Could the 'eye' and other complex organs have evolved from random mutation?

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
its easy to see evolution occur in small leaps in the type of time frame human minds easily comprehend. For example bacteria evolve resistance to drugs, to the point where they actually have specialized protiens in their cell walls that detect and pump out certain drugs. Now this is a complicated protien we are talking about with no purpose except to fight drugs, chemicals that 30 years ago didn't even exist, so obviously we are talking evolution here. The problem comes in expanding the small changes that can happen in a few years out to hundreds of millions of years. Peopls minds just find such lengths of time hard to grasp. And therefore it hard to understand how a very comlicated thing like an eye (obviously much more ocmplicated than a single protein) can develop.

Yes, very interesting, but doesn't it seem as though this is a directed process? I mean, it seems rather unlikely that random mutations within the last 30 years just happened to allow these bacteria to form the complicated proteins to fight off drugs

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: BrownTown
its easy to see evolution occur in small leaps in the type of time frame human minds easily comprehend. For example bacteria evolve resistance to drugs, to the point where they actually have specialized protiens in their cell walls that detect and pump out certain drugs. Now this is a complicated protien we are talking about with no purpose except to fight drugs, chemicals that 30 years ago didn't even exist, so obviously we are talking evolution here. The problem comes in expanding the small changes that can happen in a few years out to hundreds of millions of years. Peopls minds just find such lengths of time hard to grasp. And therefore it hard to understand how a very comlicated thing like an eye (obviously much more ocmplicated than a single protein) can develop.

Yes, very interesting, but doesn't it seem as though this is a directed process? I mean, it seems rather unlikely that random mutations within the last 30 years just happened to allow these bacteria to form the complicated proteins to fight off drugs

To my knowledge, efflux pumps aren't that new in an evolutionary sense. They'll mutate to be more specific to the antibiotic in question. Happens all the time, even human cancer cells do it.

Some genes are called "new" when they are actually "newly discovered."

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: BrownTown
its easy to see evolution occur in small leaps in the type of time frame human minds easily comprehend. For example bacteria evolve resistance to drugs, to the point where they actually have specialized protiens in their cell walls that detect and pump out certain drugs. Now this is a complicated protien we are talking about with no purpose except to fight drugs, chemicals that 30 years ago didn't even exist, so obviously we are talking evolution here. The problem comes in expanding the small changes that can happen in a few years out to hundreds of millions of years. Peopls minds just find such lengths of time hard to grasp. And therefore it hard to understand how a very comlicated thing like an eye (obviously much more ocmplicated than a single protein) can develop.

Yes, very interesting, but doesn't it seem as though this is a directed process? I mean, it seems rather unlikely that random mutations within the last 30 years just happened to allow these bacteria to form the complicated proteins to fight off drugs

You have to understand the principle of "selective pressure". Random mutations are necessary, but the changes within the population are not.

For example, let's take drug resistance.

A population of 1'000'000 bacteria is exposed an antibiotic. The antibiotic disables the enzyme that supports the bacterial cytoskeleton. This antibiotic is so strong, that it will kill 99% of the bacteria in 30 minutes. However, due to random mutation, there is a small population of 100 bacteria (that came from 1) in the population, whose enzyme is 10X more resistant to the antibiotic. If the generation time for the bacteria is 30 minutes, then this is what would happen in the next few hours, assuming the antibiotic halflife is 30 minutes as well.

Minutes Resistant Bacteria Labile Bacteria Total Enzyme Activity Percentage of Resistant Bacteria
0_____100 999900 1000000 100.00% 0.01%
30____20 19998 20018 50.00% 0.10%
60____8 800 808 25.00% 0.99%
90____6 64 70 12.50% 9.09%
120___10 10 20 6.25% 50.00%
150___33 3 36 3.13% 90.91%
180___210 2 212 1.56% 99.01%
210___2684 3 2687 0.78% 99.90%
240___68719 7 68726 0.39% 99.99%
270___3518437 35 3518472 0.20% 100.00%

As you can see, in under 5 hours 100% of the bacteria are now resistant... and all it took was 1 mutation.

 

[DealMonkey]

Oh jesus, the complex eye thing again. *Sigh* When will the ID proponents learn that their "theory" really isn't a theory at all, rather it's a hypothesis? Totally untestable and with a complete lack of evidence to support it. And for the record, it *is* ignorant to misrepresent the ID/Creationist platform as scientific theory. It shows a complete misunderstanding of what science is all about. Religion has always tried to serve as "understanding" where there is no science to explain something ... only as our scientific knowlege grows and sharpens, there is less need for religion to explain things. The more we plug the holes in our collective knowledge, the more trying to explain something via religious beliefs just looks downright pathetic.

 

[themusgrat]

I for one am a Christian, and I don't see how evolution has ever been proven. You guys act like it has, but there are too many missing elements of almost every point for it to be "proven." I know that evolution did not get us here. That is not to say that we could not evolve, because as our minds get smarter, one would think that our bodies would very gradually change to fit them. But the only thing scientists have proven is that evolution is possible according to our present knowledge of the universe, which is next to nothing. So I see how people believe in evolution, but nobody has ever proven that we came from tha process. It has been crammed down our throats so long that people actually believe it. And for those of you who think that Creation should be taken "metaphorically," you are in the very small part of Christians who are active and think that.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
I for one am a Christian, and I don't see how evolution has ever been proven. You guys act like it has, but there are too many missing elements of almost every point for it to be "proven." I know that evolution did not get us here. That is not to say that we could not evolve, because as our minds get smarter, one would think that our bodies would very gradually change to fit them. But the only thing scientists have proven is that evolution is possible according to our present knowledge of the universe, which is next to nothing. So I see how people believe in evolution, but nobody has ever proven that we came from tha process. It has been crammed down our throats so long that people actually believe it. And for those of you who think that Creation should be taken "metaphorically," you are in the very small part of Christians who are active and think that.

That's cause you're blind... or maybe because you lack the formal education... not in biology, but in logic and science in general.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
That's cause you're blind... or maybe because you lack the formal education... not in biology, but in logic and science in general.

You're lecturing someone on their use of logic? Gimme a break. :roll:

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
That's cause you're blind... or maybe because you lack the formal education... not in biology, but in logic and science in general.

You're lecturing someone on their use of logic? Gimme a break. :roll:

You can't refute it. Give it a rest. Minds of hundreds of thousands of scientists have worked on this for years, and so far not a single experiment has shown the theory of evolution to be false.

You're wasting your time. If you want to prove evolution false, get a degree, get into a lab, and start working. When you publish a peer-reviewed paper that refutes any of the major tenets of evolution, I'll listen to you.

For now, all I see you doing is recruiting for the Church. For all your rhetoric, your side has not a single fact to support your assumptions, only faith. So you resort to attacking me personally, when you cannot attack my mountain of evidence.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
You can't refute it. Give it a rest. Minds of hundreds of thousands of scientists have worked on this for years, and so far not a single experiment has shown the theory of evolution to be false.

You're wasting your time. If you want to prove evolution false, get a degree, get into a lab, and start working. When you publish a peer-reviewed paper that refutes any of the major tenets of evolution, I'll listen to you.

For now, all I see you doing is recruiting for the Church. For all your rhetoric, your side has not a single fact to support your assumptions, only faith. So you resort to attacking me personally, when you cannot attack my mountain of evidence.

This is exactly why I just said YOU should not be correcting anyone else here on their logic. Why can I state this so definitively? Because I have never once in this thread stated that evolution is untrue, that it should be held in doubt, or that I don't believe in it. Nor have I stated that I do believe in it, that it is true, or that anyone should believe it. Your entire post is a combination strawman/ad hominem. You don't even know what my personal stance is on the subject, yet you're more than willing to fabricate one for me, then attack it, then attack me, then attack my religion based on that strawman. Do you have any idea how ridiculous this is? Almost as ridiculous as you telling me to get a degree and work in a lab, since I'd wager I have more degrees and more lab experience than yourself.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
I for one am a Christian, and I don't see how evolution has ever been proven. You guys act like it has, but there are too many missing elements of almost every point for it to be "proven." I know that evolution did not get us here. That is not to say that we could not evolve, because as our minds get smarter, one would think that our bodies would very gradually change to fit them. But the only thing scientists have proven is that evolution is possible according to our present knowledge of the universe, which is next to nothing. So I see how people believe in evolution, but nobody has ever proven that we came from tha process. It has been crammed down our throats so long that people actually believe it. And for those of you who think that Creation should be taken "metaphorically," you are in the very small part of Christians who are active and think that.

There's a mountain of evidence supporting evolutionary theory if you ever bothered to stop and go research it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You don't even know what my personal stance is on the subject...

I know what your personal stance is: You view evolution as a credible scientific theory, yet you feel the process (i.e. evolution) was started/guided by a higher being.

 

[judasmachine]

Did God Evolve From Nothing?

we ask this question as if the earth were the only rock in the universe. the odds are that it happened at least once in the billions and billions of star systems. earth is just a grain of sand on an infinate beach. i say yes it could have evolved from virtually nothing, as the possibilities in this incredibly huge universe say that it had to happen somewhere. this makes as much sense to me as something else making us, and to that diety i ask, where did you come from?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You don't even know what my personal stance is on the subject...

I know what your personal stance is: You view evolution as a credible scientific theory, yet you feel the process (i.e. evolution) was started/guided by a higher being.

Not really, but close.

 

[M00T]

Oh jeez, another ID thread? Jeebus would be proud.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
You're not the bad guy at all, we just have a difference of opinion. To say that I "disparage everyone else" and "neglect humility" is slander. I'm not disparaging ANYBODY; stating my personal opinion is not disparaging at all. It's not my fault that you or anybody else can't just accept my views without feeling I'm attacking them. There is no nice way to tell a religious person that you believe what they believe isn't true, is there?

Edit: Real disparaging would be me calling religious people stupid, brainwashed and ignorant for believing in god, but I'm not saying anything even remotely like that (because I don't believe that -- AT ALL).

You stated how obvious it was to you that the basis of most religions is false. How is that not disparaging? You essentially are stating that everyone who might believe these obvious lies is ignorant, stupid, or brainwashed. You just prettied it up a little.

And I ask you again, how can I tell a religious person I don't believe what they believe is true without what you call "disparagement?"

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

One side says that since we don't understand it now it has to have been guided by the hand of God. The other side assumes that we will eventually figure it out since we have already figured out many things which were previously a mystery to us. Who is more arrogant?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ntdz
And I ask you again, how can I tell a religious person I don't believe what they believe is true without what you call "disparagement?"

There's a difference between saying you disagree with something and stating that it's obviously false. It's like me saying someone's a little slow or calling them a complete retard. Maybe tact is the word I'm looking for?

 

[blahblah99]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
No, I don't have a theory about how life began, because I just don't know. And neither do religious people. However, they chose to believe theories which flat out aren't supported by any facts...

Evolution was never designed to explain how life started, it only explains how it changes. You keep acting like I use evolution to explain how life started, and I just don't. Until I see some evidence, I'll just admit I don't know. I can do that, I don't think religious people can.

No, you keep acting like intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive. That, and you insist on waving your generalizations around like a weapon, trying to throw all religious people under one umbrella. I guess that facilitates your argument, since you don't have to address any particular issues that way. :roll:

Religion was created to answer questions that science have not explained. It gives religious people a reason to live, to perform their day in/out activities. As a result of that, religion helps keep world order.

Religion has its deep roots, but only because science and technology wasn't available back then to provide factual proof to the answers of the fundamental questions of life, mainly "Why are we here, and how did we get here?".

Now that science and technology is progressing, we are are to fill in the "gaps" in the evolutionary tree that were once unknown.

One side says that since we don't understand it now it has to have been guided by the hand of God. The other side assumes that we will eventually figure it out since we have already figured out many things which were previously a mystery to us. Who is more arrogant?

At least the "other side" can provide factual, repeatable, and documentable scientific proof instead of using rhetorics.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You don't even know what my personal stance is on the subject...

I know what your personal stance is: You view evolution as a credible scientific theory, yet you feel the process (i.e. evolution) was started/guided by a higher being.

Not really, but close.

Care to elaborate?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
I for one am a Christian, and I don't see how evolution has ever been proven. You guys act like it has, but there are too many missing elements of almost every point for it to be "proven." I know that evolution did not get us here. That is not to say that we could not evolve, because as our minds get smarter, one would think that our bodies would very gradually change to fit them. But the only thing scientists have proven is that evolution is possible according to our present knowledge of the universe, which is next to nothing. So I see how people believe in evolution, but nobody has ever proven that we came from tha process. It has been crammed down our throats so long that people actually believe it. And for those of you who think that Creation should be taken "metaphorically," you are in the very small part of Christians who are active and think that.

There aren't any major holes in evolution, or else you would think the millions of scientists in this world would have noticed. Also, you can't logically deny evolution considering the fact that we have observed it happening.

As to the evolution of any complex organ we need to remember that it didn't happen all in one step. We also need to remember that with the trillions upon trillions upon trillians [etc...] of mutations that have occured since the first primitive life forms came into existence.

The ONLY thing even partially logical with creationism is that we can't accurately explain how the first life forms came into existence. However, neither can creationism. There are infinite logical explanations for the creation of life however only one is correct. Therefore creationism has absolutely no merit because while it may seem to "make sense" that life is too complex to evolve naturally, this claim has no scientific support and can't be taken seriously.

Btw, anybody who seriously thinks the earth is 6000 years old needs to go back to grade school.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: blahblah99
Religion was created to answer questions that science have not explained. It gives religious people a reason to live, to perform their day in/out activities. As a result of that, religion helps keep world order.

Religion has its deep roots, but only because science and technology wasn't available back then to provide factual proof to the answers of the fundamental questions of life, mainly "Why are we here, and how did we get here?".

Now that science and technology is progressing, we are are to fill in the "gaps" in the evolutionary tree that were once unknown.

That's one theory... That has already been rehashed at least 4-5 times in this thread. I have a different one that I've already stated.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Care to elaborate?

No, as it would add nothing of substance to the discussion.

 

[ntdz]

To all the religious people out there...Who/what created God? Did he create himself? Did another higher being create him? Did he come from nothing? (if he did, then why couldn't life have come from non life?)

That's a question not even religion answers.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ntdz
To all the religious people out there...Who/what created God? Did he create himself? Did another higher being create him? Did he come from nothing? (if he did, then why couldn't life have come from non life?)

That's a question not even religion answers.

How is that relevant to this discussion?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
To all the religious people out there...Who/what created God? Did he create himself? Did another higher being create him? Did he come from nothing? (if he did, then why couldn't life have come from non life?)

That's a question not even religion answers.

How is that relevant to this discussion?

What does religion have to do with random mutations and the eye?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ntdz
What does religion have to do with random mutations and the eye?

Nothing. Have I implied that it has any relevance? Don't think so.