Problems I have with evolution

a reply to: Prezbo369

No, I'm not a creationist. I believe the universe is a living entity, and is growing in a certain direction.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: kcgads

An organism always evolves what it needs to survive.

If that was true, there would be no extinctions...

Survival chooses the organism, not the other way around.

Why would there be no extinctions? It is a progressive process. Why keep something around that is no longer needed?

a reply to: kcgads

So you start with your belief then deny evidence that contradicts that belief? You have a lot in common with the creationist mindset.

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: kcgads

An organism always evolves what it needs to survive.

If that was true, there would be no extinctions...

Survival chooses the organism, not the other way around.

Why would there be no extinctions? It is a progressive process. Why keep something around that is no longer needed?

You said "an organism always evolves what it needs to survive."

If that was true, organisms would never go extinct.

It's quite simple, really.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: kcgads

So you start with your belief then deny evidence that contradicts that belief? You have a lot in common with the creationist mindset.

What evidence am I denying exactly?

My beliefs are based on the evidence that is available for everyone to see.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: kcgads

An organism always evolves what it needs to survive.

If that was true, there would be no extinctions...

Survival chooses the organism, not the other way around.

Why would there be no extinctions? It is a progressive process. Why keep something around that is no longer needed?

You said "an organism always evolves what it needs to survive."

If that was true, organisms would never go extinct.

It's quite simple, really.

What you say doesn't make any sense. Of course organisms would go extinct if they were no longer needed,and are done serving their purpose, which is to reach a higher stage of evolution. Nature discards what is no longer needed. What about that is confusing you?

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: kcgads

An organism always evolves what it needs to survive.

If that was true, there would be no extinctions...

Survival chooses the organism, not the other way around.

Why would there be no extinctions? It is a progressive process. Why keep something around that is no longer needed?

You said "an organism always evolves what it needs to survive."

If that was true, organisms would never go extinct.

It's quite simple, really.

What you say doesn't make any sense. Of course organisms would go extinct if they were no longer needed,and are done serving their purpose, which is to reach a higher stage of evolution. Nature discards what is no longer needed. What about that is confusing you?

You are the one who is confused, sir.

I'm not going to repeat myself again to point out where you made a logical, and factual, error.

a reply to: Answer

I am not confused. It is easy to see that evolution is a process of growth and change into successive forms.

Is evolution not successive change, in your opinion? One form changing into another?

a reply to: GetHyped


I liked the evolution link,

I especially enjoyed this part.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

We all share a Common Ancestor.

originally posted by: kcgads
a reply to: Answer

I am not confused. It is easy to see that evolution is a process of growth and change into successive forms.

Is evolution not successive change, in your opinion? One form changing into another?

Again, you said:

"an organism always evolves what it needs to survive"

That is a false statement because organisms DO NOT always evolve what they need to survive and when that happens, they go extinct.

I'm not sure why I've had to say it 3 times for you to understand. They were your own words.

You seem to believe in a form of "intelligent evolution" whereby organisms just magically get whatever they happen to need for survival. That's not how it works and belief in such a process shows a gross misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. The organisms don't decide "man, I could really use some legs instead of these fins" and then have offspring with legs.

I think you have a very rudimentary view of evolution and it's leading to your "problems."

a reply to: kcgads

The evidence and theory behind evolution. Example: this thread.

Survival chooses the organism, not the other way around.

a reply to: Answer


Choice implies intelligence, does it not?

a reply to: dusty1

In this context, no.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: JUhrman

If there is a change in interpretation, there must be a change in awareness. Albeit, the awareness doesn't have to be something we understand... which is to say, it doesn't have to be anything like our own. It could see blue where I hear a bird chirping...

I mean, who knows what's in the mind of others lest their images be similar to our own?

Is that not basic logic and of the topic?

e.g. I know what the spider sees only because he builds doors like us - he is looking at the same force/spirit - he has that same awareness and desire about him. Same with wings of creatures, other convergence, etc.

The issue with you're concept is that no creature make an individual choice to change their genetics in order to adapt to a situation.

Evolution doesn't occur on a individualistic scale, it occurs throughout a population of a species. There is no awareness factor because those behaviors and physiological changes develop over thousands or millions of years. Not simply because the organism recognizes an problematic scenario and decides to, or is compelled to change in order to better suit it.

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: kcgads

An organism always evolves what it needs to survive.

If that was true, there would be no extinctions...

Survival chooses the organism, not the other way around.

Why would there be no extinctions? It is a progressive process. Why keep something around that is no longer needed?

You said "an organism always evolves what it needs to survive."

If that was true, organisms would never go extinct.

It's quite simple, really.

What you say doesn't make any sense. Of course organisms would go extinct if they were no longer needed,and are done serving their purpose, which is to reach a higher stage of evolution. Nature discards what is no longer needed. What about that is confusing you?

it is confusing because if what you say is true, the universe is maybe 1% of what it was 4 billion years ago. because the life that exists on earth today is approximately that. 1% is the result of 4 billion years of evolutionary progress. 99% failure.

originally posted by: kcgads
a reply to: Ghost147

That's why I said HUMAN type eye developed multiple times independently. Other types of eyes developed multiple individual times as well. You don't think that's the least bit strange? How the same eye parts developed on the eye, and this kept happening just by coincidence? There is no reason a lens should develop right where it did every time. Lenses always develop on forming eyes. Not on a liver or an elbow. They evolve where they are needed for improved sight.

Yes I am incredulous. What surprises me is most people aren't,and just take these things for granted.

What I'm getting at is it seems HIGHLY unlikely that these things are due to random mutation, although I see where natural selection comes into play. I just think the mutations themselves aren't random at all.

I think you're misunderstanding my original point. There is such a variety of eyes (and other mutations) because everything is adapting to environmental changes. It isn't the least bit coincidental because we see that every mutation in an organism had developed due to a specific condition in whatever way they live their lives.

Also, It's not a matter of a mutation "developing multiple times individually", this isn't how Evolution works. Mutations don't occur from individual to individual, they occur through a population within a species over millions of years. We have traits right now that show signs of new mutations developing. In another several thousand or million years, those mutations would have developed so extremely in comparison to what they are now, that it would be nearly indistinguishable.

a reply to: Answer

I DO understand the common "understanding" of the evolutionary process. I simply don't accept it.

I don't know the exact mechanism that tells an organism which way to evolve. I believe it's a natural process though. I don't think an individual organism "decides" what it needs to survive. There has to be some way nature knows though, although I have no idea what that process is.

The issue with you're concept is that no creature make an individual choice to change their genetics in order to adapt to a situation.

a reply to: Ghost147

See human beings.....

There is no awareness factor because those behaviors and physiological changes develop over thousands or millions of years.

Of course there is an awareness factor.

Organisms appear to want to live.

But why?

Why would living be more preferential than being in a non living state?

The non living state is more efficient.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: kcgads

An organism always evolves what it needs to survive.

If that was true, there would be no extinctions...

Survival chooses the organism, not the other way around.

Why would there be no extinctions? It is a progressive process. Why keep something around that is no longer needed?

You said "an organism always evolves what it needs to survive."

If that was true, organisms would never go extinct.

It's quite simple, really.

What you say doesn't make any sense. Of course organisms would go extinct if they were no longer needed,and are done serving their purpose, which is to reach a higher stage of evolution. Nature discards what is no longer needed. What about that is confusing you?

it is confusing because if what you say is true, the universe is maybe 1% of what it was 4 billion years ago. because the life that exists on earth today is approximately that. 1% is the result of 4 billion years of evolutionary progress. 99% failure.

Not failure. Every species has a purpose at the time they were living. They stuck around until no longer needed. In order to progress from one form to another. They delivered certain necessary attributes for the next stage in evolution.

a reply to: kcgads

I don't know the exact mechanism that tells an organism which way to evolve.

Don't feel bad, because nobody does.

Mutation, adaptation, etc are thrown at the wall to see what sticks.

Evolution is a branch of science that has no trunk.

It is said that it has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

It is a branch that just floats freely in mid air.............