Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Problems with evolution?

Problems with evolution?
May 14, 2011, 12:04:14 PM
i haven't done much research about this side of the coin, although i know there's a TON of secular scientists who have chosen to reject Darwin.

Flagellum motor is one if i remember right. Such a thing would be too difficult to come into existence by natural selection, considering its compexity.

Re: Problems with evolution?
May 14, 2011, 12:43:29 PM
Flagellum motor is one if i remember right. Such a thing would be too difficult to come into existence by natural selection, considering its compexity.

Have you ever tried to bang molecules into one another for four billion years to see what happens? It may be difficult for our human brains to grasp, but four billion years is actually way, way, way, way, way longer than most people give it credit for.

Re: Problems with evolution?
May 14, 2011, 12:47:13 PM
well, a mutation gets passed on IF it has an evolutionary advantage. A motor wouldn't have much advantage until it is compeletely put together. just having a tail that can't be propelled would be useless. Also this is seen by many as THE best and most sophisticated motor in all existence. 

Re: Problems with evolution?
May 14, 2011, 12:54:39 PM
i haven't done much research about this side of the coin, although i know there's a TON of secular scientists who have chosen to reject Darwin.


I'm not that knowledgeable about much of this subject either but I don't understand why the theory of evolution is loathed so much. Essentially organisms have to change with there environment and those best suited to do so will thrive. Seems kinda basic

Re: Problems with evolution?
May 14, 2011, 01:25:06 PM
There's no doubt that organisms that are best suited to their environment and best capable of retrieving food in their environment survive and procreate.
A lot of the anti-Darwinist scientists find issues in the "primordial pond" of and things like the flagellum motor. I'm interested in this, because the promordial pond is the whole beginning of it. If that can't work, neither can evolution.

Re: Problems with evolution?
May 14, 2011, 05:14:39 PM
just having a tail that can't be propelled would be useless.

Then why do almost all animals have tails that can't be propelled?

Evolution doesn't care about what's useful; it only cares about what isn't detrimental. My appendix isn't useful, but it's not killing me, so it's going to keep getting selected until this changes.

Re: Problems with evolution?
May 14, 2011, 05:44:23 PM
well a tail propelling is only found in the flagellum cell. it's not that a tails function is to propel. the long string that extends from  the cell is called a tail because of what it resembles, but it's a thing of its own. .

Re: Problems with evolution?
May 14, 2011, 07:23:43 PM
just having a tail that can't be propelled would be useless.

Then why do almost all animals have tails that can't be propelled?

Evolution doesn't care about what's useful; it only cares about what isn't detrimental. My appendix isn't useful, but it's not killing me, so it's going to keep getting selected until this changes.

Animals have tails for balance, communication and other reasons. Humans don't have tails because we simply didn't need them anymore but the tailbone is still there and it helps sit slightly more comfortable. The reason why humans have an appendix still hasn't been fully determined yet but it might be there to serve as a safe haven for beneficial bacteria when someone has a diarrhea infection. After the infection the intestinal bacteria returns to the colon to produce healthy turds again :-)


Re: Problems with evolution?
May 14, 2011, 11:57:53 PM
Biological evolution and Traditionalism - philosophic take on the matter.

well, a mutation gets passed on IF it has an evolutionary advantage. A motor wouldn't have much advantage until it is compeletely put together.

I think you're on to something here. The "burst" nature of evolution is something scientists probably haven't properly quantified, and don't really have a conceptual idea of the cause of. This is especially relevant for considering the tremendous speed at which human evolution occurred, and the possible direction of evolution in the future.

Re: Problems with evolution?
May 15, 2011, 05:06:51 AM
all of these richard dawkings type scientists explain that part so simply. "there were some organic chemicals that formed into cells, bacteria and the bacteria evolved into jellyfish eventually"...and then they start their usual attacks on the "irrationality" of religion.

Re: Problems with evolution?
May 15, 2011, 07:49:50 AM
just having a tail that can't be propelled would be useless.

Then why do almost all animals have tails that can't be propelled?

Evolution doesn't care about what's useful; it only cares about what isn't detrimental. My appendix isn't useful, but it's not killing me, so it's going to keep getting selected until this changes.

Animals have tails for balance, communication and other reasons. Humans don't have tails because we simply didn't need them anymore but the tailbone is still there and it helps sit slightly more comfortable. The reason why humans have an appendix still hasn't been fully determined yet but it might be there to serve as a safe haven for beneficial bacteria when someone has a diarrhea infection. After the infection the intestinal bacteria returns to the colon to produce healthy turds again :-)

Even if this is true, there are still other examples of vestigial body parts. My arm hair serves no purpose whatsoever, and neither do the finger bones inside the fins of whales and dolphins.

Biological evolution and Traditionalism - philosophic take on the matter.

well, a mutation gets passed on IF it has an evolutionary advantage. A motor wouldn't have much advantage until it is compeletely put together.

I think you're on to something here. The "burst" nature of evolution is something scientists probably haven't properly quantified, and don't really have a conceptual idea of the cause of. This is especially relevant for considering the tremendous speed at which human evolution occurred, and the possible direction of evolution in the future.

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

Re: Problems with evolution?
May 15, 2011, 09:05:18 AM
all of these richard dawkings type scientists explain that part so simply. "there were some organic chemicals that formed into cells, bacteria and the bacteria evolved into jellyfish eventually"...and then they start their usual attacks on the "irrationality" of religion.

They have recently acquired the means to synthesize RNA and have nailed down at least a third of the formula or recipe for creating life from scratch.

Re: Problems with evolution?
May 15, 2011, 12:11:42 PM
just having a tail that can't be propelled would be useless.

Then why do almost all animals have tails that can't be propelled?

Evolution doesn't care about what's useful; it only cares about what isn't detrimental. My appendix isn't useful, but it's not killing me, so it's going to keep getting selected until this changes.

Animals have tails for balance, communication and other reasons. Humans don't have tails because we simply didn't need them anymore but the tailbone is still there and it helps sit slightly more comfortable. The reason why humans have an appendix still hasn't been fully determined yet but it might be there to serve as a safe haven for beneficial bacteria when someone has a diarrhea infection. After the infection the intestinal bacteria returns to the colon to produce healthy turds again :-)

Even if this is true, there are still other examples of vestigial body parts. My arm hair serves no purpose whatsoever, and neither do the finger bones inside the fins of whales and dolphins.

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

http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/style/human-body-hair2.htm

http://www.newzmash.com/index.php/past-questions/477-were-dolphins-ever-land-animals-click-for-answer

Either it has a purpose or it used to have a purpose or science hasn't been able to determine its purpose yet. I dislike it when people expect science to be exact and all knowing, science shouldn't be treated like it's a religion.

Pooping is my religion. I am a believer when it comes to poop. When I poop I am the creator. Everything else is science. I have no problems with not knowing things for certain. I'm not bothered by my own insecurity. Some people are insecure when it comes to the meaning of life. The meaning of my life is to poop. It may seem simple to some but it's enough reason to live for me.  :-)

Re: Problems with evolution?
May 15, 2011, 03:18:20 PM
Pooping is my religion. I am a believer when it comes to poop. When I poop I am the creator. Everything else is science. I have no problems with not knowing things for certain. I'm not bothered by my own insecurity. Some people are insecure when it comes to the meaning of life. The meaning of my life is to poop. It may seem simple to some but it's enough reason to live for me.  :-)

This post was brought to you by Spinoza Ray Prozak & Co.

Re: Problems with evolution?
May 15, 2011, 03:39:25 PM
Such a thing would be too difficult to come into existence by natural selection, considering its compexity.

I think it's hard to argue for pure "randomness," but a sensible design of the universe that encourages all things to higher degrees of order.

The religious assault on Darwinism is not a product of religion so much their preference for having a paternalistic force in the universe which is personal. That part of religion seems to me way too anthropocentric to make sense; then again, I can't disprove it.

What seems more likely to me is that we have a universe that favors order. Think of the double-slit experiment: waves behave like particles, and we can plot a distribution of their landings, just not the paths each take. We know statistically what will predominate, but the order in which it happens will not exist until it has happened. This to my mind suggests a monist universe which tends toward order in outcomes but maintains variability in method.