How could consciousness, self-determination, a will, and self awareness evolve from mindless, will-less, randomness? What would an organism have to
draw on within its own genetic makeup to produce those qualities by mutating? Mutations are rarely beneficial and the multitude of mutations necessary
to create the diversity of conscious life we see would not be able to reproduce its own kind. Higher creatures (mammals, even birds) will refuse a
genetically mutated or genetically different mate.
Evolution seems mathematically improbable as well. Say you start out with 100 "things" trying to evolve into something else. What do those 100 things
eat? Each other?
Why would they bother evolving into something else? Do they know they're innately flawed and are trying to fix their issues?
Evolutionists, when describing the theory, tend to anthropomorphize the entire system, lending an inherent intelligence to the process. Evolution
certainly seems to have a will of its own, an intelligently guided blueprint, and the luck of the Irish in coming up aces with every pollution of its
genetics (mutations). Natural selection does make some sense and we can see that in action today (dog breeds, plant hybrids, etc.) but saying that
billion of genetic mutations produced human beings or any life form is too fantastic to believe.
originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
Interesting, but given the idea that the theory of evolution proposes that all things started out simple and then evolved through small changes
into more complex lifeforms, it is possible that given enough time small changes will become the highly complex organs you speak of.
originally posted by: stormcell
The simplest organisms are jellyfish. They have a ring of photo-receptors which are directly tied into a simple neural network that control
stormcell was responding to a comment about the evolution of the eye.*
... What do many scientists claim? All living cells fall into two major categories—those with a nucleus and those without. Human, animal, and
plant cells have a nucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells with a nucleus are called eukaryotic. Those without a nucleus are known as prokaryotic.
Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from
In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the
theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the
adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9 *
*: No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.
9. Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont
Which organism do you guys think is "relatively more complex", a multicellular jellyfish made up of a large variety of different types of eukaryotic
cells or unicellular (single-celled) yeast, which are also eukaryotic cells?
Everything below can be ignored if one so pleases.
Just some additional information in case someone reads something into my questions that isn't there. The question in the article title is also an open
question to anyone here. Even though I didn't share much details about the interdependent machinery that make up prokaryotic unicellular bacteria, of
which there are many varieties, not one of which I would describe as "simple" (to use MSB's words) with a straight face. Simpler relative to
multicellular eukaryotic lifeforms, sure. But it's still not simple enough to make the evolutionary storylines sound more plausible to me and there
are vast differences for which there is "no experimental evidence" "to show that such" differences can be overcome by the "small [undirected
accidental] changes" (such as accidental mutations) that MSB spoke about. See the example of such a difference as discussed regarding cells with a
nucleus and cells without a nucleus. It's all based on wishful thinking, technical jargon, and really selling your storyline (or conveniently leaving
it out and pretend it's just a minor part of the overarching evolutionary philosophies/theories/ideas and everchanging storyline, or gap of knowledge
that hasn't been filled yet; but it's the key issue here!). "Everchanging" in regards to the details as long as it adheres to the overarching notion
that 'nature did it', 'nature found a way', 'life found a way' by chance and coincidence, i.e. accidentily. Unintelligent “nature” figured out a
way. To use the words from the artice above. Details remain sketchy, vague and everchanging, especially when you want to address something specific
that doesn't support that overarching notion and points very clearly to the alternate conclusion that it was created and engineered by at least 1
individual with the logically required knowledge, intelligence, foresight and technological know-how to produce the interdependent replicating
machinery and technology that we are observing in all living organisms as opposed to snowflakes that some people like to bring into the discussion as
if it's the same type of complexity that we're talking about here (watch till 3:36):
*: from earlier about stormcell's comment, I just mentioned that so nobody thinks I didn't notice he wasn't talking about "the simplest organism" in
general, I'm zooming in on what he decided to call "simple" because it relates to what MichiganSwampBuck said and what makes evolutionary
ideas/philosophies, such as the one MSB aptly described as an "idea", sound more plausible and reasonable to him and many others. The thing is that
"ideas/philosophies", no matter how well constructed for marketing purposes with a fancy convincing story that makes one want to buy into it, are not
evidence for the storyline based on how they sound to a target audience that is conveniently ignoring the details; such as what kind of changes are we
actually observing in the fields such as mutation research and mutation breeding, and what is the general trend, the direction (relating to this idea
from "simple" to "more complex" described by MSB). FYI, the general direction or trend of genetic mutations is quite obvious from the research, but
not spoken of very often because it contradicts this "simple" to "more complex" idea (so there are various tricks used to distract from the issue
here, being vague about which trend is observed in mutation research, or which trend is required to be observed for evolutionary storylines that talk
about unicellular organisms evolving into multicellular organisms that are "relatively more complex" such as going from amoeba to humans, or a smaller
step in that process, to be deemed more plausible or reasonable to those who care about the actual evidence, the facts; the latter trick is often used
by arguing that 'evolution has no direction' as if it has no logical requirements in that respects and if any kind of change will do for the
underlying evolutionary storylines that are implied with the word "evolution", see an example below).
Btw, the earlier mentioned evolutionary storyline concerning “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis” is one of many variations of the overarching
evolutionary storyline that unintelligent “nature” figured out a way to evolve prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells without the need for the processes
of creating and engineering to explain their emergence on the scene (also in terms of chronological evolutionary order of appearance, if that's a good
way to keep it short, some people claim for example that both eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells evolved simultaneously, or the other way around as in
the storyline described in the article; in those variant storylines, then it doesn't seem to matter anymore which organism is "relatively more
complex" and to hold to the "simple" > "more complex" direction for evolutionary progress described by MichiganSwampBuck that was originally supposed
to make it all sound more plausible, they simply switch to the 'evolution has no direction' argument someone here might have heard a variation of
before; vagueness rules supreme in some circles).
edit on 13-9-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)
Oh my god, that is it, you have debunked evolution with highschool math, amazing!! Those Evolutionary Biologists never thought to look at evolution
through a statistical and probablistic lens.
Lets get to the crutch of the issue, please for all of us simple college graduates, go through the math that has lead you to this profound
understanding. Show us via mathamatical formula how you derived evolution to be near impossible.
And then finally use the math you are so keen on to derive an alternate theory, perhaps show us the probability of a divine creator.
Lastly please provide us your educational background, someone who has debunked evolution must have several degrees in math and biology. I would hate
for you to be simply a religous highschool diploma holder.
Blued eyed people exist because when that ONE mutation showed up, people decided to breed it like crazy.
My question is how did any lower level make the decision? Plants can't pick who to pollinate.
Its hard to explain to those who live inside a book, but one mutation has to out breed the non mutated life forms to replace it. One mutation isn't
going to survive without intelligent decision by the species. Mutations aren't infections, they have to be bred and passed down in a way that simply
can't happen without intelligence.
Some animals are camouflaged in their surroundings, which means every color of that animal existed at one time, red, purple, yellow blue. And only
the brown one survived the predators. This is starting with everything and removing information. Evolution theory says the opposite, started with
nothing and added information. If you can overlook that you're not worth arguing with.
Butterfly with eyes/face design on its wings. The butterfly with the boobies, the smiley face, the peace sign the dollar symbol etc etc must have
existed also,and that information was removed. ONE mutation wouldn't populate the entire region without some type of intelligence/choice. You cant
have choice when you start from nothing. We can go all the way back to bacteria and see that intelligence, independent of a brain. We can see
necessary symbiotic relationships between 2 life forms who supposedly evolved from each other. Its almost like they seperated in two: Subtraction of
information, not addition. Everything is a subtraction from the All. It shouldn't take Sunday school brainwashing to get this point acrossed.
Its almost like you've all forgotten how a tan works. Use it or lose it. Meaning it was already there. You cant build up, there is no such thing as
a tan variable, only paleness is a variable. It doesn't take millions of billions of years to lose it. You lose it when you don't use it. Which is
why we have the dumbest population in human history.
edit on 13-9-2018 by Prene because: (no reason given)
I hate to burst your bubble, but your entire argument is built on faulty premises, and you are wrong. I'm at work so I don't have time to get into it
right now, but if nobody else has done so by the time i get home then I will gladly explain the various ways that you are wrong!
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.