Problems I have with evolution

a reply to: kcgads

There are only so many possible evolutionary developments. Naturally, they will repeat every now and then. That doesn't mean that evolution has a purpose though.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: kcgads

There are only so many possible evolutionary developments. Naturally, they will repeat every now and then. That doesn't mean that evolution has a purpose though.

It looks like it has a purpose to me.

It is obvious. It seemed obvious for most of history to most people. Do you think they were all wrong? It's only in the past 150 years that people have thought that it's all purposeless.

a reply to: kcgads

And you justify your claims with... what, exactly? Incredulity? Don't be surprised if you don't win over many people with this sloppy line of thinking.

originally posted by: kcgads

It looks like

It is obvious

It seem[s]

To you. The evidence suggests otherwise.

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: kcgads

There are only so many possible evolutionary developments. Naturally, they will repeat every now and then. That doesn't mean that evolution has a purpose though.

It looks like it has a purpose to me.

It is obvious. It seemed obvious for most of history to most people. Do you think they were all wrong? It's only in the past 150 years that people have thought that it's all purposeless.

Obvious doesn't mean it is true though. You actually have to produce evidence to back up "obvious". It's obvious that if I drop a pencil off the top of a building that it will fall to the planet's surface, but that isn't really what is happening. What is happening is that at the same time that the planet is pulling the pencil to it with its own gravity, the pencil is pulling the planet to it with its own gravity (that force though isn't strong enough to overcome the planet's velocity and direction though).

a reply to: GetHyped

Some of the evidence suggests mutations are predictable.

www.nytimes.com...

"The hyperswarmers emerged in three lines of bacteria overseen by Dr. Xavier’s post-doctoral researcher Dave van Ditmarsch. Dr. Xavier and another lab member, Jen Oyler, each ran the experiment again. “I wanted to make sure this wasn’t just due to Dave’s magic fingers,” said Dr. Xavier.

But no matter who applied their fingers to the task, the result was the same. Out of 27 lines of bacteria, 27 evolved into hyperswarmers."

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: kcgads

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: kcgads

There are only so many possible evolutionary developments. Naturally, they will repeat every now and then. That doesn't mean that evolution has a purpose though.

It looks like it has a purpose to me.

It is obvious. It seemed obvious for most of history to most people. Do you think they were all wrong? It's only in the past 150 years that people have thought that it's all purposeless.

Obvious doesn't mean it is true though. You actually have to produce evidence to back up "obvious". It's obvious that if I drop a pencil off the top of a building that it will fall to the planet's surface, but that isn't really what is happening. What is happening is that at the same time that the planet is pulling the pencil to it with its own gravity, the pencil is pulling the planet to it with its own gravity (that force though isn't strong enough to overcome the planet's velocity and direction though).

www.nature.com...

"the new study, published online today in Public Library of Science Biology5, Doebeli and colleague Matthew Herron, also at UBC, went back to the frozen samples from three of their test tubes and sequenced 17 gene samples from various stages of the experiment. The DNA showed that in some cases identical mutations appeared independently in all three test tubes: despite the random nature of mutations, the same changes in the environment favoured the same genetic solutions."

a reply to: kcgads

Did you actually read and understand the article? Because it doesn't reach the conclusion you think it does. It wasn't that EVERY generation evolved the double tails, but some would (and would then go on to dominate the culture because it poses an obvious advantage). This is clear evidence of why convergent evolution occurs.

a reply to: GetHyped

There are many experiments that show the predictability of mutations. I showed a couple of them in previous posts.

a reply to: kcgads

WHat exactly is so "purposeful" about a particular genetic mutation that offers an organism a distinct advantage occurring with frequency? It's pretty obvious why that particular trait would be selected by the environment (clue: the rest of the organisms die or get pushed out).

originally posted by: kcgads

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.

Then how come everything that developed before the ELAs and were subsequently wiped out, haven't yet reappeared In the folowing 230 million years?

If what your putting forward was actually true, you'd expect a few surely?

"Though separated by 300 million years of evolution, these diverse insects — which include beetles, butterflies and aphids — experienced changes to a key protein called sodium-potassium adenosine triphosphatase, or the sodium-potassium pump, which regulates a cell's crucial sodium-to-potassium ratio. The protein in these insects eventually evolved a resistance to cardenolides, which usually cripple the protein's ability to "pump" potassium into cells and excess sodium out."

www.princeton.edu...

An organism always evolves what it needs to survive.

a reply to: kcgads

Do you even read your own links? It would appear that your "problems [you have] with evolution" stem from your lack of understanding of it:

Jianzhi Zhang, a University of Michigan professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, said that the Princeton-based study shows that certain traits have a limited number of molecular mechanisms, and that numerous, distinct species can share the few mechanisms there are. As a result, it is likely that a cross-section of certain organisms can provide insight into the development of other creatures, he said.

"The finding of parallel evolution in not two, but numerous herbivorous insects increases the significance of the study because such frequent parallelism is extremely unlikely to have happened simply by chance," said Zhang, who is familiar with the study but had no role in it.

"It shows that a common molecular mechanism is used by many different insects to defend themselves against the toxins in their food, suggesting that perhaps the number of potential mechanisms for achieving this goal is very limited," he said. "That many different insects independently evolved the same molecular tricks to defend themselves against the same toxin suggests that studying a small number of well-chosen model organisms can teach us a lot about other species. Yes, evolution is predictable to a certain degree."

a reply to: GetHyped

I don't understand your question. I am just trying to show that when an organism needs a particular mutation, it GETS it. Unnessessary organisms that don't have a purpose anymore die out.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Why would you expect them to come back? They served their purpose,and were no longer needed.

a reply to: kcgads

You should really forget what you think you know about evolution and start learning from scratch because the gaping holes in your understanding are leading you to faulty and illogical conclusions. This is a good starting point:

evolution.berkeley.edu...

a reply to: kcgads

Have you already abandoned what you said in your OP?

Are you a Creationist?

a reply to: Prezbo369

There's one box left to tick:

Grave misconceptions about evolution: ☑
Unwillingness to understand evolution: ☐

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Ghost147

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

No, you're wrong.

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.