The Tolkien Forum

Welcome to our forum! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! Plus you won't see ads ;)

Creation vs. Evolution

Which view is yours?

  • Athiestic Evolution

    Votes: 6 27.3%
  • Thiestic Evolution

    Votes: 5 22.7%
  • Young-earth Creation

    Votes: 6 27.3%
  • Old-earth Creation

    Votes: 5 22.7%

  • Total voters
    22

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
Mrs. Maggott said:
It is not true that creationism is peculiar to America or Americans. When Darwin's theory was first voiced, it was English churchmen who spoke out strongly against it. Americans at the time may have as well, but I would say that the vast majority of those holding Christian views in Darwin's time took issue with his statement regarding the implications of his theory on the origin of the species known as man.
Yes; but this isn't Creationism.

It would be false to conclude that only Americans - and Americans of a particular Christian denomination - had a problem with Darwin's implications. Indeed some of the best refutations of the belief that creation - including life - arose "spontaneously" are Roman Catholics and the group involved distributed a tape on the issue many years ago which was excellent.
Yes; but this isn't Evolution :).

But I believe that we are mixing oranges and apples in this discussion - and getting confused thereby.
Apparently, you're right :D.

There are a great many aspects of this discussion that are getting mixed together like a salad. First and foremost is the aspect of the origin not only of life but of the universe itself. Darwinism is inextricably involved in that although Darwin might not have theorized on the matter specifically.
No, no, no. Sorry about that. But no. Darwinism is not involved at all with the origin of the universe (!?).

I'm trying to separate what is getting mixed together like a salad, but you insist on mixing them, Mrs. Maggott.

The mere fact that his "theory" implies a "natural" progression rather than a "created" one, affects the matter of the origination of all things. Furthermore, at the time Darwin advanced his theory, the humanists at the time adopted it as a refutation of the existence of God and not just the Genesis account of creation.
True again. But that's not a problem of Darwinism, it is a problem of the humanists at the time.

Secondly, is the matter of how things progressed once they existed and this is more to the point of Darwin's theories. No matter what anyone says, strict Darwinism is not accepted by most scientists. They do not doubt that species "evolved", but there is great doubt that one species "evolved" into another over the passage of time.
What you call "great doubt" is no doubt at all, Mrs. Maggott. None! It is as certain as the round earth.

The absence of so-called "missing links" in the evolutionary chain and the apparent "sudden arising" of various life forms has made formal Darwinism obsolete.
But missing links are abundant; and the "sudden arising" is in accordance with modern Darwinism, which is, like it or not, "Darwinism with a little tinkering" -- not something very different from the original theory.

Therefore, although present theories of evolution continues to make mention of Darwin as a sort of "founder" of the genre, I doubt very much if - were he alive today - he would recognize them as his own.
I don't doubt it. And I've read two biographies of him ;). The modern theory keeps the two most important notions in Darwinism (according to Darwin) -- the fact that organisms change (i.e. Evolution proper) and the central role of natural selection in this process.

We (evolutionists) call it "Darwinian" for a reason, and it is not out of respect for the dead. The theory is eminently Darwinian.

Thirdly, there is the argument that arises among the "orthodox" on both sides that one must choose one side or the other of the debate; that is, that one cannot be a "believer" in both God and evolution. As I have pointed out in previous posts, that, of course, is not true. Many believers - myself among them - have no problem with God going about His business in such a way that the earth is older than the 5,000 or so years that some British bishop computed from the Genesis account back in the 1900s! So it is possible to at once hold religious beliefs and scientific ones - although it tends to stifle debate on these issues as most debate revolves around the presence - or absence - of a Creator in the grand scheme of things.
True, without any reservations this time :).
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
Encarta, the encyclopedia produced by Microsoft in the US, tells us that:
"Creationism has been primarily, but not exclusively, a movement of the United States..
..It has increased in prominence in recent years"
Why has it increased in prominence?

Bishop Usher did his calculations back in the 1800s - or was it even before that?
 

Walter

Flamekeeper
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
3
Location
Austria
joxy said:
Bishop Usher did his calculations back in the 1800s - or was it even before that?
More like in the middle of the 17th century, I believe...
 

Aragorn21

On fire
Joined
Nov 2, 2002
Messages
386
Reaction score
0
Location
In the land of India, where the monkeys dance
Well mr. Eriol, it seems the fat lady is beginning to sing. ;) I'm beginning to believe I simply don't know enough to be able to debate with you any longer...but I do have a few points. The ones I don't respond to, I guess you can take as a victory, for now anyway. (;))


Ferns do it, all the time. The first land plants were ferns.
Ah ok. But how much alike are ferns to the plants that were under the sea. (if you explain this, could you please provide a link?). And also, what about the origin of the seeded plants? Where did they come from? Certainly they didn't evolve from ferns...

No, I am not repeating myself; if I am, you are not paying attention . I did not agree that 5% of an eye is no good; my point is the opposite. It is that 5% of an eye is plenty good. Refer back to the paragraph about how it would help any being in an environment with light.
But how is it good? Doesn't an eye need 100% of it, all working properly to work? If not, do you have a link that could explain how 5% of an eye would be benifficial to an organism, and what exactly I'd do? (I'm getting on the lazy side...don't feel like looking myself. ;) but I do think it's fair that you should back up your claims. :))

Don't let your limited imagination get in your way . Study more about statistics (and check that old link for the number of mutations required from an eyeless state to a fully working vertebrate eye, you'll see it is easy).
Yes, but keep in mind that most all mutations are not good. Unless there is something guiding them, they are random and usually harmful.

It does not seek to prove the literal Genesis, but it surely seeks to limit God's power to working through miracles, instead of through natural processes .
That is not the case sir, I think you are misunderstanding the theory of ID. It doesn't seek to prove that God works through miracles, or through natural processes. It seeks to prove that life could not come about without being guided by God. It does not state that God did not use natural processes.

Well, the real fossil record, out there, shows all of that . I'm sorry for the flippant tone, but it is the truth. It begins with bacteria, then protozoans, then algae and invertebrates, then vertebrates and land plants... if you don't see that this is "progress from simple to complex", it's not my fault.
I actually do understand "progress from simple to complex" thank you. ;) But that simply is not what the fossil record shows. Yes, it at first shows simpler life (no progress though), then what's known as the Cambrian explosion! That simply does not support the evolutionary theory!

Sorry, there is nothing problematic in the fossil record for Evolution.
See above. ;)
 

Walter

Flamekeeper
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
1,766
Reaction score
3
Location
Austria
Aragorn21 said:
Yes, I bored some stuff from some different sites. But I'm confused, where did I "involve in a literal interpretation of Genesis"?
The very moment we start examinating the possible meaning of words used in Genesis and try connecting them to actual pre-history of our earth we are involved in some sort of a literal interpretation of Genesis, IMO

Actually, they believe it to be about 40-100,000 I believe. According to http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/sapiens_culture.htm "Early modern Homo sapiens in Africa and Southwest Asia 100,000 years ago made tools that were similar to those of the Neandertals and other late archaic Homo sapiens. Around 75,000 years ago, these were mostly simple Mousterian-like Levallois flake and core tools. However, by 40,000 years ago or a bit earlier, modern humans began producing new kinds of artifacts that were revolutionary enough to warrant their being placed into a different Paleolithic stage--the Upper Paleolithic."
True! Some of the oldest stone tools which were probably used by our antecestors, date some 2,5 or 3 millions of years PB, and they have continuously been refined until they eventually were replaced – for the bigger part – by metal tools in the Bronze- and later Iron-Age. Human "Technology" like human "Culture" has evolved ever since it began, and the wheel was – and still is - always spinning faster and faster – despite from a few occasional drawbacks - as time went on. Of course there were leaps in between, a similar leap like between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic can be found in the stone tools at the threshold to the Neolithic. Pottery, breeding, agriculture and husbandry, metallurgy, etc., all represent such leaps in human technology and culture, which are manifested by new artifacts, features or ecofacts in excavations.

----

I think, Aragorn, we all have made quite some progress in this discussion. I guess you have realized by now that not everyone agrees, that "...evolution has, in the new light of science, been disproven." and you are now probably aware that it is all but impossible for you to maintain such a stance here. Rather evolution, and not only biological evolution, has quite a strong case still.

Just keep in mind that evolution does not disprove an omnipotent creator, nor does it discredit your faith the least bit. Evolution does not even – IMHO – disprove creationism, depending on which claims creationism makes. For example, evolution will surely never be able to disprove or discredit an omnipotent creator as the "origin" of let's say "time, space, energy and their laws". Neither will it, I think, disprove the possibility of an an omnipotent creator being responsible for the human "soul", "spirit" or "mind". But the latter might prove to be hard to verify either...

It's only when creationism makes the claim that evolution has not happened, that problems arise, because most scientists from all over the world take evolution as granted...
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
Walter said:
....the possibility of an an omnipotent creator being responsible for the human "soul", "spirit" or "mind".
To anyone of faith this is surely far more important than the process by which the body was produced.
When science can tell us more about those subjects than faith can, I will reconsider my position as a real creationist!

And yes, my guess, and your belief, were correct: Archbishop Usher was, very much, a man of the 17th century.
From my point of view he, as an opponent of the Catholic Church, turns out to have many things to answer for, but apparently
an intensive statistical attempt to determine the date of creation is not one of them. I find that he published a tome entitled "Chronology or Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti" in 1650/54, in which he calculated "the long-accepted chronology printed
by an unknown authority in the Authorised Version of the Bible and dating creation of the world at 4004 BC". Most of the work
had been done for him!
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
Aragorn21 said:
Ah ok. But how much alike are ferns to the plants that were under the sea. (if you explain this, could you please provide a link?). And also, what about the origin of the seeded plants? Where did they come from? Certainly they didn't evolve from ferns...
Certainly, they did.

Ferns are not the first link after algae. There are mosses, for example. But ferns are the first plants that can live fully on land. Plant evolution is less fashionable than animal evolution, but also less controversial.

I have no links, sorry. Google for "plant evolution" and you'll get enough.

But how is it good? Doesn't an eye need 100% of it, all working properly to work? If not, do you have a link that could explain how 5% of an eye would be benifficial to an organism, and what exactly I'd do? (I'm getting on the lazy side...don't feel like looking myself. ;) but I do think it's fair that you should back up your claims. :))
I did; in that link. It answers all of these questions.

Yes, but keep in mind that most all mutations are not good. Unless there is something guiding them, they are random and usually harmful.
"Good" and "harmful" depend on the environment. It is harmful for you to have sickle-shaped blood cells, unless you live in Africa, or in other malaria-stricken environments.

That is not the case sir, I think you are misunderstanding the theory of ID. It doesn't seek to prove that God works through miracles, or through natural processes. It seeks to prove that life could not come about without being guided by God. It does not state that God did not use natural processes.
It seeks to prove that life could not come about without being guided by God. And it seeks that through establishing that a natural process couldn't do the trick.

If ID admitted that a natural process (like natural selection) could do the trick, then it is no longer ID.

I bet I have read much more about this than you :D. I've read Behe's book (not links, mind you, his book), I've read Dembsky... and no, I'm not misunderstanding their theory. They emphasize this all the time; their theory is simply "X is so unlikely to have happened without intervention, that intervention was required". Well, "intervention" in this context means a miracle.

I actually do understand "progress from simple to complex" thank you. ;) But that simply is not what the fossil record shows. Yes, it at first shows simpler life (no progress though), then what's known as the Cambrian explosion! That simply does not support the evolutionary theory!
Why not?

It is from simple to complex, isn't it? The Cambrian explosion is just like the colonization of land -- an example of sudden diversification after a new realm of niches is found (in this case, multicellularity). It is easily explained by evolution.
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
Perhaps at this point in the discussion, it might be well to point out that we know so very little about the past. If we consider all of pre-history as 100%, I would say that we know about .001% of it. Yes, we have certain large pieces of the puzzle - such as fossil remains - that we have culled from the planet itself, but compared to what there is to know, we have yet to even scratch the surface, so to speak.

The old Darwinian belief in the slow and steady progression of life on earth has proven untrue, however. We know that life arose early and changed suddenly - for reasons of which we know little or nothing. Of course, when geologists and paleontologists learned of the arising of blue-green algae and its effect upon the environment (the "oxygenation" of the planet), the solution to the great mystery of life had been at least begun. Where the algae came from is, of course, still part of the mystery.
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
Mrs. Maggott said:
Where the algae came from is, of course, still part of the mystery.
Lots of things are mysterious. Others aren't. One of the things that is not mysterious is the fact that natural selection is the central mechanism fueling evolution. Another non-mysterious thing is that evolution (change in organism's forms over the course of time) happened.

Conversely, one of the things that is quite mysterious is the supposed mechanism that would prevent natural selection from filling up the role described above. To say that natural selection "doesn't work in macroevolution" is as mysterious as saying that gravity, though observed in everyday life, "doesn't work between stars and planets". If one believes in that, one should surely offer (1) a mechanism to explain the movements of those bodies without gravity; the easy part; and (2) a mechanism that prevents gravity from working at these scales; the hard part.

Non-believers in natural selection, similarly, have to produce an explanation for the observed pattern of change in the fossil record, and an explanation about the (hypothetical, but very necessary) mechanism that prevents natural selection from working over great spans of time.
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
Was steadiness an essential feature of old Darwinian belief?
Is it an essential feature of current Darwinian belief?
Did life change suddenly?
If so, was suddenness a feature of all changes, or of a majority of them?

Is steadiness against suddenness a matter of importance in considering the validity of the evolutionary theory?
 

Belegmacar

The Green Istar
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Location
California
In my opinion, it is irrelevant if God created the Earth in six literal days or if He created the Earth in six longer time periods. All that matters is whether God exists or not, and whether He created the Earth or not.
 

Shireman D

Registered User
Joined
Sep 29, 2004
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Location
Kent. U.K.
Bishop Usher did his calculations back in the 1800s - or was it even before that?[/QUOTE]
James Ussher (1581-1656) was Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland in the period of the English Civil war. His Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti, in which he explored Biblical chronology were published between 1650-54.
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
Shireman D said:
His Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti, in which he explored Biblical chronology were published between 1650-54.
As I noted in posting #246 above. :rolleyes: ;)
 

Mrs. Maggott

Home is where the cat is
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
3,478
Reaction score
11
Location
Long Island, New York
joxy said:
Was steadiness an essential feature of old Darwinian belief?
Is it an essential feature of current Darwinian belief?
Did life change suddenly?
If so, was suddenness a feature of all changes, or of a majority of them?

Is steadiness against suddenness a matter of importance in considering the validity of the evolutionary theory?
Certainly, "slow and steady" was the way in which Darwinism was explained by those scientists who held to the theory in its classical form. Of course, when we speak of "Darwinism", we are not speaking necessarily of Darwin's personal beliefs which, after all, were not that deep and well considered. He simply saw certain things - the same species on different islands exhibiting different characteristics - and derived conclusions from his obervations. Much of what became "Darwinism" was the result of other scientists extrapolating Darwin's original postulations far beyond what Darwin himself indicated.

Apparently - at least as far as today's "science" is concerned, many if not most changes were "sudden" including the arising of life. However, let us remember that "sudden" geologically and cosmically speaking may be considered relative. It may well be that blue-green algae actually did "arise suddenly" even in the ordinary understanding of that term. However, we do not know. Yet we do know that fossil remains of these creatures (and there had to be a large number of them to leave any fossil record at all) appear early in the planet's history - again with the understanding of "early" in such huge time periods. I wish I could remember at what time in the 24 hour "earth day" that the Origin series uses to determine such things, but I can say that man arises in the last 90 seconds or so of that "day" whereas life (I believe) arises almost 12 hours earlier. However, again I am testing my (not too good) memory in trying to remember the way the thing was explained. I am sure, however, that NOVA will show the series again and I say that it is well worth seeing for those who are interested in the subject.

Belegmacar: In my opinion, it is irrelevant if God created the Earth in six literal days or if He created the Earth in six longer time periods. All that matters is whether God exists or not, and whether He created the Earth or not.

Exactly my point. However, many people do get very exercised in the matter of the literal truth of Scripture. I for one do not see how six days in Genesis can mean six literal days when the sun does not appear until, I believe, day 3! But to my mind, the inability of some people to bear any contradiction of the Scriptural version of creation is no worse (or better) than those who are unable to admit the possibility of a Creator simply because the Scriptural version of creation is not "literal".

In my opinion, the same error is being committed by those on both sides of the issue! The first group demands that God must have created the Earth and everything on it (and outside it) in six 24 hour days and therefore all proofs that it in fact wasn't done that way are false and malicious. On the other hand, the second group insists that existing evidence providing proof of a creation sequence that differs from a literal understanding of Genesis means that all of Scripture is "false" and/or "mythical" and therefore there is no God! Neither point of view seems logical to me as both seem to want to throw the baby out with the bathwater!

Finally, a literal understanding of Genesis is hardly necessary for the faithful. This is a proven fact since the early Christian Church never adopted a literal translation of the creation history provided by that Book of Scripture. On the other hand (again) the fact that modern science itself discounts the possibility of a spontaneous arising of life (DNA is just too complex), that also puts the "Darwin" folks out of the running with regard to an explantion of at least how life began. And that, of course, it the BIG question. How life "evolved" is hardly relevant if one continues to debate how it "began". Since it could not have begun "randomly" or "spontaneously" or "naturally", I fear that there has to be some consideration - however unwilling - of a Primary Cause whether or not that Primary Cause did what He did in six days or six hours or six eons.
 

Aragorn21

On fire
Joined
Nov 2, 2002
Messages
386
Reaction score
0
Location
In the land of India, where the monkeys dance
Plant evolution: I'll keep looking for a link, once I find one the discussion on it will continue.

I did; in that link. It answers all of these questions.
Yes, I read through the link at least twice. But I failed to see it explain how the 5% of an eye is useful to an organism...5% of an eye won't help an organism see.

Mutations: Mutations do not add new genetic information so they cannot account for the diversity in life. Is that not correct?

ID: Ok, yes I'm sure you do know more about it than I... Doesn't matter, lol. :D

It is from simple to complex, isn't it? The Cambrian explosion is just like the colonization of land -- an example of sudden diversification after a new realm of niches is found (in this case, multicellularity). It is easily explained by evolution.
No, it's not. It's like this:

if evolution happened the fossil record would look like this V you see the bottom of the V is very small, it gets larger towards the top, that's what the fossil record should look like. It however, looks more like a T simple until it gets to where it's REALLY complex, with all the life forms we know today and some that are extinct. No where is there a hint of gradualness.
 

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
5% of an eye, or any of the forms of distinguishing that light is present to some extent whether 5% or 95% that we see in more or less simple organisms still today, IS useful. It's not "seeing" in the sense that we see things, and in the sense that other creatures see even more efficiently than we do, but it's something, and for the organisms concerned it's well worth having.
And as to gradualness, Mrs M has emphasised the point I've made: when we're talking about vast stretches of time and space, so vast that I for one find them impossible to imagine, even to contemplate, gradualness is relative!
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
Mrs. Maggott said:
Much of what became "Darwinism" was the result of other scientists extrapolating Darwin's original postulations far beyond what Darwin himself indicated.
Mrs. Maggott, once again you are wrong. You probably have a grudge against Darwin :D. Have you ever actually read the Origin of Species?

To say that Darwin's theory was not "well-considered" is very weird. Darwin spent twenty years before publishing his theory, just "considering" all aspects of it. It is probably one of the most "well-considered" theories ever. And as his letters show, he was much more acquainted with the consequences (particularly for the Evolution of Man) than his contemporaries.

No, to say that Darwin did not "consider well" the consequences of his theories is just wrong.

On the other hand (again) the fact that modern science itself discounts the possibility of a spontaneous arising of life (DNA is just too complex)
Warning -- fallacious use of statistics being detected here.

, that also puts the "Darwin" folks out of the running with regard to an explantion of at least how life began. And that, of course, it the BIG question.
Not to the Darwin folks. We, biologists, couldn't care less. You see that the folks who debate this are cosmologists, like Carl Sagan, Fred Hoyle, etc.

How life "evolved" is hardly relevant if one continues to debate how it "began". Since it could not have begun "randomly" or "spontaneously" or "naturally", I fear that there has to be some consideration - however unwilling - of a Primary Cause whether or not that Primary Cause did what He did in six days or six hours or six eons.
"It could not have begun naturally" is unwarranted by the data. No one knows. Ignorance doesn't speak either way. We don't have enough information to say anything about this.

Aragorn21 said:
Yes, I read through the link at least twice. But I failed to see it explain how the 5% of an eye is useful to an organism...5% of an eye won't help an organism see.
Oh yes, it will. From the link:

"The simulation therefore (...) concentrates on the evolution of eye shape and the lens; this is the problem that Darwin’s critics have often pointed to, because they think it requires the simultaneous adjustment of many intricately related parts."

"From the initial simple stage, Nilsson and Pelger allowed the shape of the model eye to change at random, in steps of no more than 1% change at a time: 1% is a small change, and fits in with the idea that adaptive evolution proceeds in small gradual stages."

"The model eye then evolved in the computer, with each new generation formed from the optically superior eyes in the previous generation; changes that made the optics worse were rejected, as selection would reject them in nature. The particular optical criterion used was visual acuity – the ability to resolve objects in space. The visual acuity of each eye in the simulation was calculated by the methods of optical physics. The eye is particularly well suited to this kind of study because optical qualities can readily be quantified: it is possible to show objectively that one model eye would have better acuity than another. "

More on the original link

Aragorn21 said:
Mutations: Mutations do not add new genetic information so they cannot account for the diversity in life. Is that not correct?
Nope. Rather flagrantly incorrect, since of all the mechanisms which generate genetic diversity, mutation is the only one which actually generates new genetic information (instead of simply reshuffling pre-existent information).

Mutations are therefore the only (known to science) way to account for the diversity in life.

Aragorn21 said:
if evolution happened the fossil record would look like this V you see the bottom of the V is very small, it gets larger towards the top, that's what the fossil record should look like. It however, looks more like a T simple until it gets to where it's REALLY complex, with all the life forms we know today and some that are extinct. No where is there a hint of gradualness.
I don't understand your point. We have a V. Few, simple forms, followed by lots of complex forms. The diversity in life forms has a clear increasing trend, interrupted only by mass extinction events.

We have more species today than we had 30 million years ago, and 30 million years ago, they had more than there were at 100 million years ago, and so on.

What is your point? We have a V, not a T.
 

Aragorn21

On fire
Joined
Nov 2, 2002
Messages
386
Reaction score
0
Location
In the land of India, where the monkeys dance
Eriol said:
Oh yes, it will. From the link:

"The simulation therefore (...) concentrates on the evolution of eye shape and the lens; this is the problem that Darwin’s critics have often pointed to, because they think it requires the simultaneous adjustment of many intricately related parts."

"From the initial simple stage, Nilsson and Pelger allowed the shape of the model eye to change at random, in steps of no more than 1% change at a time: 1% is a small change, and fits in with the idea that adaptive evolution proceeds in small gradual stages."

"The model eye then evolved in the computer, with each new generation formed from the optically superior eyes in the previous generation; changes that made the optics worse were rejected, as selection would reject them in nature. The particular optical criterion used was visual acuity – the ability to resolve objects in space. The visual acuity of each eye in the simulation was calculated by the methods of optical physics. The eye is particularly well suited to this kind of study because optical qualities can readily be quantified: it is possible to show objectively that one model eye would have better acuity than another. "

More on the original link
I must be really dense or something, because that looks to me like they're explain how the eye could evolve gradually, but not explaining how each step of its evolution is useful.

Nope. Rather flagrantly incorrect, since of all the mechanisms which generate genetic diversity, mutation is the only one which actually generates new genetic information (instead of simply reshuffling pre-existent information).
I've heard that mutations add new traits, but not new generic information. I've seen this on numberous websites. Could you show me one that proves otherwise?

I don't understand your point. We have a V. Few, simple forms, followed by lots of complex forms. The diversity in life forms has a clear increasing trend, interrupted only by mass extinction events.

We have more species today than we had 30 million years ago, and 30 million years ago, they had more than there were at 100 million years ago, and so on.

What is your point? We have a V, not a T.
No, we do not have a V. V represents gradual, simple getting more and more complex. We have a T, little complexity followed by MAJOR complexity, nothing in between. That's what the fossil record shows.


btw, sorry for my long absense, I haven't had the time to come on here much.
 

Eriol

Estel
Joined
Sep 30, 2002
Messages
1,395
Reaction score
3
Location
Ithilien
Aragorn21 said:
I must be really dense or something, because that looks to me like they're explain how the eye could evolve gradually, but not explaining how each step of its evolution is useful.
"optical qualities can readily be quantified: it is possible to show objectively that one model eye would have better acuity than another"

I've heard that mutations add new traits, but not new generic information. I've seen this on numberous websites. Could you show me one that proves otherwise?
Gosh. Anyone. It's in textbooks. Google for "Evolution mutation", pick a site, it will have that.

Your sites aren't too good, it seems. I didn't forget about the whooper about social insects being less related to each other than normal.

No, we do not have a V. V represents gradual, simple getting more and more complex. We have a T, little complexity followed by MAJOR complexity, nothing in between. That's what the fossil record shows.
No it isn't.

"Yes it is"

No it isn't.

:D

The graph number of species vs. time shows a very clear (and gradual) trend of increase in time, interrupted only by mass extinction events. A "v", therefore.

There are other criterions, for example morphologic diversity, in which the pattern is more like a handglass. Sudden diversification (the "Cambrian explosion"), then a sudden drop in the number of morphotypes, followed by exploration of the "morphospace" of each form. That is not a T, though.

I don't know of any account of that, or of any criterion, that makes the fossil record a T. The only objective criterion is number of species -- and that is a clear V. Morphological diversity can only work if we use the extremely artificial assumption that there was no diversity before multicellular organisms appeared (if we ignore protozoan morphologic diversity).

Anyone who believes that never looked in a microscope, with a drop of water from a lake.

EDIT: Two quick finds on google about mutation:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_4.htm

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/M/Mutation_and_Evolution.html
 
Last edited:

joxy

Registered User
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
3,176
Reaction score
6
Location
U.K.
Aragorn21 said:
....that looks to me like they're explain how the eye could evolve gradually, but not explaining how each step of its evolution is useful.
Each step would be useful in its own limited and specific way.
Some organism might find it useful to be able to sense which way is "up" - which way light is coming from.
Another might find it useful to be able to distinguish night from day.
"From little acorns great oak trees grow."
Now we can "see" inside an atom and beyond the galaxies, and it all started with that 5% of an eye - and much less.
 

Thread suggestions

Top