Problems I have with evolution

I believe there is a natural order to evolution. It seems apparent to me. I think some forms are ideal forms,and nature always finds a way to create them. Like convergence. How else can there be marsupial dogs as well as placental dogs? Same with flying squirrels and sabre toothed cats. They evolve different ways to get to the same end.

Also, in experiments, sometimes repeated experiments get the same results, as in a new bacteria evolving to process a certain sugar, or an ecoli evolving multiple tails to swim faster. The experiments show the same evolution again and again.

I also wanted to point out how odd it is for organs like the eye to form. You have to go through many stages,and just the right part always evolves just where it needs to be. And for the human like eye to evolve seperately dozens of time is incredible too.

a reply to: kcgads

originally posted by: kcgads
I believe there is a natural order to evolution. It seems apparent to me. I think some forms are ideal forms,and nature always finds a way to create them. Like convergence. How else can there be marsupial dogs as well as placental dogs? Same with flying squirrels and sabre toothed cats. They evolve different ways to get to the same end.

Not a natural order as such. Evolution is not a ladder, but more a branching tree.

We see convergence because living things are shaped by their environment. When a creature fills the same ecological niche as another creature, the environmental pressures (which contribute to evolution) are basically the same, and these give rise to similar morphology.

I also wanted to point out how odd it is for organs like the eye to form. You have to go through many stages,and just the right part always evolves just where it needs to be. And for the human like eye to evolve seperately dozens of time is incredible too.

This is basically the argument from personal incredulity. See www.talkorigins.org... for a rebuttal.

a reply to: kcgads

I'm afraid you're looking at the concept at the wrong angle. You're only looking at what you believe is the end solution of a particular mutation, when in actuality, everything is a transitional stage of whatever the next mutation is.

For instance, let's take a mud skippers (subfamily of Oxudercinae).



They're able to momentarily be out of water thanks to some particular adaptations. Take a look at their pectoral fins:



See how bent they are? That adaptation (among some others) is why they are able to climb out of the water. Now, at looking at this right now, we see a fully formed mutation. If we were to look several thousand/million years from now they would likely be totally different.

This is due to natural selection and reproduction with variation. Minute mutations come from reproduction with variation, and the mutations that tend to stick with the population of a species exist due to natural selection. Basically, if that minute mutation assists the survivability of a population, it continues to exist because the individuals who carry that mutation live long enough to reproduce.

Now, if we see some species who appear to have stayed in a relatively similar formation for millions of years (Sharks or Crocodiles for example), that's simply because the particular mutations they developed are incredibly valuable adaptions. They tend to do well in a lot of environments, they don't specialize in a particular food group, and they have very few predators. So they excelled the realm of survivability.

The thing is, particular adaptations are more frequent for a number of reasons. They are relatively simple in respect to how long it would have taken to evolve that particular adaptation, and they are flexible enough to withstand a decent amount of change within their environments.

I know you brought up eyes, but it's not as if there is only one kind of eye.



Eyes come in all different colors and shapes, and each one of them within different species have evolved even further to help out with whatever that species is adapting to do.

If you have anymore questions, feel free to ask!

a reply to: kcgads

I must agree with you. Just watch the Lloyd Pye - Human Genetics video this week. Quite stunning chaps this clever little DNA we got.

a reply to: kcgads

So what is your problem with evolution exactly?

You seem to pretty much acknowledge it despite not fully understanding why it works.

The ideal forms you talk about correspond to the evolutionary path where life becomes the most efficient, using the least energy to get the best returns. It doesn't necessarily mean that the ideal forms were intelligently designed (though it's possible too); only that what you see today is the result of billions of years of trials and errors.

I'm a theist but I don't deny intelligence isn't necessary for evolution to create ideal forms.

a reply to: kcgads

It is because the Spirit evolves our awareness, that is, evolution is the evolution of our awareness of our will/desire/spirit/force(s).

Our awareness/perceptions/psyches, are the conceptions of our spirits into our images/bodies. That is, we see, perceive, or conceptualize our will/spirit/forces as images - like these words are the image of my awareness of my will, where my will is to have you conceive my awareness [of the Spirit], and your post was the image of your awareness of your will to conceive the spirit of convergence.

Reproduction, in all forms, is of awareness/conception [of the spirit]. You are the image of your parents conception [of the spirit that was in them when they became one]; after the similitude of what is good or godly or their love or their will and desire.

Like God is One and God is love... Awareness/Father, Body/Son, Spirit/Holy Ghost.

Father breathed out/conceived his awareness as the Son(his image), and the image guides/shepherds you to Father (the awareness of the Spirit) for spiritual enlightenment. The Son is the Word, the image of Father, and the Father conceives the Spirit, he breathes it out into the body, the Words, the see/seeds that we receive.

Think about it like how an artist will draw/image his concepts and his concepts (his conceptualizations) are of his desires/will/his mood/his spirit.

The more you fine tune your conception of your will/spirit, the better the images become - the better the artist you become - the more you evolve towards reproducing your awareness of your will.

And it is in that same way that the giraffe's neck grew (evolved), or a trapdoor spider made his home...



(trapdoor spider on the right) The spider and man both converged onto the awareness of the same spirit/will for a secured entryway/door - they both imaged/conceived the same spirit in the same way.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Well, that was beyond difficult to read.

You're confusing "Evolve" with the term "Evolve". You see the term "Evolution" in the sense that the OP was referring to is Biological Evolution. Where as you are using the term incorrectly, when you interchange it with the other meaning behind the word "Evolve": any process of formation or growth.

Biological Evolution has nothing to do with Spirits, Will, Desire, Force, Awareness, Perceptions, or Psyches; It is simply the phenomenon in all natural life when there are changes in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. Nothing else.

There is no literal or metaphorical spirit behind such things as your trapdoor spider example. The man who built an additional storage space, and the Ctenizidae family have no commonalities. The Ctenizidae had biologically evolved this behavioral trait primarily for food and shelter. Their entire lives revolve around this natural conduct as they have adapted both physically and behaviorally.

It's not as though the all of the subspecies within the Ctenizidae family have suddenly all decided to do this action, it came about through several million years of biological evolution.

a reply to: Ghost147

Yeah... your idea of evolution is wrong and I didn't care to pander to the science minded.

Read it like this:

The "forces" change (environment changes) and so the interpretation changes (gene expression changes). The image of the interpretation, the image of gene expression, is the body.

What you are saying is that bodies change because forces change, but in doing so, you are not giving any credit to expression, interpretation, or awareness - which is the truth of evolution.

Evolution is the passing on of knowledge from one to another, from parents to offspring. It is the very act of reproduction - like my words to you. You take in my words, so as to reproduce my awareness -- because my awareness of how to image, how to see, the spirit (the forces) is good.

Also, seek God.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
What you are saying is that bodies change because forces change, but in doing so, you are not giving any credit to expression, interpretation, or awareness - which is the truth of evolution.

None of these things are necessary for evolution. For example they are not present in micro-organisms yet they do evolve.


It's true that in humans evolution now also includes a mental component but it's not the core of the evolution process.

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.

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 least their images be similar to our own?

Is that not basic logic and of the topic?

I don't think virii or bacteria have a "mind" and think you are guilty of anthropomorphism but maybe I'm wrong

a reply to: Bleeeeep
What are you smoking and where can I get some?
2nd

a reply to: JUhrman

And I don't think you have spiritual awareness, but maybe I'm wrong?

Yet still, why would I think that? Because you do not image after the similitude of what I image - because, in you, I do not see my own understanding - you do not have the same awareness as me.

Apply that to your own response.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: JUhrman

And I don't think you have spiritual awareness, but maybe I'm wrong?

You probably are.

I am a theist and I don't mix evolution and spirituality since they are concerning different realities.

a reply to: kcgads

A natural order? Is that after or before the multiple extinction level events that have occurred?

Life finds a way (Dr Malcolm ftw) with what it's got infront of it.

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: kcgads

So what is your problem with evolution exactly?

You seem to pretty much acknowledge it despite not fully understanding why it works.

The ideal forms you talk about correspond to the evolutionary path where life becomes the most efficient, using the least energy to get the best returns. It doesn't necessarily mean that the ideal forms were intelligently designed (though it's possible too); only that what you see today is the result of billions of years of trials and errors.

I'm a theist but I don't deny intelligence isn't necessary for evolution to create ideal forms.

I don't think they were intelligently designed. I think they are inherent in nature.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: kcgads

A natural order? Is that after or before the multiple extinction level events that have occurred?

Life finds a way (Dr Malcolm ftw) with what it's got infront of it.

The natural order is in spite of the mass extinctions. Order reasserts itself.

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.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Convergence to adapt to environments makes sense. Nearly identical creatures does not. You can barely distinguish between the skull of a marsupial dog and a placental one.