mix the two;
however, that mud, and whatever other material doing something
quite unique such as forming into life, getting a genetic code that starts
t ...[text shortened]... mething more is a
belief, which goes against what we see and know today, it is a belief!
Kelly

You start with dogs you end with dogs, you
start with bacteria you end with bacteria

That's what evolutionary theory says too. Why are you implying that this is not the case? Ignorance or outright deceit?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]You start with dogs you end with dogs, you
start with bacteria you end with bacteria

That's what evolutionary theory says too. Why are you implying that this is not the case? Ignorance or outright deceit?[/b]

Really, besides taking one piece of what I said out of context and
making a statement like that, why don't you display where I'm
being deceitful, or ignorant. Otherwise, I'll just take this as another
slam against me and not anything that was said.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, besides taking one piece of what I said out of context and
making a statement like that, why don't you display where I'm
being deceitful, or ignorant. Otherwise, I'll just take this as another
slam against me and not anything that was said.
Kelly

"Besides" the piece where you're being deceitful or ignorant? What's wrong with that piece? You start with cells, you end with cells. You and I are made of cells. You imply evolutionary theory claims something entirely different.

Ever heard of the strawman fallacy?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
"Besides" the piece where you're being deceitful or ignorant? What's wrong with that piece? You start with cells, you end with cells. You and I are made of cells. You imply evolutionary theory claims something entirely different.

Ever heard of the strawman fallacy?

Yes I have heard of strawman fallacy, you have a point?

My point is that things are what they are, and we have never seen
anything ever turn into something else. What are dogs when
changes occur still leave us with dogs, the same is true with
single cell life too. Maybe I have missed something about how all
life got to where it is today, from where it supposedly started. You
don't think life has gone through changes that took life at its
very eariest stages, when it couldn't have been much more than
a single cell or less than that, and then through mutations guided
only by natural selection turn into all the variety of life we see today?

This is not what evolution supposedly has done in your opinion?
Kelly