Stumped

FullOf..IT

Ok,

First off I think Religion as an establishment is morally wrong and is the root cause of a lot of the worlds wrongs.

I dont buy into creativism but do have 'faith' in the teachings of Jesus. **** thing is, is that it has never being practiced and still isnt, not even by the Vatican.

My question is this.

Asuming I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution (which I do) how do we explain the gradual improvement of the life on the earth generation by generation.

Our developement from single celled organism to what we are now. Does this not verify a greater power at work?

In 50 years time, when artifical lifeforms walk beside us will we accept that they were created by a greater life force?

The question I want answered is this...

How / why are we here....

Pygmalion

FullOf..IT wrote: »

Our developement from single celled organism to what we are now. Does this not verify a greater power at work?

No, unless perhaps you want to call the process of evolution and the lucky circumstances that happen to be on this planet out of billions to be a "greater power".

In 50 years time, when artifical lifeforms walk beside us will we accept that they were created by a greater life force?

They'll be created by us, why would we credit a greater life force?

The question I want answered is this...

How / why are we here....

I have no idea, but I'd rather admit that I have no idea than fill in the gaps with the supernatural without any evidence.

FullOf..IT

Pygmalion wrote: »

No, unless perhaps you want to call the process of evolution and the lucky circumstances that happen to be on this planet out of billions to be a "greater power".

In a nushell, this is the bit I dont get. Explain the force/power/ behind evolution, Does evolution not prove a unknown power in itself?

FullOf..IT

FullOf..IT wrote: »

Ok,

First off I think Religion as an establishment is morally wrong and is the root cause of a lot of the worlds wrongs.

I dont buy into creativism but do have 'faith' in the teachings of Jesus. **** thing is, is that it has never being practiced and still isnt, not even by the Vatican.

My question is this.

Asuming I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution (which I do) how do we explain the gradual improvement of the life on the earth generation by generation.

Our developement from single celled organism to what we are now. Does this not verify a greater power at work?

In 50 years time, when artifical lifeforms walk beside us will we accept that they were created by a greater life force?

The question I want answered is this...

How / why are we here....

Well the main problem with your question is that "improvement" is entirely subjective.

Personally I can't see how this:

Is improved by turning into this:


The real way it happens is that life gets more and more diverse with each generation, then depending on the environment the variations are then selected depending on how well suited or how adaptable they are. These variations build up and species diversify and become distinct lines and so on and so on for millions of years.

So which part of this requires magic to produce humans?

FullOf..IT

King Mob wrote: »

So which part of this requires magic to produce humans?

Please dont treat me with the same rhetoric that you would some bible down the throat troll.

I am simply asking you to explian the obvious intelligence behind evolution

FullOf..IT

FullOf..IT wrote: »

Please dont treat me with the same rhetoric that you would some bible down the throat troll.

I am simply asking you to explian the obvious intelligence behind evolution

But I didn't treat you like anything, I explained the flaw in your thinking. You chose not to address it.

But saying it's an "intelligence" or other such vague terms for some process or effect caused by a supernatural being is simply another name for what it is, Magic.

So what part of evolution needs magic for it to produce humans?
Where exactly is the leap needed to get from boring old normal evolution in other lifeforms to the creation of man?

FullOf..IT

ok,

forget about 'humans'.

Im born, my son is then born. His genes are prorammed to be better suited to the environment than i am.

Im I picking you up right?

The Mad Hatter

FullOf..IT wrote: »

ok,

forget about 'humans'.

Im born, my son is then born. His genes are prorammed to be better suited to the environment than i am.

Im I picking you up right?

Um...no, that's not how it works.

FullOf..IT

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Um...no, that's not how it works.

So how does "it work"

Morbert

FullOf..IT wrote: »

ok,

forget about 'humans'.

Im born, my son is then born. His genes are prorammed to be better suited to the environment than i am.

Im I picking you up right?

Your son is born. There is a chance that a random mistake will have occurred in his genes. This mistake will more than likely result in a poorer chance of survival. However, there is a small chance that this mistake will happen to be beneficial, and his survival chances will increase. These unlikely flukes build up over billions of years to produce the diversity of life we see around us.

FullOf..IT

FullOf..IT wrote: »

ok,

forget about 'humans'.

Im born, my son is then born. His genes are prorammed to be better suited to the environment than i am.

Im I picking you up right?

No, he has a combination of your and your mate's genes. They aren't necessarily better or worse, just in a new combination. Most of his genes are the exact same as everyone else. He'll have a lot of mutations, the vast vast vast majority of them will do absolutely nothing. Of the ones that do have an effect there are some that can cause serious problems and on a very rare occasion such a mutation can be beneficial.
But these aren't guaranteed to happen and the genes aren't "programmed to be better suited."
Where on earth are you getting this idea?

FullOf..IT

Morbert wrote: »

Your son is born. There is a chance that a random mistake will have occurred in his genes. This mistake will more than likely result in a poorer chance of survival. However, there is a small chance that this mistake will happen to be beneficial, and his survival chances will increase. These unlikely flukes build up over billions of years to produce the diversity of life we see around us.

So evolution is just a convegence of chance where by 'luck' determines a species chance of survival?

you're opinion is Just as bad as the zealots imo

FullOf..IT

FullOf..IT wrote: »

So evolution is just a convegence of chance where by 'luck' determines a species chance of survival?

you're opinion is Just as bad as the zealots imo

Yup and that doesn't make a lick of sense.

How exactly does this make us as bad as the zealots?

Morbert

FullOf..IT wrote: »

So evolution is just a convegence of chance where by 'luck' determines a species chance of survival?

you're opinion is Just as bad as the zealots imo

Evolution is the accumulation of natural selection of the minority of beneficial random mutations that occur in populations. What specifically from my previous description renders my opinion "just as bad as the zealots"?

FullOf..IT

In a vacuum how does a 'creature' go from being a bit of slob to having 2 eyes, 2 ears etc?

FullOf..IT

Morbert wrote: »

Evolution is the accumulation of natural selection of the minority of beneficial random mutations that occur in populations. What specifically from my previous description renders my opinion "just as bad as the zealots"?

FFS.

This is the bit i struggle to articulate.

Does evolution not prove an intelligentt progession?

FullOf..IT

FullOf..IT wrote: »

In a vacuum how does a 'creature' go from being a bit of slob to having 2 eyes, 2 ears etc?

Well it can't in a vacuum.
The creature itself doesn't go from one thing to another, the species does over time and successive generations.

The real reason we get large, complex lifeforms from a simple one is simply the build up of small mutations which are selected for by the environment and other factors over millions and millions of generations.

Any chance you'll elaborate you your comment about us being as bad as the zealots?

Morbert

FullOf..IT wrote: »

In a vacuum how does a 'creature' go from being a bit of slob to having 2 eyes, 2 ears etc?

Instead of answering my question, you tendered another misrepresentation of evolution. A creature cannot go from being a bit of a slob to having complex organs in a vacuum. It needs to be able to produce multiple non-identical offspring, and these differences in offspring need to be inheritable through generations, so that favourable differences are preserved, and unfavourable differences are culled by a failure to survive. Only then can Darwinian evolution occur. Incidentally, this is why 99% of all life is extinct, and only a small percentage survives today.

Zombrex

FullOf..IT wrote: »

My question is this.

Asuming I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution (which I do) how do we explain the gradual improvement of the life on the earth generation by generation.

Through Darwin's theory of evolution, though "improvement" is slightly inaccurate word to use to describe the increasing diversity of life on Earth. Adaptation is a more accurate term.

FullOf..IT wrote: »

Our developement from single celled organism to what we are now. Does this not verify a greater power at work?

No more than anything else. You could ask does the existence of rocks not verify a greater power at work if you supposed that said greater power would set out to make rocks.

This is an issue with humans beings, we see ourselves, and life in general, as some cosmically significant thing and then have a hard time imagining how such a significant thing (in our opinion) could arise without something deciding that it would.

But if you simply shift the gaze of significance to something else, such as rocks, this demonstrates that such supposing really is no help in figuring out reality or whether any creator deity exists. It is our own bias and ego that makes us think like this.

FullOf..IT wrote: »

In 50 years time, when artifical lifeforms walk beside us will we accept that they were created by a greater life force?

Do you mean will they accepted? Otherwise the question doesn't make a whole lot of sense, since we would have made them, so "greater" than what?

FullOf..IT wrote: »

The question I want answered is this...

How / why are we here....

We are here because for some reason self replicating molecules form easily in this universe when they find themselves in particular environments.

Zombrex

FullOf..IT wrote: »

FFS.

This is the bit i struggle to articulate.

Does evolution not prove an intelligentt progession?

No, evolution does not require intelligent guidance.

There are two aspects to Darwinian evolution, mutation and selection.

Mutation with regard to biology is, as I'm sure you are aware, when the genetic code does not replicate perfectly. This produces an offspring that is similar but slightly different to the parents. On average a human being has 60 mutations from that of their parents genetic code.

Now every life form finds itself in nature, in an environment. This envionment can often be harsh, and often has limited resources. All of the life forms compete for these resources.

If a new mutation, or set of mutations, produces a difference that gives the new life form an advantage in his quest to survive and reproduce then it is said that the environment "selects" this mutation, because this new life form is more likely to survive, as are his children and their children and their children, so characteristics of the new life form eventually replace the characteristics of the old life forms so eventually, after thousands of years there is only those with these new characteristics.

This process explains the adoption of life to its ever changing environment. Natural selection cannot control which mutation arises, it only selects it if it provides an advantage. Which is why you get the wide range of different life forms on Earth, from the tiny single celled organism to something as complex as humans.

For example, say a single cell organism mutates and this mutation causes it to clump together to form a multi-cell organism. This is an increase in complexity of the organism, but it just happened nothing was trying to make the organism more complex. But it could provide an advantage so the mutation ends up lasting, while those without the mutation are more likely to die before reproducing.

So in some ways the fact that we are as complex as we are is a fluke. Natural selection can only work with what it is given by random mutation. But no one should think that natural selection is a fluke. Mutations stick around because they provide advantages to the organism when facing its environment.

So like I said, really it is all about adaptation.

Goduznt Xzst

Was considering commenting on this but then as I typed I was reminded of this Feynman video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

Good luck guys in answering the OP's question. He wants to know "why evolution happens" when I don't believe he actually understands what evolution is to begin with.

OP, perhaps take a look at "David Attenborough's First Life" to first get an understanding of the processes that encompass what is described as evolution.

Helix

King Mob wrote: »

Personally I can't see how this:

Is improved by turning into this:

easy

because the chicken is still here and the dinosaur is not, ergo the "improvements" have let it continue to exist as it evolved

Helix

Helix wrote: »

easy

because the chicken is still here and the dinosaur is not, ergo the "improvements" have let it continue to exist as it evolved

Nope that's the adaptations.
"Improvements" (especially in the case of the OP) imply changes in a singular "upwards" direction towards a goal of preferred outcome.
Adaptations mean a change that suits in a particular scenario or environment.

But seriously going from a T-rex to a chicken isn't an improvement, it's just lame. Honestly which would you prefer to have as a pet? :pac:

strobe

FullOf..IT wrote: »

So how does "it work"

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/evolution.htm

Seriously man, I keep posting this link to people and they don't click it (People on boards....Y U no click howstuffworks link?!?). This site is one of the best things the internet ever did. Perfect explanation of how evolution works in lay mans terms.

Helix

King Mob wrote: »

Nope that's the adaptations.
"Improvements" (especially in the case of the OP) imply changes in a singular "upwards" direction towards a goal of preferred outcome.
Adaptations mean a change that suits in a particular scenario or environment.

i was using your original terminology

existing is an improvement on extinction no? so as dinosaurs began evolving over time into birds, the ones who didnt have the benefit of the mutation(s) required to remain suited to the environment died

perhaps im wording it badly, but i suspect you know exactly what i mean anyway

Helix

Helix wrote: »

i was using your original terminology

existing is an improvement on extinction no? so as dinosaurs began evolving over time into birds, the ones who didnt have the benefit of the mutation(s) required to remain suited to the environment died

perhaps im wording it badly, but i suspect you know exactly what i mean anyway

I do, but my original post was to show the flaw in the OP's question: that he was assuming a ladder of evolution.
I was trying to show that a later "more evolved" animal like a chicken is not necessarily an improvement of an earlier "less evolved" one like a T-Rex.
I was trying to do so in an amusing way.

strobe

King Mob wrote: »

I do, but my original post was to show the flaw in the OP's question: that he was assuming a ladder of evolution.
I was trying to show that a later "more evolved" animal like a chicken is not necessarily an improvement of an earlier "less evolved" one like a T-Rex.
I was trying to do so in an amusing way.

It's cool man, I got it.

Pushtrak

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZpsVSVRsZk

That should help.
Edit: A great video, actually. A humorous approach to the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sxh_L1LUNk

liamw

FullOf..IT wrote: »

In a vacuum how does a 'creature' go from being a bit of slob to having 2 eyes, 2 ears etc?

Do yourself a favour and read 'The Selfish Gene'...

Galvasean

King Mob wrote: »

Well the main problem with your question is that "improvement" is entirely subjective.

Personally I can't see how this:

Is improved by turning into this:

Slihtly OT, but this is what T. rex is supposed to have actually looked like.

Mark Hamill

FullOf..IT wrote: »

Asuming I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution (which I do)

Hmmm, lets see.....

FullOf..IT wrote: »

I am simply asking you to explian the obvious intelligence behind evolution

FullOf..IT wrote: »

In a vacuum how does a 'creature' go from being a bit of slob to having 2 eyes, 2 ears etc?

FullOf..IT wrote: »

Does evolution not prove an intelligentt progession?

FullOf..IT wrote: »

So evolution is just a convegence of chance where by 'luck' determines a species chance of survival?

you're opinion is Just as bad as the zealots imo

Well the only thing I can garner from this is that your user name is perfectly apt.

J C, is that you?

strobe

Galvasean wrote: »

Slihtly OT, but this is what T. rex is supposed to have actually looked like.

God damn it Galvasean! First raptors with feathers and now a big fluffy head on a T-rex. Stop gheying up all the dinosaurs man. :pac:

5uspect

Something for the OP to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG-7SDb_8Wo&playnext=1&list=PL80E0E2BE1F18B87C

baalthor

King Mob wrote: »

Well the main problem with your question is that "improvement" is entirely subjective.

Personally I can't see how this:

Is improved by turning into this:

Dinosaur: It can eat me

Chicken: I can eat it

Improvement !

Galvasean

strobe wrote: »

God damn it Galvasean! First raptors with feathers and now a big fluffy head on a T-rex. Stop gheying up all the dinosaurs man. :pac:

So far we've found out the colour of two dinosaurs - both ginger

smcgiff

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well the only thing I can garner from this is that your user name is perfectly apt.

J C, is that you?

Read the same as you, only my thoughts were that some people may actually be better off believing in religion.

Beruthiel

liamw wrote: »

Do yourself a favour and read 'The Selfish Gene'...

Yup. OP get the above book, written by Richard Dawkins, it explains evolution in great detail.

MagicMarker

FullOf..IT wrote: »

I am simply asking you to explian the obvious intelligence behind evolution

This is the mistake you're making.

sensibleken

look at it this way.

Giraffes use their long necks for fighting (not for getting leaves on top of trees as is commonly held). The longer the neck the better swing it can get and the more likely it will win the fight and get to mate.

his long neck genes are more likely to be passed on than the genes of the stubby giraffe and therefore giraffes tend to have long necks.

stevoslice

If an omnipotent creator made everything you would think he would have thought of perfecting the following

The Appendix - a non-useful part of the human body which can kill you, basically God's kill switch, if you **** up, He left this here so He can just flip a switch and kill you with extreme pain, unfortunately due to modern medicine this kill switch is not as effective as it used to be.

Wisdom Teeth - when God thinks you've done enough talking in your life He sends down these bad boys, which **** your teeth up as the majority of human jaws cannot cope with a third set of molars, modern medicine has also thwarted God on this by inventing dentists.

Female Pelvis - Because of God's plan to make women pay for Eve eating an apple, the excruciating pain of childbirth can also cause the death of baby, mother or both as the female pelvis is not perfectly adapted for walking upright, human childbirth is the most dangerous among all of the primates, also science has tried to interfere with God's plan on this by coming up with fancy operations like c-sections and the like.

There are many other non-perfect parts of the human body, externally held testicles with minimum protection, auto-immune diseases, cancerous cells, our feet, legs, pelvis, and spine are badly designed for a creature that is supposed to stand on two limbs, resulting in back problems, muscle problems etc. Hairy bottoms are also a design flaw, who needs them.

Zombrex

Hit and run by the looks of it ....

Dave!

Yeah was just gonna ask! The OP seemed almost reasonable, I think the explanations in this thread have been spot on so I'm curious to see if the OP has changed his mind.

mikhail

thebhoy wrote: »

The Appendix - a non-useful part of the human body which can kill you, basically God's kill switch, if you **** up, He left this here so He can just flip a switch and kill you with extreme pain, unfortunately due to modern medicine this kill switch is not as effective as it used to be.

Actually, the appendix is now thought to have a few uses, such as as a sort of reservoir for the kinds of bacteria which are useful in our digestive system to hide in during infections. It's still vestigial though - any functions it has now are essentially evolution MacGyvering after its primary purpose - possibly digesting excessively fibrous vegetation like leaves - became unnecessary.

CerebralCortex

FullOf..IT wrote: »

FFS.

This is the bit i struggle to articulate.

Does evolution not prove an intelligentt progession?

Wait... ...are you claiming the human is intelligently guided? Ever heard of aging and it's related diseases, which happens from a distinct lack of intelligence and design in the human organ.

the culture of deference

liamw wrote: »

Do yourself a favour and read 'The Selfish Gene'...

Yeah I second that, it is an excellent if challenging read.

liamw

the culture of deference wrote: »

Yeah I second that, it is an excellent if challenging read.

If you want more challenging try the 'sequel' The Extended Phenotype. I'm about half way through it and have been for the past year. It's not really light night-time reading

Dawkins, like Sagan, is genius at explaining things in layman's terms.

Zillah

We're more patient than these people deserve.

NewGuy: Hey guys I don't understand evolution, it means there must be a God, explain that.
Us: Perfectly explains the basics of evolution.
NewGuy: IT MEANS THERE MUST BE A GOD, evolution said so I heard it.
......

That's the point where other people keep posting patiently and I just can't do it any more.

the culture of deference

liamw wrote: »

If you want more challenging try the 'sequel' The Extended Phenotype. I'm about half way through it and have been for the past year. It's not really light night-time reading

Dawkins, like Sagan, is genius at explaining things in layman's terms.

Yeah thats an excellent read too. I have the 30th anniv edition of selfish gene some nice updates included over the original. I have all his works.

Reminded me of reading bill bryson's a short history of nearly everything

CerebralCortex

the culture of deference wrote: »

Yeah thats an excellent read too. I have the 30th anniv edition of selfish gene some nice updates included over the original. I have all his works.

Reminded me of reading bill bryson's a short history of nearly everything

The update notes alone are almost an overload, in a good way though.

the culture of deference

CerebralCortex wrote: »

The update notes alone are almost an overload, in a good way though.

Yea, as you are reading each page you get sent to the back and you spend most of the time doing that.

I have lent it to people and insist on getting it back after 2 weeks otherwise it would die a lonely death somewhere. I would love to know how many people give up after a few pages/chapters.

Especially when he delves into replication

CerebralCortex

the culture of deference wrote: »

Yea, as you are reading each page you get sent to the back and you spend most of the time doing that.

I have lent it to people and insist on getting it back after 2 weeks otherwise it would die a lonely death somewhere. I would love to know how many people give up after a few pages/chapters.

Especially when he delves into replication

It took me a good few months to digest. Anybody I've given it to so far get a few pages in.