Problems I have with evolution

a reply to: peter vlar

The wiki quote is bsolutely true, you are making unsupported claims though, not me. Go support them. You challenged me to prove a negative, which is an impossibility. I didnt make a claim, you refused to support or even explain your own claims and then tried to turn it around on me to further avoid the issue. Its entirely dishonest on a good day to utilize such sketchy avoidance tactics.

Your claim that the human mind is purely electrical activity is completely unsubstantiated. Just because we can detect electrical activity on the the surface of the brain does not tell you anything about the the inner workings of the mind. This assertion runs contrary to the common understanding of billions of people.

Sketchy avoidance tactics and turning things around is precisely what you are doing, unless of course you can support your claim that the mind is nothing more than complex electrical activity.

Good luck with that!

Your understanding is incorrect. Please demomstrate that it was a universal understanding that we all posess a soul and show how a religious belief is equitable with evidence or proof that the comcept is actually true. There are multiple comcepts of souls as well. Some insist thst only humans have a soul, animism believes all animals and even non biological things(rivers mountains streams)have them. Jainism believes all biologicsl organisms have souls. Then theres the concept of Anima Mundi. Pythagorean beliefs state that the soul is lifeless when it leaves the body and returns to Hades, never to return to a human body again.There simply isnt even a consensus between groups who believe in a soul let alone a "universal understanding" of the soul.

For the first part of your paragraph I explained to you earlier that it is spiritual knowledge that a few of you do not possess, my commiserations.

As for the rest of your statement, Animism shares its beliefs with a large portion of other religions and is closely related in concept to Hinduism which most certainly believes in the soul, which takes care of a few billion people.

Buddhism beliefs are a little convoluted in this area as they believe in the creation of the Skandhas which simply put means our personality or selves are an illusion of being so we don’t reincarnated because we never existed in the first place. As much as I respect Buddhism I believe this idea is incorrect.

The entire premise of Jainism is to achieve liberation of the soul through harmlessness and renunciation a beautiful concept so basically all the Dharmic religions believe in the soul.

Plato introduced the idea of Anima mundi which is no surprise as he studied in length and admired the concepts proposed by Pythagorus. While I would not consider myself to be an expert on pythagorean hylozoics, I could write a book about it and have studied it for a few years now. It is in fact the reason I have a clear understanding of the nature of reality.

If you think that pythagorus believed the soul was lifeless and never returns to the human form then you have never read anything about it. It is incorrect, and runs in complete contradiction to the entire premise of hylozoics.

Hylozoics fundamental understanding is that all is conscious matter in motion (energy), and that everything possesses either dormant, passive or active consciousness,which I agree with entirely.

It is the knowledge science fails to recognise, to its detriment, but will soon have to acknowledge, as deeper understanding of quantum physics unfolds the true nature of our multi-dimensional reality.

Hylozoics draws it's understanding from ancient knowledge which forms the foundation for nearly all religions. Please don't blame that knowledge for what people have done to use it to their own advantage humans have a terrible track record for abusing knowledge.

It also explains the intelligent aspect of ID, as their is an immense intelligence that control the life energies present in all living biological creatures. I am referring to the collective consciousness of every living thing that has gone before us in the entire universe, far longer than science has come to terms with.

All is 'conscious energy', and only our flesh and bones decay, so you can scratch in the dust for as long as you like, but it will tell you nothing of much consequence.

The vast majority of humanity believes we posses a soul so I am afraid you are seriously in the minority. If you wish to challenge the spiritual understanding of billions of people, you will need to provide compelling evidence and there is very little of that forthcoming.

a reply to: Ghost147

Actually, we can define life. Here's an entire article surrounding the definition:

I will respond briefly to this post as your other definition of life is a physicalists view on reality and bears no relevance to what we have been discussing, perhaps your view but certainly not mine.

As for this post, you still cannot grasp that regardless of how much you think you understand about evolution, If it where somehow proven that a creator existed be it a spiritual entity a God or an alien, your confusion with evolution and intelligent adaptation would become clear.

Science can only ever hypothesise based on what it can empirically prove. As modern science up to this time is insufficiently advanced to detect reality at its true level of granularity, it is destined to draw incorrect conclusions.

I admire the work that has been done to achieve its current level of understanding, but it has a long way to go before it can arrives at the truth. My entire issue is that there are some who think that science already knows the answers and I can emphatically state that they do not.

How can I be so sure?

It is an understanding I have acquired over many years, through my own studies in life. Much of it is an inner knowledge of which many people possess, however it is something that you and others apparently have no concept of, I really hope you do get to see it eventually though, as it is wonderful beyond words.

Nothing could convince me otherwise, it is my experience, my belief, my reality.

This is where I leave the conversation as I always end up frustrated trying to explain to people how amazing we all are.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: peter vlar


Your claim that the human mind is purely electrical activity is completely unsubstantiated.Just because we can detect electrical activity on the the surface of the brain does not tell you anything about the the inner workings of the mind. This assertion runs contrary to the common understanding of billions of people.

Completely unsubstantiated? Keep dreaming. The electrical impulses are not only known or detected on the surface of the brain. As someone who has epilepsy, I've had more tests done on various regions of my brain than I care to count and I can assure you that electrochemical signals are found all throughout my brain. Though it would have been more precise for me to state that the human brain operates on Electrochemical impulses and processes and not solely on electrical impulses. The chemical components are what drive the electrical properties to relay information to the neurons.

A pretty basic overview- www.amnh.org...

article on a paper written by Prof. Quian Quiroga of Leicester University -
www.le.ac.uk...

Another article related to Prof Quian Quiroga's work - www.sciencedaily.com...

io9.com...

Sketchy avoidance tactics and turning things around is precisely what you are doing, unless of course you can support your claim that the mind is nothing more than complex electrical activity.

Good luck with that!

You really are a charmer in your willful ignorance. It would be cute if it weren't so sad. Why not address your own hypothesis which come up all too light in the fact department before attempting to turn things around on someone else? Please see above for your explanations. I do apologize for the "it's all electrical" comment. I forget there isn't a sarcasm detector on this board and assumed you would understand the levity with the subsequent comment. Apparently it went over your head like a Saturn V.

For the first part of your paragraph I explained to you earlier that it is spiritual knowledge that a few of you do not possess, my commiserations.

So making an unfounded and baseless statement is now considered an explanation? that's a hell of an approach to take when you're demanding evidence!

As for the rest of your statement, Animism shares its beliefs with a large portion of other religions and is closely related in concept to Hinduism which most certainly believes in the soul, which takes care of a few billion people.
Buddhism beliefs are a little convoluted in this area as they believe in the creation of the Skandhas which simply put means our personality or selves are an illusion of being so we don’t reincarnated because we never existed in the first place. As much as a respect Buddhism I think this idea is incorrect.
The entire premise of Jainism is to achieve liberation of the soul through harmlessness and renunciation a beautiful concept so basically all the Dharmic religions believe in the soul.
Plato introduced the idea of Anima mundi which is no surprise as he studied in length and admired the concepts proposed by Pythagorus. While I would not consider myself to be an expert on pythagorean hylozoics, I could write a book about it and have studied it for a few years now. It is in fact the reason I have a clear understanding of the nature of reality.

And yet none of that demonstrates a consensus. There may be commonalities, but there is no universal consensus. Your claim, not mine.

If you think that pythagorus believed the soul was lifeless and never returns to the human form then you have never read anything about it. It is incorrect, and runs in complete contradiction to the entire premise of hylozoics.

As is par for the course, you would be incorrect in your thoughts on what I have or have not read. Erwin Rohde, Psyche, 1928

It also explains the intelligent aspect of ID, as their is an immense intelligence that control the life energies present in all living biological creatures. I am referring to the collective consciousness of every living thing that has gone before us in the entire universe, far longer than science has come to terms with.

and yet another statement of fact that you won't and can't support and your retort will be another stab at telling me I just don't possess any spiritual knowledge based entirely on...nothing but your own feeling.

All is conscious energy, and only flesh and bones decay, so you can scratch in the dust for as long as you like, but it will tell you nothing of much consequence.

Does repeating a statement more than once make it sound more true to you? Is that what I spend all of my time doing? scratching dust? Does examination of remains of our past actually tell us nothing? hmmm.... You have a habit of making asinine statements as though they are fact yet have yet to support any of them at all while demanding I support my own( as well as provide evidence against your own assertions for which you have no supporting data), which I'm happy to do, because I CAN support what I'm saying.

The vast majority of the humanity believes we posses a soul so I am afraid you are seriously in the minority. If you wish to challenge the spiritual understanding of billions of people, you will need to provide compelling evidence and there is very little of that forthcoming.

No, its on YOU to support your claims, its not anyone else's job to provide proof of a negative, which simply is not possible. You can't do that though so you will instead continuously turn it around on myself or whomever else you may be engaging in this tiresome tripe. Why is it that you think you can demand others provide compelling evidence while you provide absolutely nothing? Double standard much?

a reply to: peter vlar

Calm down Peter, while I enjoy a lively debate I would be horrified to think you burst a valve defending your position.

I just popped back in to wish you all the best with your pursuits, I am sure it must be very interesting work.

Oh and Erwin Rohde was a friend of Friedrich Nietzsche a philosopher who studied the early Greek philosophers so I don't suppose Pythagorus was lost to him. However Rohde's understanding, if what you say is correct is seriously flawed. Pythagorus created an entire mental system designed to aid in the understand of reality and the soul (our causal self) is fundamental to that.

The remainder of your links talk about meat and nothing about mind, which is what I am referring to. Much like evolution theory these studies equate to an amoeba attempting to fathom the Universe.

Early days.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Ghost147
I will respond briefly to this post as your other definition of life is a physicalists view on reality and bears no relevance to what we have been discussing, perhaps your view but certainly not mine.

You claimed that we did not know how to define life. Yet I give you an example of the traits that make up a living organism. How else can you define life? You say you have a view on it, but apparently dont wish to elaborate on that view or even show how mine is incorrect (yet you certainly belittle it without any substantiated reason).

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Ghost147
As for this post, you still cannot grasp that regardless of how much you think you understand about evolution, If it where somehow proven that a creator existed be it a spiritual entity a God or an alien, your confusion with evolution and intelligent adaptation would become clear.

And what exactly is "intelligent Adaptation"? If you're referring to a deity somehow guiding evolution, I had already stated that's a possibility. The fact is, Evolution still exists.

Again, you've provided nothing but slander for your argument. Why not actually back up what you claim with information that we all can view and test?

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Ghost147
Science can only ever hypothesise based on what it can empirically prove. As modern science up to this time is insufficiently advanced to detect reality at its true level of granularity, it is destined to draw incorrect conclusions.

I admire the work that has been done to achieve its current level of understanding, but it has a long way to go before it can arrives at the truth. My entire issue is that there are some who think that science already knows the answers and I can emphatically state that they do not.

Science isn't about finding the objective truth, it's simply a matter of bettering our understanding about the natural universe around us. Despite what you seem to belief, Scientist never state anything is empirically proven. All we have within the branches of science is natural evidence that we can test and evaluate to make our best-fitting explanation on how natural phenomena function.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Ghost147
It is an understanding I have acquired over many years, through my own studies in life. Much of it is an inner knowledge of which many people possess, however it is something that you and others apparently have no concept of, I really hope you do get to see it eventually though, as it is wonderful beyond words.

Yes, yes... We all know you're this amazing, divinely chosen individual who has all these secrets about the universe and "reality" that all of us are simply too un-gifted to conceive. Congratulations on you're life-long accomplishments.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: Ghost147
Nothing could convince me otherwise, it is my experience, my belief, my reality.

This is where I leave the conversation as I always end up frustrated trying to explain to people how amazing we all are.

It's pretty clear that no amount of reality will ever convince you to function at a logical, rational, and respectable level. All you've really done in this topic is blindly insult everyone around you, reject all information immediately without even bothering to read it, and have nothing to show for your side of the argument except empty, unsubstantiated claims.

You've stated that you weren't going to be bothered by even gracing us with a response to any of our information since your first and second (and I believe third) posts since you've entered this thread. I think I speak for everyone here, Christian and not, that it would be best that you simply stop talking already. (I'm awaiting your response to this, by the way)

originally posted by: kcgads

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.

The basic misunderstanding you are having based on what I have read thus far, is that they weren't accidents. The genetic mutations may have been random but you can't ignore natural selection. A useless genetic mutation will either remain neutral and have no effect on the organism or have a negative effect causing death, effectively losing that trait. It's basically a big process of trial and error. When organisms get favorable mutations (favorable meaning more conducive to survival and reproduction), these traits get spread throughout the population and become dominant.

The eye itself is fairly obvious why it evolved in so many genetic lines, and it really isn't that complicated. It started very simple and gradually improved. Creatures that had the improvements were favored over the ones that did not.

Evolution is messy and involves lots of death and extinctions. There is never a guarantee of improvement, and the biggest factor involved is the environment. When the environment changes, organisms that can't adapt die out. You call it accidental improvement, but it actually is based on the environment, so it's not actually an accident. I hope this clears things up a bit. If this was already brought up, I apologize.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: peter vlar

Calm down Peter, while I enjoy a lively debate I would be horrified to think you burst a valve defending your position.

You haven't even begun debating yet. We have yet to see any source of information that would back up the claims you make. You're free to start debating anytime.

originally posted by: kennyb72
Failed to address on all counts, including why you are even here in the Origins and Creationism forum.

You also missed the point that unless you can answer my questions you cannot dismiss them from the question of evolution, it is fundamental and your dismissal is bewildering.

I really really don't want to get into an argument with you AGAIN, but this is Origins and Creationism. Think about it. Evolution = origin of SPECIES, which is still an origin. You can't get past the origin of life and the fact that we don't know the answer to how it started, but you still use it as an argument against evolution, which is a complete farce. I know we've been over this before, but you can never seem to resist baiting folks into arguments using faulty premises. It's not really that hard to understand that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, nor does it hinge upon atheism / materialism.

Why are you still equivocating origin of life with evolution? You are wrongly stating that we don't know the definition of evolution. Evolution is a valid process whether we know the origin of life or not. Biological evolution is very clearly defined by scientists. You are just making stuff up to be argumentative, you aren't actually debating anything.

When you say stuff like:

"No it isn't! Evolution Theory is a scientific theory. Evolution itself is still up for grabs until the question of origins of life is settled",

it is completely wrong. It's called the theory of modern evolution synthesis, first off. That is the technical name for the scientific theory. Second, you are making up an additional process (evolution itself, whatever that means), and separating it from modern synthesis with no explanation or justification for that view. If you aren't referring to modern evolutionary synthesis, then what ARE you referring to by "evolution itself"?

Now from what I'm reading in the rest of the thread, once again, the topic has been hijacked into a platform for you to promote your personal worldview, which you claim as fact. If you wish to believe that, there's nothing wrong with it, just stop criticizing science with baseless claims that show lack of understanding, and telling everyone else they are spiritually void for not blindly believing your worldview as fact. You seem to also not know how burden of proof works. Your position doesn't hold true until proven wrong. Your position only holds merit if it CAN be proven or evidence can be shown. You guess that your worldview is true, you don't absolutely know it, and to suggest anything else is dishonest. It's like the typical fundamentalist christian who argues that they KNOW god exists. They actually don't, they just have strong faith. There's a big difference.

a reply to: Barcs

Hello Barcs

Yes you are absolutely correct. I really need to pull my head in and stop espousing my views, because as you say I have absolutely no proof of what I say.

Na, just kidding, I will just jump in fists flying when I see this lot abusing new members who question the official line on evolution. Talk about rude, all the usual tactics demeaning, ridicule, arrogance, attempting to steer the conversation into their own corner where they have the advantage of tad bits of knowledge.

People enter this forum expecting a friendly chat and get savaged by a pack of hyena’s screaming with their derisive sciencier than thou laughter at any one that questions their belief system.

Barcs mate! you must understand me by now, yes, I am comfortable in my understanding, and it doesn’t bother me at all that the evoboys find me irritating. That is my self elected job. Just as you feel it is your responsibility to inform others on the intricacies of evolution theory, I feel the need to present another point of view so people can see it from all sides. Evolution theory isn’t the only dog in this race and as convinced as you all are about the veracity of your claims there are many of us who question where your conclusions are leading.

It is true that the fundamental stumbling block is origin of life because, if it is shown that life is intelligently designed, then everything you think you understand about evolution is going to change, At some point in the process something comes along and Tweeks the code, certainly not a difficult task for the level of intelligence I believe exists beyond view.

I can clearly see how new life forms can be designed within an etheric template in a another dimension that forms the framework for organic biological form in this dimension. Every living creature possess an etheric double that locks in sync with the physical body which provides the conduit for life energies through our chakras.

It is in this subtle state, within our own world, that this work can be undertaken, and nobody would be any the wiser as they would be like ghost genetecists working with energy rather than flesh, DNA conforms to these subtle templates. if you don’t believe that energy is the source of our physical lives then perhaps you could explain what Qi is, and how acupuncture works.

Anyway didn’t intend to get into all that.

it is completely wrong. It's called the theory of modern evolution synthesis, first off. That is the technical name for the scientific theory. Second, you are making up an additional process (evolution itself, whatever that means), and separating it from modern synthesis with no explanation or justification for that view. If you aren't referring to modern evolutionary synthesis, then what ARE you referring to by "evolution itself"?

Oh, I need to address this, evolution is a word, it is not a scientific process and can be applied to just about anything as in the evolution of music or the evolution of the motor industry. A gradual change over time as in the evolution of consciousness, something I completely agree with. When I state that evolution is up for grabs I am referring to the underlying forces that are shaping our existence which have nothing to do with this dodgy process you are trying to sell


Not only do you lot like to hijack forums but you want to do it with words as well, sort of typical I guess

So sorry everybody for being so irritating I won’t do it again honest.

wonderful compliment by Ghost
Yes, yes... We all know you're this amazing, divinely chosen individual who has all these secrets about the universe and "reality" that all of us are simply too un-gifted to conceive. Congratulations on you're life-long accomplishments

Thank you! what more can I say? (Rhetorical)

my goodness! by Ghost
Science isn't about finding the objective truth.

What!!!!

rant by Ghost
You've stated that you weren't going to be bothered by even gracing us with a response to any of our information since your first and second (and I believe third) posts since you've entered this thread. I think I speak for everyone here, Christian and not, that it would be best that you simply stop talking already. (I'm awaiting your response to this, by the way)

Whatever!

Science isn't about finding objective truth

You really need to stop saying this Ghost seriously, NO seriously.

originally posted by: kennyb72
People enter this forum expecting a friendly chat and get savaged by a pack of hyena’s screaming with their derisive sciencier than thou laughter at any one that questions their belief system.

I don't see any slanderous remarks until you entered this topic. The OP had a confusion about a specific part of evolution, we replied in a manner that explain that his concept of it was actually not accurate.

You seem to be completely unable to accept definitions, despite the massive number of external sources we supply, and your pompous arrogant demeanor only serves to turn current believers of creationism into more rational individuals.

originally posted by: kennyb72
Just as you feel it is your responsibility to inform others on the intricacies of evolution theory, I feel the need to present another point of view so people can see it from all sides.

So far you haven't provided any points of view, you haven't shown how our examples were falls, all you're voicing is unsubstantiated opinion, hate and insults. You have yet to actually make any argument at all.

originally posted by: kennyb72
It is true that the fundamental stumbling block is origin of life because, if it is shown that life is intelligently designed, then everything you think you understand about evolution is going to change

You cannot be serious? How many times do we have to thoroughly explain that Evolution has nothing to do with how life began, it only deals with what occurs to life once it already exists. It's as if you literally can't even see the responses you're getting. It's insanity.

originally posted by: kennyb72
Every living creature possess an etheric double that locks in sync with the physical body which provides the conduit for life energies through our chakras.

Again, unsubstantiated claims. Feel free to prove a point for once.

originally posted by: kennyb72
Oh, I need to address this, evolution is a word, it is not a scientific process and can be applied to just about anything as in the evolution of music or the evolution of the motor industry.

You do realize we are referring to Biological Evolution, not simply the English word "Evolution" and every single definition that resides within it.

originally posted by: kennyb72
" by Ghost
Science isn't about finding the objective truth."
What!!!!

I understand why you're shocked, it's because you have no idea what you're talking about. You come in with all this claims and assertions and have no ability to see how you're incorrect. This would be due to your pompous arrogance. I couldn't convince you the planet wasn't flat if you believed otherwise. That's how close minded you are.

Science isn't about finding objective truth, it's about studying how the natural universe works. There is no philosophical concepts involved what so ever.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: kcgads
Let me get this straight. You're saying mutations themselves aren't accidental? I must be misunderstanding you.

That's correct, Not all mutations are completely accidental, coincidental occurrences. That's not to say that they are intentionally placed there. It's just that a specific mutation (such as photosensitive cells) when coupled with a specific environment, follow a general path of successive mutations (again, depending on how that organism acts within their environment).

It's no accident that the following mutations after the Photosensitive cells produce an eye cup. Once the organism develops photosensitive cells, it has more opportunities within their environment; the eye cup develops secondly if that species does take advantage of those new opportunities. Which again, is not an accident.

If everything were accidental, we would see something like a photosensitive cell spontaneously developing into a complex camera-like eye, simply because it was accidental and beneficial.

We notice patterns within Evolution, and that's why we can text, form hypothesis, and predict what will occur accurately. Being entirely accidental does not allow for predictions.

How are the mutations themselves not accidental? This, of course, I agree with, but I thought mainstream evolutionists call for only accidental mutations. I understand the process of adaptation isn't accidental. How do mutations come about if they are not the result of randomness in coding errors, mutagens etc?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: kcgads

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.

The basic misunderstanding you are having based on what I have read thus far, is that they weren't accidents. The genetic mutations may have been random but you can't ignore natural selection. A useless genetic mutation will either remain neutral and have no effect on the organism or have a negative effect causing death, effectively losing that trait. It's basically a big process of trial and error. When organisms get favorable mutations (favorable meaning more conducive to survival and reproduction), these traits get spread throughout the population and become dominant.

The eye itself is fairly obvious why it evolved in so many genetic lines, and it really isn't that complicated. It started very simple and gradually improved. Creatures that had the improvements were favored over the ones that did not.

Evolution is messy and involves lots of death and extinctions. There is never a guarantee of improvement, and the biggest factor involved is the environment. When the environment changes, organisms that can't adapt die out. You call it accidental improvement, but it actually is based on the environment, so it's not actually an accident. I hope this clears things up a bit. If this was already brought up, I apologize.

The only thing I'm claiming you guys are saying are accident's are the mutations themselves. I know it is reasonable to you that natural selection can evolve complex parts. I can see natural selection helping to improve adaptation, but I can't see it creating complex systems.

originally posted by: kcgads
How are the mutations themselves not accidental? This, of course, I agree with, but I thought mainstream evolutionists call for only accidental mutations. I understand the process of adaptation isn't accidental. How do mutations come about if they are not the result of randomness in coding errors, mutagens etc?

Sorry, I as being a bit misleading before. When I stated "Mutation" I was referring to functional cells and/or organs instead of the smaller, less noticeable allele mutations. This individual explains in a much clearer way than I have:


"
Natural selection is an important mechanism of evolution. In negative selection, an unfavorable allele is eliminated from a population because it confers a phenotype that is detrimental to the individual. Individuals carrying this unfavorable allele will tend to have fewer offspring than those with a more beneficial allele. In positive selection, the individuals carrying the beneficial allele will prosper and eventually the beneficial allele will become fixed in the population so that everyone enjoys its phenotypic benefits.

New alleles arise because of mutation. If the new allele is detrimental it stands an excellent chance of being eliminated—this is negative, or purifying, selection. If the new allele is beneficial it has a signifcant chance of becoming fixed in the population by positive natural selection. The probablitiy depends on just how beneficial the allele is, or on how fit the individual carrying it is relative to the rest of the population. The probabilty also depends on the size of the population. The numbers have been worked out by population geneticists.

It turns out that for large populations (>1000) the size of the population can be ignored and the probability of fixation of any beneficial allele is P = 2s. This means that if a new mutation happens to produce an allele that confers a 5% (s = 0.05) advantage, then there's a 10% (2s = 2 × 0.05 = 0.10) chance that it will be fixed in the population by natural selection. This probability is much higher than the probability that a neutral allele (s = 0) will be fixed by random genetic drift. This is why natural selection is not random.

Natural selection is a non-random process because there is a preferred outcome but mutation is, to all intents and purposes, random. This is what Jacques Monod means when he refers to evolution as a combination of chance and necessity. The "chance" is the randomness of mutation and mutations supply the raw material for evolution. The "necesssity" is the non-random process of natural selection."
Source

originally posted by: kcgads
The only thing I'm claiming you guys are saying are accident's are the mutations themselves. I know it is reasonable to you that natural selection can evolve complex parts. I can see natural selection helping to improve adaptation, but I can't see it creating complex systems.

Think of it of this way. If species gains an adaptation that's beneficial to it, the likelihood of it using that adaption more and more is greater. When the organism gets use out of that adaptation, successive mutations are then selected that further assist that adaption into greater complexity.

This of course occurs in the matter of hundreds of thousands of years (or even more); the rate at which that particular adaption evolves and grows more complex is subjective to if the species behaves differently than they previously did (thousands of years in the past) that allows for further mutations to be selected for (because they are beneficial).

a reply to: Ghost147

Thank you for the clarification.

a reply to: kcgads

You're very welcome

Were there any other issues you were having troubles with?

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: kcgads

You're very welcome

Were there any other issues you were having troubles with?

No but I wanted to thank you for actually addressing the points I am trying to make. I enjoy the conversation. Even if we don't agree.

a reply to: kcgads

Alright. Thanks for being as respectable as you have been

a reply to: Ghost147

Hello Ghost, me again.

I feel I need to get a point across to you as you have not yet understood my position, and so everything I say to you will seem irrational because we are simply not on the same wavelength.

I am truly sorry, even sad, that you think I am arrogant and pompous and I am sure it stems from the frustration of not getting my opinion across to you. I still don't understand why you can't see it, so I will try again.

Let me try to explain why I cannot seperate evolution from what I have previously referred to as origin of life.

I think the issue arises from your interpretation of the word origin. When I say origin I am not referencing something that happened in the long distant past, I am referring to what is happening at this very moment in time, in every living organism.(The origin of life of every living thing) If you can grasp this point, you will understand my objections expressed in some of our discussions.

I see it happen each time I talk to evolutionists. I use that term to define those of us who view our existence as a completely natural phenomena, which indeed I do myself, only my definition of natural has a much broader scope.

I will use this short video by David Attenborough in his explanation of how the eye evolved as a reference point.



I will narrow this question down so it can no longer be avoided or misunderstood. A question I posed to you earlier when I asked what is life? You returned a series of answers of how science defines life in terms of characteristics and basically how to determine if something could be called life or not.

Now let me put it in a different way, because what you provided tells me nothing.

As David Attebourough explains in this video, the eye evolved from the development of light sensitive cells, providing the simple function of distinguishing between light and dark and overtime developing a depression which indicated a direction for light and further to develop mucus that acted as a rudimentary lens and so on and so forth.

Now let me get back to this ‘point of consciousness’, What is doing the distinguishing in the above paragraph?

What was detecting whether there was light or dark in the first instance. Why is light more advantageous to drive the development of a light sensitive cell? did it know that it would aid its ability to find food perhaps?

Did the creature have a rudimentary awareness, yes/no, if no, then why is it trying to feed to survive what is it that drives that need? is it awareness that it will die if it does not feed?

What is it that drives the concept of reproduction? why does it require to have an offspring? what purpose could it serve? Is it aware that it even needs to survive?

What is it that makes any creature develop a defence mechanism or camouflage, or even false eyes on its wings to scare away predators? Is it awareness? is it fear? is it cunning? is it a growing consciousness?

Even natural selection cannot get away from awareness of an organism, because the same concept applies if 1,000000 iterations ceased to exist and one survives to reproduce, it still comes down to an awareness, or a drive to exist in its current iteration.

Whatever the answer is, it always comes back to defining life as awareness. If along with all the other miraculous mutations, we did happen to evolve without awareness, why do we now have awareness? did it just happen? or did it evolve along with the organism?

I fail to see how you can separate evolution from life itself, life, being this rudimentary awareness in the simplest of creatures to the complex self awareness of a human being with all it’s faculties.

Evolution theory ignores awareness or consciousness even though it has to be a driving force that causes evolution to happen. Nothing could be considered to be life without it having a pinpoint of awareness, awareness is life and there must be an origin to that life, therefor origin of life is pivotal to evolution.

If you suggest that it didn’t require an awareness to evolve, then what is the driving factor? why would anything evolve? If there was no awareness early in the process then when did it develop? and why? and from where? Would awareness then have something to do with how it evolved?

To suggest that evolution is separate from origin of life or awareness or consciousness simply does not make sense.

I believe awareness evolves into consciousness which evolves into self consciousness which evolves into an expanded consciousness and that the organism that houses that consciousness evolves along with the growth of its awareness.

This all of course brings me back to the idea that an evolution theory that ignores life-forces that drives it, is a pointless exercise and amounts to examining the husks of millions of iterations of adaptations which could have mutated in any direction. I just see it as a waste of resources when science does not understand awareness that evolves into consciousness, which is the phenomena we call life and the answer to that question does not lie in old bones.

Life,awareness, consciousness, evolution, what is it? why is it? how can you separate it, as it is all interwoven.

One last question, why is any of this irrational?

originally posted by: kcgads
The only thing I'm claiming you guys are saying are accident's are the mutations themselves. I know it is reasonable to you that natural selection can evolve complex parts. I can see natural selection helping to improve adaptation, but I can't see it creating complex systems.

IMO, accident is not the best term to use. Mutations themselves have several causes. Solar radiation, other types of radiation, mistakes in copying or combining DNA at conception, etc. The only part of genetic mutation that is random is the gene sequence that gets affected. The mutations will happen because of those environment factors, regardless. Organisms do get lucky when the environment changes and they have a mutation that helps, but the environment pretty much determines the entire process. Other complex systems were formed similar to the eye using small improvements over time that accumulated.

Genetic mutations happen and the environment gets rid of the bad ones. When you have 20,000 individuals in a population who each have 50 different genetic mutations per generation, it becomes like a grab bag of traits / potential traits. These mutations continue to accumulate until a big change happens in the environment and the population is reduced down to only a few lines. So even though they are mostly random, there are so many going on at once that nature basically picks which traits are helpful. This is why certain things are inevitable to evolve like eyesight, and why some organs we have today have different functions than they used to.

a reply to: Barcs

"This is why certain things are inevitable to evolve like eyesight"

Why are things inevitable? Can you elaborate a bit?

It doesn't seem to me that eyesight would be inevitable. It only seems like eyesight is inevitable if the purpose was to see.