Too much for evolution

[herme3]

Both my Biology teacher and I agree that humans are too complex to have evolved from basic elements. Just look at how complex our eyes are. Evolution would be like throwing silicon and glass into a container, shaking it, and pulling out the world's most powerful digital camera. I can't imagine this ever happening even after shaking the container for millions of years. I'm not even talking about how complex our brains are. If you took all the basic elements that are inside a computer, they would never bond together to make a computer system without the help of something intelligent. What is your opinion about this?

[blike]

Evolution would be like throwing silicon and glass into a container, shaking it, and pulling out the world's most powerful digital camera.

 

If you took all the basic elements that are inside a computer, they would never bond together to make a computer system without the help of something intelligent. What is your opinion about this?

Neither of these are good analogies for describing evolution, which leads me to believe neither you or your biology teacher fully understand the concept.

[Tetrahedrite]

Both my Biology teacher and I agree that humans are too complex to have evolved from basic elements. Just look at how complex our eyes are. Evolution would be like throwing silicon and glass into a container, shaking it, and pulling out the world's most powerful digital camera. I can't imagine this ever happening even after shaking the container for millions of years. I'm not even talking about how complex our brains are. If you took all the basic elements that are inside a computer, they would never bond together to make a computer system without the help of something intelligent. What is your opinion about this?

 

Your biology teacher should be ashamed of himself!

The above arguement is quite often used by uneducated creationists to try and disprove evolution. Be VERY careful of your teacher's intentions here.

The process of evolution works nothing like the analogy given above, and both you and your teacher should be able to see that. There are thousands and thousands of INTERMEDIATE steps from the primordial ooze to humans, we just didn't appear in an instant by the random mixing together of molecules. To say that we did is dishonest.

[Cadmus]

Both my Biology teacher and I agree that humans are too complex to have evolved from basic elements.

Both you and your biology teacher agree that you both should ignore science and replace it with some form of religion. As a student, you should believe whatever you want, however EXTREMELY poor your

" analogy is, in a scientific sense. You are certainly not required to accept anything that science has to offer. I would only wish that you would not jump to scientifically poor conclusions based on a poor argument using poor evidence. Your teacher, however, should be ashamed of himself. He claims to be a biology teacher, with obviously little understanding of biology. You should drop him and find a real teacher.

[Deathby]

But they're right. I am fairly certain the sun wasn't created by hydrogen atoms colliding together! It surely has to be the work of the great Sky-serphent Oookapookaloo farting and igniting it.

 

I mean its like saying that we can create a sun just by getting a lot of hot air in one place...

 

 

Oh and computers are difficult to build in one step. First we had lots of ideas like golems who were inanimate objects capable of movement, then various primitive calculators like the abacus, then we eventually built those giant giant room sized computers. Then we got to silicon computers which are much better nowadays than the ones they first came up with. So yes, it would be difficult to build a computer using a bottle of sand.

[Cadmus]

But they're right. I am fairly certain the sun wasn't created by hydrogen atoms colliding together! It surely has to be the work of the great Sky-serphent Oookapookaloo farting and igniting it.

PROVE IT. By that, I mean repost, this time using all capital letters.

[Ophiolite]

Herme, I recommend you read the following book. "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins. [in the US published by W.W.Norton & Company, Paperback ASIN: 0393316823; In the UK published by Penguin Books, Paperback ISBN: 0140179186 .]

Here is an extract about it from a site maintained by a Dawkins 'fan'

(http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Books/climb.shtml)

 

"The human eye is so complex and works so precisely that surely, one might believe, its current shape and function must be the product of design. How could such an intricate object have come about by chance? Yet this is exactly what Richard Dawkins argues in his provocative and passionate new book--that life evolves through the accident of mutation, and that perfection in the natural world is the result of supreme, and fascinating, improbability. "

 

Please read and understand his arguments before you reach any conclusion in either direction.

[herme3]

My Biology teacher is a great teacher. He knows a lot about Biology and evolution. He taught us the theory in detail and explained what evolutionists believed. He said that humans being too complex for evolution was his personal opinion, and he only said it after he finished teaching us about everything evolutionists believed.

 

After he taught us both sides of the story, I agree with his personal opinion. According to evolution, there is no form of intelligence guiding natural selection, so how could it make something as complex as humans? My Biology teacher and I believe that animals, and even humans may change over time. For example, animals may change into different colors, and become immune to certain diseases. However, how can we evolve from basic elements into what we are today without some type of intelligent force guiding the process?

[Cadmus]

how can we evolve from basic elements into what we are today without some type of intelligent force guiding the process?

For an answer to this question, why not try a teacher who understands something about evolution?

[herme3]

I do understand the theory of evolution. It started with a few elements. I don't remember which ones, I think it was Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Carbon, and a few others. Anyway, they formed into Amino Acids. The Amino Acids evolved into a type of protocell. The protocell evolved into a cell. Then you get microscopic organisms, then larger and more complex organisms until you get humans. According to the theory of evolution, each time something evolves, it is a mutation. If the mutated organism survives, it will reproduce with the mutation in the DNA code. As you can see, both my Biology teacher and I understand the theory of evolution.

 

What we don't understand is how these random mutations could form something as complex as a human brain. Science can't even figure out how a brain completely works. It seems to complex to be created by an unguided force.

[Hades]

I do understand the theory of evolution. It started with a few elements. I don't remember which ones, I think it was Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Carbon, and a few others. Anyway, they formed into Amino Acids. The Amino Acids evolved into a type of protocell. The protocell evolved into a cell. Then you get microscopic organisms, then larger and more complex organisms until you get humans. According to the theory of evolution, each time something evolves, it is a mutation. If the mutated organism survives, it will reproduce with the mutation in the DNA code. As you can see, both my Biology teacher and I understand the theory of evolution.

 

stop the press on those evolution books! wow. i'm convinced.

 

what you and your teacher are doing is abridging a multi-billion year process into a short period of time and then try to understand how something so exponentially difficult and complex can happen. U think of primordial proteins followed by the development of Jill, your next door neighbor, then attempt to understand it. No, we have to see it in steps due to the size of its explanation. What youre doing is trying to understand 'war and peace' by reading the cover.

If u have the chance to take a comparative anatomy and zoology class (or to a lesser extent bio 102), u will begin to see the evolution of every ponderance u have. I am not certain, but pretty sure some of the most basic nerve tissue is a nerve cell called a cnidocyte found in jellyfish. There is an increase of encephalization moving onto flat worms with nerve cords, ganglia and ocelli. it goes from there, and u begin to see how the function of each benefited the organism at the time of their evolution.

The most exciting is watching early chordate evolution! It sounds like your teacher is speaking with a bias already, dont let his views influence yours, form your own opinion based on how you deduce the knowledge youre given.

[Gnieus]

Behe's "Darwins Black Box". Besides the naive interpretation of this teacher, I find these interesting concepts.

 

I find systems that only work in complexity still an interesting challenge. The immune system being an example, which would collapse if one link would be missing. I haven't read that Dawkins book, but from previous work it appears to me that he hangs to much on uniform probabilities. Maybe he does not, I am happy to be convinced otherwise. Maybe he is just trying to override some of the ignorance with simple answers.

 

Probability, chance = chance. Every system the more complex it becomes [besides uniform random mutations] has in my opinion more clearly defined probability outcomes.

 

So if you have a couple of molecules that meet other molecules by chance, only one chemical reaction will work. Also you have to think of self assembling systems. Behe quotes some french guy on that. Forgot his name.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

 

Anyway, while I obviously think that the God think is a lot of bollocks, it remains an interesting question how irreducible complex systems have evolved without just quoting theoretically everything could randomly happen.

 

Here are some interesting reviews on the above mentioned book:

 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n19_v48/ai_18763619

But whence came the flat eye, the light-sensitive spot? Modern science has shown that the "simplest" eye-spot requires a cascade of protein molecules -- rhodopsin, transducin, rhodopsin kinase, and more -- which must interact with one another at the level of the cell to produce vision. What causes a flat eye to curl up? There are dozens of complex proteins which control cell shape, with dozens more controlling the association of cells. In fact, the problem with all of Dawkins's evolutionary stories is that they speak of changes in whole animals or whole organs at once, ignoring the fundamental insight of modern biology that life is based on highly specific, complex interactions of molecules. A serious study of the possible Darwinian evolution of biological novelty would have to begin with molecules.

 

http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/202/300/newreader/newreader.b03/Readers/Reader/1997Spring/dawkins.html

Dawkins writes of this symbiotic arrangement, "it hires them, paying in the currency of oxygen." How could such an incredible, all-or-nothing relationship between two species evolve from intermediate forms? Dawkins doesn't say.

 

These are interesting scientific questions which shouldn't really go under in the ususal creationist vs Dawkins battle.

 

I think analogy [Convergent modifications of a non-homologous structure (or behaviour) aka bird wing - fly wing octopus eye human eye etc] proves that certain problems have limited solutions and some system [besides conscious design] must get them there faster than uniform probability or continous small changes [which are highly unlikely in minum complex systems], allows.

 

There is a biochemical answer out there which could make someone famous..

[john5746]

I do understand the theory of evolution. It started with a few elements. I don't remember which ones' date=' I think it was Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Carbon, and a few others. Anyway, they formed into Amino Acids. The Amino Acids evolved into a type of protocell. The protocell evolved into a cell. Then you get microscopic organisms, then larger and more complex organisms until you get humans. According to the theory of evolution, each time something evolves, it is a mutation. If the mutated organism survives, it will reproduce with the mutation in the DNA code. As you can see, both my Biology teacher and I understand the theory of evolution.

 

What we don't understand is how these random mutations could form something as complex as a human brain. Science can't even figure out how a brain completely works. It seems to complex to be created by an unguided force.[/quote']

 

This is a natural response to the unknown. We can't imagine something being created that we ourselves cannot do, by chance or a lesser intelligence. We do this with ancient buildings - pyramids, etc. We immediately think there must be something great behind it all, something like ourselves, only smarter.

[Kygron]

I think analogy ... proves that certain problems have limited solutions and some system ... must get them there faster than uniform probability or continous small changes [which are highly unlikely in minum complex systems]' date=' allows.

 

If I may throw in my two cents:

 

My guess would be that these minun complex systems start out as far more complex non-minum inefficient systems that are nevertheless significant and usefull. They most likely started as a variation of a completely different system that happened to also work in a new way. Then evolution did its "small changes" thing and the whole thing was reduced to the fundamental usefullness of the new function.

 

That sounded more complicated than in my head, so I'll give you my horribly un-scientific example. Ok, so there was this green plant. And it got some kinda mutation where it started absorbing yellow light along with the green. But yellow's different so the energy it got was a little different too. And then the plant said, "hey that's different, I like having a choice!". And it would learn which light to bend towards to get the most energy at the right time. And then It mutated some more so that it could notice all the colors, but this mutation went wrong and the plant didn't get energy from it any more. "Oh no!", the plant said, " but at least now I'm good at bending too, maybe that will be usefull! And it was 'cause the plant had already learned to more around. It ran from all the bad stuff and found its own food. But it wasn't enough so it got really small so that it would only have to eat a little. And then it was only an eye and a mouth and a few legs so it evolved a body too and became an animal. The End.

 

Lol and that's just crazy but maybe this version of the evolution of the eye will help you see what I mean. (Oh and by the way, this is an analogy so it's not meant to suggest that the proccess is conciously driven! )

[nameta9]

A possible explanation could be that the universe isn't just 10 billion years old but much much older like 10^10000 years old or so, so that the combinations could be reached. I think that evolution as described is partially right but there are big gaps. It would seem that we were "built" by some alien race, like we build color TVs. You couldn't ever discover how color TVs evolved alone without putting in man. So maybe we are looking at the end result like the TV without the human race. Like seeing only color TVs on mars and trying to figure out how they "evolved". Even small questons are hard to answer, like how is it that we can extract metals and just the right combination and amounts of metals are on our planet? (presence of life doesn't imply metals)

How did people even start thinking out of their group to develope science? There are alot of instances where primitive populations live and are still living that have never evolved past their group tribe and religion (group presure is virtually infinite, so originality is way too much of a long shot).

 

 

In the end we will reach a wall in all our explanations and concepts because we will finally discover that we are within an "infinite-infinite universe" where every conceivable combination of concepts, matter, thoughts, contradictions etc. are all present. That is the only explanation for our presence here as humans. The number of quirk chances for all the combinations of elements that compose our life are so mind boggling large that in NO WAY can there ever be a physical explanation. How do you explain that on this single planet just the right amount of metals, and chemical elements and human reasoning and science etc. are present to allow us to evolve naturally to the point we are able to communicate with chips and networks etc. The complexity of our "evolution" is too great to be possibly explained as one given case, therefore we are one case in an infinte all being present as within an "INFINITE-INFINTE UNIVERSE".

Just one combination where a person started to think outside his group culture within primitive societies is extremely low. If the person didn't think outside his group culture there would have been no science!

[fuhrerkeebs]

According to evolution, there is no form of intelligence guiding natural selection, so how could it make something as complex as humans?

 

Yes, but how do you expect to get the "form of intelligence" guiding natural selection without evolution. Unless, of course, you're talking about some magical being that we can't see or interact with and that has always existed. Yeah, I think that second option sounds about right.

 

A possible explanation could be that the universe isn't just 10 billion years old but much much older like 10^10000 years old or so, so that the combinations could be reached.

 

Yes, but your argument seems to assume ergodicity. And besides, I don't think there is anything out there that supports a 10^10000 year old universe.

[herme3]

Unless, of course, you're talking about some magical being that we can't see or interact with and that has always existed. Yeah, I think that second option sounds about right.

 

Why is this so difficult for scientists to believe? Saying that God has always existed is the same thing as saying the laws of physics have always existed. Scientists have no problem saying the laws of physics have always existed. Anyway, evolution says that complex things just appear without any form of intelligence. Yes, there is a lot of time involved in the theory of evolution, but it still doesn't explain how things became so complex. If we could speed up time, we aren't going to see a computer pop out of a lump of silicon. Even if the computer forms one piece at a time, somebody will have to be building the computer.

 

Someone might argue that creationists believe that God came out of nowhere. The truth is that we believe that God has always existed, just like the laws of physics. Saying that intelligence has always existed makes sense. Saying it appeared from nowhere does not make sense to me.

[Skye]

Of course evolution explains how things become complex. Replication followed by differentiation leads to variation. It even rhymes! It explains how both how our genomes have come about and our bodies develop. It's an all singing, all dancing explanation for how you came to be!

[syntax252]

If one does not think that 4 billion years is enough time for evolution to produce humans, all he needs to do is read one of these threads and witness how much it evolves in just 2 or 3 days

 

Most of them will have changed direction 1/2 dozen times in that timespan.

[YT2095]

why specificaly sellect Human eyes?

 

there are other animals with greater differentiated visual accuity than ours, why not sellect them as a "Must have been created"?

 

hell, I`de love to have sonar like a Dolphin, frequency range of a bat crossed with elephant, the optical resolution of an eagle etc...

 

 

seriously, OUR eyes as humans aren`t all that special.

[Ophiolite]

seriously' date=' OUR eyes as humans aren`t all that special.[/quote']

For example, I can't even see where I put my glasses.

[YT2095]

For example, I can't even see where I put my glasses.

 

1, they`re on top of your head!

2, they`re in the last place you lost them.

3, you should eat more carrots (ever seen a blind rabbit?)

4, Non of the above, send me a post card from the Twighlight zone, I collect them

[Gnieus]

My guess would be that these minun complex systems start out as far more complex non-minum inefficient systems that are nevertheless significant and usefull. They most likely started as a variation of a completely different system that happened to also work in a new way. Then evolution did its "small changes" thing and the whole thing was reduced to the fundamental usefullness of the new function.

 

Interesting idea ...

 

I would say a shitload of proteins and many possible bio-chemical reactions get minimised to the useful .. yo' date=' possible ...

 

My point is also if you throw gold int sulphuric acid nothing happpens if you throw it into Konigswasser it disolves. You won't get Stilton suddenly. If the right chemicals are there it will happen.

 

The eye [creationists favorite'] is always a bad example, as it's quite easy to make up some continous way imo.

[Gnieus]

Yes' date=' but your argument seems to assume ergodicity. And besides, I don't think there is anything out there that supports a 10^10000 year old universe.[/quote']

 

I think again the misunderstanding [not you but the one you quoted] is in what chance is. Chance is not always uniform. A coin throw has two possible outcome not infinitive outcomes. Each DNA has a limited set of possible combinations. If you go down to individual trait genes that number is even lower. You've also got 20 possible amino acids to form proteins. The possibilities are high but not endlessly high.

 

DNA coding for Nylon socks ain't an option...

 

http://web.indstate.edu/thcme/mwking/amino-acids.html

[herme3]

If one does not think that 4 billion years is enough time for evolution to produce humans' date=' all he needs to do is read one of these threads and witness how much [i']it[/i] evolves in just 2 or 3 days

 

Most of them will have changed direction 1/2 dozen times in that timespan.

 

Yes, but this thread was created by something very intelligent (me!) it didn't appear out of nowhere like evolution suggests humans did.

 

Why are people saying that eyes aren't that special? Our eyes have a higher quality picture output than any digital camera or TV. This is obvious because if they made a digital camera or TV that was higher quality than our eyes, we wouldn't even notice without using a zoom feature. Looking at a high definition TV doesn't look as good as real life, so our eyes must be better than the TV or the cameras they used to film whatever you are watching.