Was It Designed?

reply to post by Quadrivium


We have been desensitized by the proof because it is all around us!

-God: In Futurama Episode: Godfellas
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

God in Futurama
www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbinE6bx8xM
www.youtube.com...



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfellas
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

WHY, if natural selection is a natural process whereby biological traits become more or less common as a function of better survival and/or reproduction.....why do some organisms evolve and others don't?

I think it's an interesting question. Lets take the cockroach who have fossil records going back 300 million years according to Wikipedia. These are more "cockroach like" fossils, but as an example, it should do. I think the short answer is "if its not broken, don't fix it". In other words, there is no reason to change if you are surviving just fine with what you got. one of their successful traits is that they have the ability to "evolve" or adapt quickly.

A killer product stopped working. Cockroach populations there kept rising. Mystified researchers tested and discarded theory after theory until they finally hit on the explanation: In a remarkably rapid display of evolution at work, many of the cockroaches had lost their sweet tooth, rejecting the corn syrup meant to attract them.

www.cbsnews.com...

So why would they need to grow a big brain or some other "advanced" trait? They are successful simply because they are able to reproduce with enough variation to rapidly adapt to a rapidly changing environment.

Humans, on the other hand, developed a big brain so they could say to other humans "don't eat the sweet stuff, it's poisoned."

Same outcome different strategies.

And again, why does evolution and/or natural selection fail for some organisms and succeed for others?

I'm not sure what you mean by "fail". I think going extinct is failure and surviving is success. Are you saying that something that hasn't "evolved" has failed?

PhotonEffect
That's the whole point, isn't it? None of it is by accident. It's all fairly deliberate and cohesive.

My argument in previous threads supporting design in nature is that it all adheres to 3 simple attributes:

*Form
*Function
*Purpose

I think the significance of the 3 attributes is far greater than you realize.

Purpose = Mind = Father
Function = Will = Holy Ghost
Form = Body = Son

It is the Trinity.

The forms we see are images of the minds which bore them. That is, physical reality seems to be mental images/formed by mind.

1 Corinthians 15:49

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Today's focus is on the images, or forms, but they should be focusing on the minds and concepts. Body doesn't create mind, mind creates body. The Son, and all of creation, are the images.

Colossians 1:12-19

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

Colossians 2:9-10

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

Using science, we reverse engineer reality. Reverse being the key word. We start with a body/form, move to its will/function, and then we postulate/guess its mind/purpose.

My point to all this is, science does not see purpose - it thinks there is no purpose, but purpose it the root cause of form. Purpose, or mind, is like will/spirit - it is unseen, but not unreal.

The significance of those three things is the basis of true reality - it is the root of all - the Trinity.

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Science doesn't always get it right either, nor is it completely devoid of its own agendas. But don't tell that to a scientist!

Why not? Every scientist knows and acknowledges these facts. The agenda of science is an empiricist agenda; it can't help but be.

Ah yes, (nature's) laws. In all of their complexity. Author unknown...

Say rather, in all their simplicity. Complexity arises from their interaction.

As for the author — they aren't that kind of law. Nobody commanded an electron to behave the way it does in a magnetic field, or an apple to fall in a gravitational one. That is simply what happens when the properties of those objects are acted upon by forces generated by those fields.

If the laws were different, we'd have a different kind of universe. Perhaps one that couldn't evolve or sustain life. There may be countless universes of that kind. Nobody would ever know.

DNA achieved the ability - through humans- to look back at itself and study itself. And to take that thought a step further. The universe created the DNA that allowed for it to look back and reflect on itself, through the human life form. An introspective universe of sorts...

Yes, I remember being pretty impressed by that insight myself when I first had it. But the very same scientific laws that brought it about prevent it from being very meaningful in the way you describe. Ignoring quantum entanglement, of which we understand little, information takes a very long time to travel interstellar distances. This fact quite precludes the possibility of a universe that is truly conscious or capable of action as a single entity.

There seems to be a lot of faith involved in your view of the world. Nothing wrong with that, but science can't operate on faith. It's one thing to say 'I believe the universe is conscious.' It's another to design an experiment to test that hypothesis. Science has its limits, and scientists are intelligent enough (most of the time) not to transgress them.

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

WHY, if natural selection is a natural process whereby biological traits become more or less common as a function of better survival and/or reproduction.....why do some organisms evolve and others don't?

Could you please give us an example of an organism that hasn't evolved?

reply to post by Astyanax

Good point. The coelacanth has been called a "living fossil" but I think when they took a closer look, they discovered that maybe it has evolved a little bit, so I don't think it proves evolution can "stop" as was suggested soon after its discovery. However it would suggest that rates of evolution can vary, as even after a closer look, I think what evolution it experienced has still been relatively slow.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


No I'm merely saying that of the existing species that we can observe today...that only represents a very very small fraction of the overall picture...In a way I'm simply asking why evolution allows for extinction....Rather than focus on ELE's, which also represent a very small fraction of extinctions...I'd like to focus on how evolution allows for extinctions if it is life's survival mechanism....Again, no agenda, nothing to push here...just a serious and honest question....I don't know the answer and the many people I have asked didn't have much to offer either, other than sheer speculation....

A2D

reply to post by Astyanax


Sorry should have been more concise with my wording...What I should have said is why does evolution "work" as a survival tool for some organisms while it seemingly "failed" as a survival mechanism for many other organisms....

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

I'd like to focus on how evolution allows for extinctions if it is life's survival mechanism

Evolution is not a survival mechanism. It is a process of change.
Extinctions can occur due to various factors. Change in climate. Loss of habitat. Invasive species (competition that didn't exist prior). Disease. Evolution cannot "allow" for such changes.

Extinctions generally occur in tightly knit ecologies, isolated populations.

reply to post by Phage


So Phage....why does evolution take place?

It is my understanding that every organism on the face of this planet whether at one point in time or currently STRUGGLES to survive. There is indeed competition. Natural selection explains that those organisms that are better adapted to their environment tend to survive and reproduce....Organisms adapt to their environment so that they can survive, this adaptation drives natural selection which drives evolution....Everything is intrinsically linked to SURVIVAL.

Where am I wrong?

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

So Phage....why does evolution take place?

Evolution occurs because living organisms mutate.

Organisms adapt to their environment so that they can survive

No. Organisms don't adapt to their environment. Organisms mutate.
Organisms don't mutate so they can survive.

Evolution can lead to extinction just as readily as it can lead to survival. For example evolution can lead to overspecialization, which is not a survival mechanism. It's a recipe for extinction.

Where am I wrong.

Maybe with the idea of linking "survival of the fittest" to evolution?

reply to post by Phage


So you fully acknowledge that you just stated "organisms do not adapt" to their environments? whaaaat?

Mind = Blown.

Please. That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. EVER. Even tops what I've heard creationists proclaim....

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

So you fully acknowledge that you just stated "organisms do not adapt" to their environments? whaaaat?

Yes. That is one part of what I said in response to your claim that, "Organisms adapt to their environment so that they can survive" but it is not all that I said.

Since you took that sentence out of context in favor of reading the whole paragraph, let me try again.

Organisms do not "adapt so they can survive." Organisms eat to survive.

Adaptation is a result of mutation. Mutation occurs because of the nature of the reproductive process, not in order to adapt. Some mutations can result in increased likelihood for reproduction and have nothing to do with environment or survival, some can have no effect, and some can have an adverse effect. Mutation, the driver of evolution, is not directed toward survival. Evolution is a process based on reproduction (better chance for reproduction=more of the same type of organism), on mutation. Adaptation is the result. It is not a goal. It is not an end.

Phage

Yes. That is one part of what I said in response to your claim that, "Organisms adapt to their environment so that they can survive" but it is not all that I said.

Since you took that sentence out of context in favor of reading the whole paragraph, let me try again.

Didn't take anything out of context friend. It's all right there for anyone to see. You clearly stated that organisms do not adapt to their environments. They mutate. Your statement is proven wrong on a daily basis.

Organism do not "adapt so they can survive." Organisms eat to survive.

Organisms do not adapt so they can survive? Really again? What happens when the environment doesn't allow the organism to eat? Said organism just stops trying and gives in to death? The meerkat's adaptive trait of "sentinel behavior" is a prime example of ADAPTING TO SURVIVE. In short, sentinel behavior(adaptive trait) benefits the lifetime reproductive success(survival) of the meerkat...

Adaptation is a result of mutation. Mutation occurs because of the nature of the reproductive process, not in order to adapt. Some mutations can result in increased likelihood for reproduction and have nothing to do with environment or survival, some can have no effect, and some can have an adverse effect. Mutation, the driver of evolution, is not directed toward survival. Evolution is a process based on reproduction. On mutation. Adaptation is the result. It is not a goal. It is not an end.

edit on 10/22/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Given our example of meerkats....is there any evidence whatsoever that depicts sentinel behavior as a result of a mutation?

Is there any reason to believe adaptation is a result of mutation and not simply an organisms response to a changing environment?

and lastly I'd like to comment that natural selection is the only known cause for adaptation, which in turn may cause evolution...but mutations and genetic drift ALSO can cause evolution....You have focused on mutations, which I understand are a part of the evolution model...but I'm speaking specifically about adaptation..

Do you deny that adaptation, without mutation, may cause evolution?

And again...I will emphasize this as much as possible...

Mutation> Genetic Variation> Natural selection> Adaptation> Evolution
Gene Flow>
Sex>

Say you take mutations out of the equation...you can still have genetic variation within a population...which means natural selection is still at work...which means evolution would still occur....To top it off, out of 100 mutations, something like 70% will be neutral, or atleast nearly neutral....out of the 30 mutations left...it would only take around 8 or so(6-10 is an acceptable estimate) deleterious mutations to push a cancer cell into malignant transformation....and while I understand it's difficult to assess whether a mutation is deleterious or beneficial because of varying environments, it would ONLY take 26% of any active mutations to be deleterious and we'd PROBABLY see some very sever consequences...

Today it's estimated that nearly 4000 diseases are caused by genetic mutations, including things such as heart disease, cancer, and neurological degeneration. If beneficial and deleterious mutations are on equal playing fields, should we not see a similar number of beneficial effects caused by genetic mutation?

A brief example if I must....

According to my friend Google, here are 10 unusual genetic mutations found in humans...

Progeria
Uner Tan Syndrome
Hypertrichosis
Epidermodysplasia Verruciformis
Severe Combined Immunodeficiency Disorder (SCID)
Lesch–Nyhan Syndrome
Ectrodactyly
Proteus Syndrome
Trimethylaminuria
Marfan Syndrome

Granted, these are extremely unusual and very rare, so they don't even begin to cover the actual magnitude of deleterious mutations....but...Do we even have documentation for more than 10 beneficial human mutations? I'd be curious to see them...(it'd also be pretty nice if we had the rarity of occurrence....)

A2D

side note: I'm not disputing evolution as a whole, from kind to kind, is fueled by genetic mutations...I'm disputing your outlandish claim that organisms do not adapt to their environment....

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

You clearly stated that organisms do not adapt to their environments.

No. I answered your statement "Organisms adapt to their environment so that they can survive". Organisms do not adapt so that they can survive. They adapt as a result of mutation.

What happens when the environment doesn't allow the organism to eat?

The organism dies.

Given our example of meerkats....is there any evidence whatsoever that depicts sentinel behavior as a result of a mutation?

Instinct is based in genetics, yes. It can also be enhanced by learning but learned behaviors are not inherited. Cats are natural hunters but it sure helps if their mom teaches them how to do it.

Is there any reason to believe adaptation is a result of mutation and not simply an organisms response to a changing environment?

Yes. Unless you are a follower of Lamarck. If I lift weights does it mean my son will have large muscles?

Say you take mutations out of the equation...you can still have genetic variation within a population...which means natural selection is still at work

This is true, though mutation generally leads to wider variation.

If beneficial and deleterious mutations are on equal playing fields, should we not see a similar number of beneficial effects caused by genetic mutation?

Who said they are equal? There are fewer beneficial mutations, like natural immunities to certain diseases, enhanced senses. Then there are ones that are sort of neutral like 6 fingers. Artistic ability, high intelligence, eidetic memory. All genetically based, all subject to mutation. This brings up the interesting question though, how much do these mutations (variations as well) influence the ability for humans to reproduce in the modern world?

Phage
Evolution is a process based on reproduction (better chance for reproduction=more of the same type of organism), on mutation. Adaptation is the result. It is not a goal. It is not an end.

In general I'd say this is correct, but taking a second look at it I personally actually *think* there are other factors at play, not only mutation.

I want to point out some more or less recent ideas, one of them morphogenetic fields.

Personally I believe there are other mechanisms at work which we don't even understand yet. I would have to re-read some recent books to cite properly, but I remember reading about experiments where animals (rats etc.) were trained and other lab animals in other parts of the country learned the same abilities even while they were physically separated from the 1st group of animals.

Another example would be bugs etc. which become resistant against certain pesticides where obviously mutation doesn't play a role either.

I firmly "believe" in evolution (evidence is everywhere we look!) but I always have/had a gripe with the idea of mutation as the essential factor for DNA changes, I cannot put my finger on it but something just doesn't seem right with that idea.

reply to post by NoRulesAllowed

I would have to re-read some recent books to cite properly, but I remember reading about experiments where animals (rats etc.) were trained and other lab animals in other parts of the country learned the same abilities even while they were physically separated from the 1st group of animals.

I'd like to hear more about that but I don't see what it has to do with evolution, unless the offspring of the trained animals demonstrated the learned behavior.

Another example would be bugs etc. which become resistant against certain pesticides where obviously mutation doesn't play a role either.

On the contrary. There are bugs which have a mutation which makes them resistant to pesticides. They survive being sprayed and pass that resistance on to their offspring. There was one resistant bug, bugs have lots of offspring, there are a lot of resistant bugs who also pass on their resitance. Works with microbes too.

Phage
They adapt as a result of mutation.

So you're claiming organisms cannot adapt unless there is first a genetic mutation? Still ridiculous.....

The organism dies.

Or it finds a new way to eat....which would likely be called "adaptation"....

Given our example of meerkats....is there any evidence whatsoever that depicts sentinel behavior as a result of a mutation?

Instinct is based in genetics, yes. It can also be enhanced by learning but learned behaviors are not inherited.

I'd like to see the evidence that links sentinel behavior with a particular genetic mutation...Now I realize that genetic mutations CAN affect behavior..however I still do not have the data to back up that particular position...

Who said they are equal? There are fewer beneficial mutations, like natural immunities to certain diseases, enhanced senses. Then there are ones that are sort of neutral like 6 fingers. Artistic ability, high intelligence, eidetic memory. All genetically based, all subject to mutation. This brings up the interesting question though, how much do these mutations (variations as well) influence the ability for humans to reproduce in the modern world?

edit on 10/23/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

No one said they were equal...which leads me to my next point of discussion...
With fewer beneficial than there are deleterious mutations, it would seem to reason that genetic mutations are a driving force behind death rather than life.

Been fun chatting with you Phage. It's always nice to have a little scholarly shuffle.

A2D

reply to post by Agree2Disagree

So you're claiming organisms cannot adapt unless there is first a genetic mutation? Still ridiculous.....

No. I'm saying that without mutation there is not evolution.

Or it finds a new way to eat....which would likely be called "adaptation"....

You said the environment doesn't allow the organism to eat. But that "new way to eat" would be a learned response and not passed on as a physical trait to the organism's offspring. It would not result in evolution.

I'd like to see the evidence that links sentinel behavior with a particular genetic mutation

I did not say it was solely a matter of genetics.

No one said they were equal...which leads me to my next point of discussion

You said this:

If beneficial and deleterious mutations are on equal playing fields, should we not see a similar number of beneficial effects caused by genetic mutation?

it would seem to reason that genetic mutations are a driving force behind death rather than life.

The majority of mutations are not advantageous to life but evolution is driven by reproduction, not life and death.