Evidence of Natural Selection Leading to Evolution Before My Canadian Eyes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2017, 10:52 AM
RE: Evidence of Natural Selection Leading to Evolution Before My Canadian Eyes
(22-08-2017 09:26 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(21-08-2017 08:19 AM)unfogged Wrote:  There are none so blind as those who will not see. Pull your head out of the biblical hole and look at the actual evidence.

This would be good advice for you to follow.

Laugh out load

Quote:
Quote:Mutations occur and the argument that they are always deleterious is simply wrong. They can be beneficial and they are a source of change. Natural selection then operates on the new configuration.

Many organisms possess parts to complex that they coudn't have developed gradually by mutations.

Stop reading AIG and start reading some actual science. Blanket assertions like that just show how little you understand the subject. "Irreducible complexity" has been debunked repeatedly and is a joke.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
23-08-2017, 12:25 AM
RE: Evidence of Natural Selection Leading to Evolution Before My Canadian Eyes
(22-08-2017 09:26 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Many organisms possess parts too complex that they couldn't have developed gradually by mutations.

I'm still waiting to see what your response is to Loom's request to name them. Sleepy

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2017, 03:23 AM
RE: Evidence of Natural Selection Leading to Evolution Before My Canadian Eyes
(22-08-2017 09:26 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Many organisms possess parts too complex that they couldn't have developed gradually by mutations.

When you really think about it, slow gradual mutations are the ONLY way they can develop to the complexity that they have.

I presume you are implying "god did it", but the complexity of which something works is so overly fine tuned, it'd be absurd for a "being" of some description to create it. I've mentioned it many a time so far, but stuff like seeing God sat there with a blow-touch mask and a soldering iron, with a human body on a table whilst he works away on DNA strands.....it's bonkers. If body parts and all human/animals had random parts that also didn't boil right down to DNA/atoms/molecules that all have their own individual jobs, then I'd probably be on board with a being just poofing us into existence, but the FACT that every object right down the nucleus of an atom, has a specific job that it does, just suggests the a person/being/god/whatever having to create this is absolutely mental.

I'm not 100% sure this is the right video, but take for example the evolution of the eye:




When life gives you lemons, just remember you are an....
(18-09-2017 09:47 AM)vahaaao Wrote:  Irresponsible bachelor daddy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OakTree500's post
23-08-2017, 07:33 AM
RE: Evidence of Natural Selection Leading to Evolution Before My Canadian Eyes
(22-08-2017 10:38 AM)Loom Wrote:  
(22-08-2017 09:26 AM)theophilus Wrote:  Many organisms possess parts to complex that they coudn't have developed gradually by mutations.

Name them.

This isn't a part of an organism but I think one of the strongest evidences that life didn't develop as a result of mutations is the process of metamorphosis in which a caterpillar changes into a butterfly. How could that process have come into existence through mutations?

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2017, 08:03 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2017 08:06 AM by OakTree500.)
RE: Evidence of Natural Selection Leading to Evolution Before My Canadian Eyes
(23-08-2017 07:33 AM)theophilus Wrote:  I think one of the strongest evidences that life didn't develop as a result of mutations is the process of metamorphosis in which a caterpillar changes into a butterfly. How could that process have come into existence through mutations?

Ok, on this process:

Whilst I can already hear you about to say "AHA, GOD DID IT LOLZ", due to the fact there is no 100% answer on this, there are various possibilities on why it works in the way it does. And I might need to remind you, before you think "I am totally right here, and you atheists are STOOPID", not 100% knowing something is also then itself not evidence for something else.

ANYWAYS, after a brief look around into the process of how a Caterpillar turns into a butterfly, and the general history of butterflies themselves, the current hypothesis seems to be this:

Caterpillars, whilst thought of as an insect in their own right, are technically just butterfly larva. Larva generally spend there lives as a generic mass, before "morphing" into something else, which is done is all sorts of different ways. The current idea for butterfly is that with other insect living in hives/colonies, and butterfly not doing this, they needed a way to: A) partially protect themselves and B) develop faster. The cocoon is partially for the first reason, but also allows them to dissolve there own bodies, to regrow (using the newly dissolved protein soup) into the correct form of a butterfly. The genetic information of what they would form into is present prior to birth in the egg, due to be laid by the previous generation of butterfly's ,and the Caterpillar stage is just highly mobile larva, which is so the butterfly can absorb mass amounts of food/protein to then correctly form it's full body.

This would come to pass to due other generations of butterfly not living long enough due to the previous process of either: staying longer in the egg to develop or probably staying as a larva of some description. This is why wasps/ants/other insects remain larva for a longer period as they have a collective to care for them

For example: most animals can walk seconds after birth, humans cannot. This is due to human beings taking longer to develop, even after birth to gain/maintain superior intellect/larger brains to process more complex thought. Butterflys would, so far according to the evidence, need to protect themselves and thus also grow faster, as not to be eaten by predators and generally survive without a collective to care for them.

Quick edit:

Sources -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_butterflies
https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...evolution/

When life gives you lemons, just remember you are an....
(18-09-2017 09:47 AM)vahaaao Wrote:  Irresponsible bachelor daddy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like OakTree500's post
23-08-2017, 08:17 AM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2017 08:38 AM by Loom.)
RE: Evidence of Natural Selection Leading to Evolution Before My Canadian Eyes
(23-08-2017 07:33 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(22-08-2017 10:38 AM)Loom Wrote:  Name them.

This isn't a part of an organism but I think one of the strongest evidences that life didn't develop as a result of mutations is the process of metamorphosis in which a caterpillar changes into a butterfly. How could that process have come into existence through mutations?

Let me preface this with the fact that we are still learning about the evolution of metamorphosis. There isn't quite a concrete answer yet, but it would be dishonest to therefore jump to goddidit.

Anyway.

Bodily changed occur in most animals when reaching adulthood. In insects, for many million of years they more or less were 'born' as tiny adults. A shift from this to metamorphosis is seen between 280 to 300 million years ago. It's possible that the early forms of metamorphosis involved increased development during molting.

Insects that undergo a pupal stage have taken these bodily changes to a new extreme that has proven to be highly advantageous for both the young and adult insects as they don't need to compete for the same resources (usually). Thus these insects could perform and reproduce far better than those that didn't. Only a few insect species today undergo little change between young and adult form (silverfish for example).

As far as the metamorphosis itself, all of the building blocks (imaginal disks) necessary to grow into an adult are already present when it is born. These disks rapidly develop into adult parts when the insect enters its pupal stage.

We still have much to learn about metamorphosis for sure, but I don't see how it could be too complex to develop naturally.

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Loom's post
24-08-2017, 03:42 AM
RE: Evidence of Natural Selection Leading to Evolution Before My Canadian Eyes
(23-08-2017 07:33 AM)theophilus Wrote:  This isn't a part of an organism but I think one of the strongest evidences that life didn't develop as a result of mutations is the process of metamorphosis in which a caterpillar changes into a butterfly. How could that process have come into existence through mutations?


This doesn't address the question we asked. You specifically stated that "parts" of certain organisms could not have developed by gradual mutation alone. It now seems you're admitting this was an error on your part, as you can't name any such parts.

A butterfly lava that "changes" into a butterfly in hours is not a "gradual" mutation; they were undergoing this identical process 56 million years ago. Nor is it even a "mutation" in the genetic sense. Mutations occur with errors in DNA replication.

I'm guessing you were at bible class the day your science teacher discussed evolution 101. Dodgy

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
24-08-2017, 05:41 AM
RE: Evidence of Natural Selection Leading to Evolution Before My Canadian Eyes
(23-08-2017 07:33 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(22-08-2017 10:38 AM)Loom Wrote:  Name them.

This isn't a part of an organism but I think one of the strongest evidences that life didn't develop as a result of mutations is the process of metamorphosis in which a caterpillar changes into a butterfly. How could that process have come into existence through mutations?

You are indulging in post-hoc rationalization and an argument from ignorance, you can't imagine how something happened without a god doing it, therefore goddidit.

Holometabolism is a developmental stage of many species of insects, there are many theories on why it is an evolutionary advantage for these various species (did you read the linked article?) but none of these theories require a god.

One of the disadvantages of Holometabolism is that it leaves the pupa in an extremely vulnerable stage where parasites can kill them slowly while in this stage.

Why would a god design this? Why can't god simply have a process that creates butterflies from the egg without such an elaborate and dangerous process of holometabolism?

Goddidit does not square with the evidence, for this assertion to have any weight, you would have to show how this process is the best process for the creation of butterflies (it isn't) and the mechanism which only a deity can provide.

Did you get that? Provide evidence for the MECHANISM for how this process cannot be achieved through natural processes. Because it is clearly an imperfect process involving a messy and even dangerous biological process. This is not something involving a deity.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
24-08-2017, 12:38 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2017 12:44 PM by Loom.)
RE: Evidence of Natural Selection Leading to Evolution Before My Canadian Eyes
I'm kinda curious where the intelligent design is in the crosswired nerves of my face, since when I'm suddenly exposed to bright light, I sneeze involuntarily. In fact something like 18-35% of people have this. Are we just defective?

Or maybe, could it be because our ancestors didn't have flat, squished in faces? The larangeal nerve is one of many other parts of the body that undergo a similar, if opposite, transition through evolution.

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: