Problems I have with evolution

a reply to: Ghost147

"developing multiple times individually"

I mean individually, as in developing in different species lines. I'm not speaking of individual creatures. I mean, the eye isn't just from one common ancestor,and then evolves along different paths to form multiple, similar eyes.

Eyes developed at least 40 different times,along separate lines. Eyes evolved again and again, in basically the same pattern. From different starting points. "From DIFFERENT starting points" that's what I'm concerned about.

That's what I find strange. How can the same SET of accidents happen dozens of times through out history?

originally posted by: kcgads
a reply to: Answer

I DO understand the common "understanding" of the evolutionary process.

No you don't, as has been explained to you by multiple people in this thread already.

I simply don't accept it.

I've given you a great resource explaining evolution to patch up your misunderstandings but it's becoming more evident that you're of the willfully ignorant variety.

a reply to: kcgads

What is so strange that genetic mutations that allow for light sensitivity would arise indepently on an ecosphere bathed in light, given the massive survival advantages it gives?

Here, read this (although I very much doubt you will):

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: kcgads


I DO understand the common "understanding" of the evolutionary process.

No you don't.

I simply don't accept it.

Right, because you don't understand it.

At the core of every "I just don't accept what the Theory of Evolution says" statement is an obvious misunderstanding of what's actually being said. It's hard to accept that which you don't understand... obviously.

originally posted by: dusty1
See human beings.....

I was referring to the natural sense of evolving, rather than through literal gene selection.

originally posted by: dusty1
Of course there is an awareness factor.

Organisms appear to want to live.

Yes, the drive for survival is a strong one, but simply wishing to survive does not make something's biological traits change. Again, behavioural and physiological changes don't occur on an individualistic scale.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: kcgads

What is so strange that genetic mutations that allow for light sensitivity would arise indepently on an ecosphere bathed in light, given the massive survival advantages it gives?

Here, read this (although I very much doubt you will):

en.wikipedia.org...

It's not strange. What's "strange" to me is that this would happen accidentally, through accidental mutations. It makes sense that eyes would evolve to see light. (With the purpose to see).

a reply to: kcgads

Ok, why is it strange that it would happen accidently? Be specific.

originally posted by: kcgads

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.

No. Purpose is subjective to the individual who is asserting whatever form of purpose they see.

Take for instance the North Star. It formed coincidentally, and people now place a purpose on it. It's not the other way around.

originally posted by: kcgads
a reply to: Ghost147

"developing multiple times individually"

I mean individually, as in developing in different species lines. I'm not speaking of individual creatures. I mean, the eye isn't just from one common ancestor,and then evolves along different paths to form multiple, similar eyes.

Eyes developed at least 40 different times,along separate lines. Eyes evolved again and again, in basically the same pattern. From different starting points. "From DIFFERENT starting points" that's what I'm concerned about.

That's what I find strange. How can the same SET of accidents happen dozens of times through out history?

Ah, I understand what you're saying.

Although, I believe someone already gave an answered to this issue. We see the same mutations develop in different species because that specific adaptation has a lot going for it. It's easy to develop, and when it begins to develop, the organism has more opportunities with the use of that mutation; there for it continues to develop.

Here's a fantastic example



You can see how simple the initial phases of the eye really are. It really isn't inconceivable that numerous organisms developed this specific adaptation. The same thing could be stated about any common mutation as well. Feathers, Hair, Taste Buds, the sense of smell.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: kcgads

Ok, why is it strange that it would happen accidently? Be specific.

I can easily see an accidental mutation happen, say, for photosensitive cells. Like in a jellyfish, they are located around the middle. I can even understand them being utilized for a purpose,even if there was no "intended" purpose. They use them to their advantage. That's fine. Then an animal evolved a mutation that produced a cup under the area of photosensitive cells. That's ok too, two accidents with an adaptable advantage occuring is not out of the ordinary. But then an eyeball had to form,and a opening and closing iris,and nerve cells to take information to the brain, and a cornea And a lens, etc. All these things had to occur, accidentally, in the right order, in the right place on the body. And then this set of random accidents happened dozens of times from different starting points. I simply don't believe this many accidents happened in this way.

a reply to: kcgads

You didn't read that link I gave you on the evolution of the eye, then.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: kcgads

You didn't read that link I gave you on the evolution of the eye, then.

I don't read wikipedia articles. I've gotten crap information before, and I don't trust wikipedia.

originally posted by: kcgads

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.

from what you posted here, you understand very little of actual evolutionary theory.

here is a thread to enlighten you somewhat. the member who posted it can answer any questions you might have.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: kcgads

I think you're viewing you're example and "accidents" a bit inaccurately. You state:

I can easily see an accidental mutation happen, say, for photosensitive cells.

and then state

I can even understand them being utilized for a purpose

But what you're forgetting is that this new adaptation leads to more opportunities. And when these opportunities are utilized, that particular adaptation now has more room to persistently develop further. You even went on to say:

Then an animal evolved a mutation that produced a cup under the area of photosensitive cells. That's ok too...

They evolved this because that new mutation (the photosensitive cells in this case) was beneficial, and allowed for a further development of what would be a more complex eye organ. However, after this point you state:

But then an eyeball had to form,and a opening and closing iris,and nerve cells to take information to the brain, and a cornea And a lens, etc. All these things had to occur, accidentally, in the right order, in the right place on the body.

This is where you've lost touch with you're initial acceptance. Sure, photosensitive cells may have developed accidentally, but the further development of those photosensitive cells was not merely an accident.

The mutation was used, and in many cases it helped this organism either hunt for food, or be able to prevent itself from being eaten by predators. Through Natural Selection, that mutation now has a chance to develop further, so long as the organism continues to have a need for that mutation.

Conversely, we see thousands of species whom which had an eye in their ancestral lineage, but now have no use for them, and we see this regression of what was once a fully functioning organ. We see this, not out of accidental causes, but due to natural selection through their changes in environments.

There is now no need for this organ, so instead of the body spending energy to continually produce it, it simply fades out in the population.

a reply to: kcgads

Look at the sources in the Wikipedia article then and quit trying to move the goalposts. Stop making excuses for your willful ignorance.

a reply to: Ghost147

What part of the development of they eye do you think I have wrong? It seems pretty straight forward to me. The eye evolved in steps over millions of years. What's wrong about that? The only thing I disagree with is that it was through accidental mutations.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: kcgads

Look at the sources in the Wikipedia article then and quit trying to move the goalposts. Stop making excuses for your willful ignorance.

As I asked the last poster, which part of the evolution of the eye do you think I don't understand? Did they not mutate in stages and adapt to the environment which results in sight? If you can point to where I have a misunderstanding, that's fine. As I stated, I only disagree that the actual mutations that formed the lens, photosensitive cells were random or accidental.

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: kcgads

Look at the sources in the Wikipedia article then and quit trying to move the goalposts. Stop making excuses for your willful ignorance.

As I asked the last poster, which part of the evolution of the eye do you think I don't understand?

A good chunk of it.

Did they not mutate in stages and adapt to the environment which results in sight? If you can point to where I have a misunderstanding, that's fine. As I stated, I only disagree that the actual mutations that formed the lens, photosensitive cells were random or accidental.

Read the link I gave you.

You are balls deep in "La la la I can't hear you because the evidence contradicts my world view" self delusion territory right now. You are not the first and certainly won't be the last of your kind on this forum.


PSA: It's been [0] days since the last ham-fisted attack and willfully ignorant denial of evolution on this forum.

a reply to: GetHyped

Something specific that I have wrong. Do you have anything?

Do you think the eye didn't evolve in stages over a period of time? Do you believe in saltation?

originally posted by: kcgads
a reply to: GetHyped

Something specific that I have wrong. Do you have anything?

Do you think the eye didn't evolve in stages over a period of time? Do you believe in saltation?

your leading questions arent fooling anyone. you have been given the evidence and the theory proper, now educate yourself and stop trying to save face.