Problems I have with evolution

a reply to: kcgads

So you do accept the inevitability of particular mutations? Our theory of Evolution has predictability just like any other field of science.

"The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind. All theories are simplifications; they purposely neglect as many outside variables as they can. But these extraneous variables do affect predictions. For example, you can predict the future position of an orbiting planet, but your prediction will be off very slightly because you can not consider the effects of all the small bodies in the solar system. Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so specific predictions about what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical. It is still possible to use evolution to make general predictions about the future, though. For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics."
Source

The term "Sight" is not a specific mutation, it is a general concept that lets an organism to see the world around them. Eyes, specifically, are relatively simple to form and progress, which is why we see so many numerous forms of them.

originally posted by: kcgads
a reply to: Barcs

"It has evolved in every single genetic line, where eye sight can be useful"

Exactly. You make my point for me.

And your point is what, exactly? Eyesight is an inevitable trait and I told you why. It gives a direct benefit that applies regardless of the environment (in most cases).

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: kcgads

So you do accept the inevitability of particular mutations? Our theory of Evolution has predictability just like any other field of science.

"The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind. All theories are simplifications; they purposely neglect as many outside variables as they can. But these extraneous variables do affect predictions. For example, you can predict the future position of an orbiting planet, but your prediction will be off very slightly because you can not consider the effects of all the small bodies in the solar system. Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so specific predictions about what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical. It is still possible to use evolution to make general predictions about the future, though. For example, we can predict that diseases will become resistant to any new widely used antibiotics."
Source

The term "Sight" is not a specific mutation, it is a general concept that lets an organism to see the world around them. Eyes, specifically, are relatively simple to form and progress, which is why we see so many numerous forms of them.

I think eyes are inevitable, yes.

" Eyes, specifically, are relatively simple to form and progress"

Why? Why is a mutation causing a patch of photosensitive cells or a mutation causing a lens relatively simple to form? They are accidents. They are so relatively simple to accidentally form that it happened 40 times in nearly the same way. Why? Why would a cup always start forming under the photosensitive cells? Why does the lens always "accidentally" mutate and form exactly in just the right spot to be useful for vision?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: kcgads
a reply to: Barcs

"It has evolved in every single genetic line, where eye sight can be useful"

Exactly. You make my point for me.

And your point is what, exactly? Eyesight is an inevitable trait and I told you why. It gives a direct benefit that applies regardless of the environment (in most cases).

My point is that eyes develop because they are useful. Dozens of times, in the same way, because that's how eyes work. They are supposed to be that way.

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: kcgads
a reply to: Barcs

"It has evolved in every single genetic line, where eye sight can be useful"

Exactly. You make my point for me.

And your point is what, exactly? Eyesight is an inevitable trait and I told you why. It gives a direct benefit that applies regardless of the environment (in most cases).

My point is that eyes develop because they are useful. Dozens of times, in the same way, because that's how eyes work. They are supposed to be that way.

They don't always develop in the same way... There are many different types of eyes out there that view things many different ways. That is unless you consider a fly's eyes the same as a human's eyes.

originally posted by: kcgads
My point is that eyes develop because they are useful. Dozens of times, in the same way, because that's how eyes work. They are supposed to be that way.

You said above that you didn't agree that it was inevitable, but now you are saying that it is. I'm having difficulty understanding where you are coming from here. Things don't develop because "that's how they work". They develop because it creates an evolutionary advantage at each individual stage of development. For the same reason, most animals have legs, sense of smell, taste, teeth and many similar types of organs.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: kcgads
My point is that eyes develop because they are useful. Dozens of times, in the same way, because that's how eyes work. They are supposed to be that way.

You said above that you didn't agree that it was inevitable, but now you are saying that it is. I'm having difficulty understanding where you are coming from here. Things don't develop because "that's how they work". They develop because it creates an evolutionary advantage.

It's not inevitable if it is a "random mutation". (Which is what evolution theory states)

It is inevitable if the mutation isn't random. (which is what I think) I don't think mutations are random at all.

I apologize for causing confusion, I wasn't very clear.

a reply to: kcgads

The mutation is random. The selection is not.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: kcgads

The mutation is random. The selection is not.

Yes, I understand that is the current understanding of evolution theory. I just don't buy it.

a reply to: kcgads

Scientific evidence doesn't care what you buy. It's true regardless of whether or not you believe it. It's quite apparent that you disagree with the evidence because it conflicts with the personal beliefs you've stated in this thread. The word for denying reality when it's not philosophically convenient is "delusional".

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: kcgads

The mutation is random. The selection is not.

Yes, I understand that is the current understanding of evolution theory. I just don't buy it.

It would help if you had an actual reason for why you don't buy it that can actually be backed up with real scientific evidence and reasoning instead of just because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: kcgads

Scientific evidence doesn't care what you buy. It's true regardless of whether or not you believe it. It's quite apparent that you disagree with the evidence because it conflicts with the personal beliefs you've stated in this thread. The word for denying reality when it's not philosophically convenient is "delusional".

There is scientific evidence showing mutations are predictable.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: kcgads

The mutation is random. The selection is not.

Yes, I understand that is the current understanding of evolution theory. I just don't buy it.

It would help if you had an actual reason for why you don't buy it that can actually be backed up with real scientific evidence and reasoning instead of just because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

I don't have any religious beliefs.

a reply to: kcgads

Well then you've just made yourself out to be even LESS reasoned than the religious crowd. You have no real reason to doubt evolution outside of you just finding it implausible. Which is odd since there should be no pre-conceived beliefs standing in your way to find evolution implausible outside of actually having physical evidence that overturns the theory.

a reply to: kcgads

There is scientific evidence that you have persistently misunderstood not just the replies in this thread but your very own sources.

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: kcgads

The mutation is random. The selection is not.

Yes, I understand that is the current understanding of evolution theory. I just don't buy it.

It would help if you had an actual reason for why you don't buy it that can actually be backed up with real scientific evidence and reasoning instead of just because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

I don't have any religious beliefs.

I believe the universe is a living entity, and is growing in a certain direction.

Your personal beliefs are the reason you deny reality. You're as delusional as any religious person who denies reality due to their personal beliefs.

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: kcgads

The mutation is random. The selection is not.

Yes, I understand that is the current understanding of evolution theory. I just don't buy it.

So you don't buy natural selection?

Or maybe you don't understand how probability works?

Let's say you roll 3 dice. There are 316 possible outcomes. This means the chance to roll any given number set (say 6, 2, 4) is 1 in 316, between 0.3 and 0.4%. Now that seems really low, right? I mean the chances of hitting that number are very unlikely, right? BUT, if you roll 316 times, your odds drastically increase to hit that number, in fact it becomes very likely. If you roll more than 316 times and just keep rolling over and over, it is INEVITABLE that you will hit your number eventually.

Similarly, with evolution, if you observe 50 different mutations amongst 20,000 creatures, that leads to 1,000,000 possible genetic changes. This number will not only increase with each new generation, but also retain the changes from the previous generations (unless the same gene sequence mutates twice). So a population like that projected over 5 generations, becomes 5 million possible genetic changes. Now imagine a population going through thousands or even millions of generations. It is impossible to even fathom how many possible changes to the genetic code could arise. Since eyesight is helpful in most environments, it becomes an inevitable trait. Not all types of traits and mutations are virtually guaranteed like that one, because ultimately it is up to mother nature what stays and what goes. This is what makes it inevitable (or better yet 99.99999% probable).

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: kcgads

The mutation is random. The selection is not.

Yes, I understand that is the current understanding of evolution theory. I just don't buy it.

So you don't buy natural selection?

Or maybe you don't understand how probability works?

Let's say you roll 3 dice. There are 316 possible outcomes. This means the chance to roll any given number set (say 6, 2, 4) is 1 in 316, between 0.3 and 0.4%. Now that seems really low, right? I mean the chances of hitting that number are very unlikely, right? BUT, if you roll 316 times, your odds drastically increase to hit that number, in fact it becomes very likely. If you roll more than 316 times and just keep rolling over and over, it is INEVITABLE that you will hit your number eventually.

Similarly, with evolution, if you observe 50 different mutations amongst 20,000 creatures, that leads to 1,000,000 possible genetic changes. This number will not only increase with each new generation, but also retain the changes from the previous generations (unless the same gene sequence mutates twice). So a population like that projected over 5 generations, becomes 5 million possible genetic changes. Now imagine a population going through thousands or even millions of generations. It is impossible to even fathom how many possible changes to the genetic code could arise. Since eyesight is helpful in most environments, it becomes an inevitable trait. Not all types of traits and mutations are virtually guaranteed like that one, because ultimately it is up to mother nature what stays and what goes. This is what makes it inevitable (or better yet 99.99999% probable).

Nothing explains how you repeatedly get the SAME accidental mutation. Why do eyes always get the same exact mutations? Everyone keeps ignoring this. I understand that natural selection would keep a good mutation, if it helps an organism adapt to it's environment. What I don't get is the same exact mutation happening time and time again. Everyone keeps saying "natural selection isn't random" and thinks that's an explanation. Well, it's not. It doesn't explain the mutation itself.

originally posted by: kcgads
Nothing explains how you repeatedly get the SAME accidental mutation. Why do eyes always get the same exact mutations? Everyone keeps ignoring this. I understand that natural selection would keep a good mutation, if it helps an organism adapt to it's environment. What I don't get is the same exact mutation happening time and time again. Everyone keeps saying "natural selection isn't random" and thinks that's an explanation. Well, it's not. It doesn't explain the mutation itself.

If you accept that the first step in this process is the development of photoreceptive cells then you also need to accept that its not a mutation at all. It is an inherited trait which all organisms already carry the gene for. The first life on earth that we know of from the fossil record is cyanobacteria. If all life on earth can trace itself back to cyanobacteria then we all share in its rudimentary genetics. Including the blueprint for photoreceptive cells. Cyanobacteria is a photosynthetic organism that functions and survives much in the same way as all green leafy plants do. If cyanobacteria is to survive, it must be able to differentiate between light and dark much like a plant is actually able to follow the sun and stretch towards it. Contrary to your query and assertion...all eyes do NOT get the same mutation leading to their development. If that were true than all eyes would be the same, there would be no compound eyes as in insects for example. Where natural selection comes into play is in selecting an organisms fitness. The one most able to eat and survive is the one who is most able to survive long enough to reproduce. If they reproduce they continue their genetic lineage which is the endgame for all life. The benefits of a more complex system of photoreceptors becomes painfully obvious here. Natural selection can also reduce or remove sight altogether if an organism does not use it as seen in some cave fish for example. It's not so much about mutations as it is needs and survival of the genetic structure and passing those genes on.

originally posted by: kcgads
Nothing explains how you repeatedly get the SAME accidental mutation. Why do eyes always get the same exact mutations? Everyone keeps ignoring this.

It's already been explained to you that there are hundreds of DIFFERENT types of eyes and that each evolved differently. Stop saying that it's the same exact mutation, that isn't true.

Many species have different genetic codes in relation to eyes, so it's not the same exact mutation each time. On the surface it may appear to have the same or similar functionality but it isn't the same exact genetic code change each time. And to extrapolate the info we need you only need to use the same numbers above, but for different species. Mutation rate does vary and number of individuals per species varies, but you'll get the same answer to the question no matter which genetic line you choose to analyze. When there are millions of possible genetic mutations, it becomes inevitable that one creature out of the bunch will get a beneficial one.

Everyone keeps saying "natural selection isn't random" and thinks that's an explanation. Well, it's not. It doesn't explain the mutation itself.

Evolution is determined by 2 main components. Genetic mutations and natural selection. You can't ignore natural selection when referring to evolution. The eye didn't arise STRICTLY from the mutations. If it did, then you could say it was a complete random accident (or whatever buzz word you feel is appropriate). Since nature selects which traits are favorable you have to include it with the explanation for evolution of the eye. This part MUST happen for each step of the process. One creature gets a beneficial mutation, and as a result he reproduces much more than the rest or the rest end up dying off because they can't compete for food with the others. For every step in the evolution of the eye, this happens.

Without natural selection, you'd simply have mutations on top of mutations on top of mutations with no real direction to head. You'd have some creatures with eyes, some with half capable eyes, some with just the early formations and tons of detrimental ones that wouldn't be weeded out. If that happened, THEN and only THEN could you claim the eye was a complete random event or "accident". The only issue is that, evolution doesn't function without natural selection to weed out the detrimental mutations so your point is moot.