Thread: Theory Of Evolution

Well don't take me wrong but i have a question.

As i see the new products like mobile phones (or something else) then you can see that they are made steps by steps. Like there was no any wifi,touch-panel,high processors en may other thing but they didn't came directly. They were made by humans steps by steps like an old phone and new phones....

The New Phones may say that we are not made by human but we evolved from old phones who have less memory and etc.

And at last my questions:
Can't it be that we are made from other creatures step by step i mean first unicellular and then other creatures and at last Human Beings ?

And please this doesn't mean that i believe in god. It mean i think when i can't fall asleep. :P

Evolution is not step wise in the same way as the development of new technology is. Besides, even if God were individually responsible for the millions of changes that occur during evolution, why does he retain and produce so much sub-optimal aspects?

Je pense que ca sera mieu d'aller t'endormir et de penser du question a nouveau demin

Hehe thx for your reply. But I didn't say God(one guy) made us :P i said some other creatures.

There is no use of thinking bout tomorrow,it will be the same. (school )

i think many biologists and other scientifically inclined people feel rather uncomfortable with any suggestion of design - so many aspects of organisms around us are so clearly suboptimal that the best you could say of a designer that, if he was trying to sell mobile phones, he'd be out of business very soon

Any engineer who designed and built a human would be drummed out of the Engineer's Guild for total and complete incompetence!

There is no way that such an imperfect design could be the result of any intelligence. Only the faulty process of natural selection could be guilty.

Why, for example, would any designer build in an appendix? This useless and dangerous organ is fully explainable using natural selection, but utterly unbelievable if designed by the meanest intelligence.

Why would any designer put the swallowing tube (esophagus) right next to the breathing tube (trachea), so that every year tens of thousands of people choke to death by inhaling food?

Why would any designer create a female reproductive system that causes so much anguish to its possessor?

And so on.

There is no way that such an imperfect design could be the result of any intelligence. Only the faulty process of natural selection could be guilty.

Yeah .. there is merrit in your point and dawkin's and others have driven the point home in their defense against creationist but let's not get carried away. In other words don't over do it .. living things are still highly integrated .. highly efficient "machines" with a high degree of optimization that would make engineers drool.

Even a creator would be impressed.

MB ...

Can't it be that we are made from other creatures step by step i mean first unicellular and then other creatures and at last Human Beings ?

Well .. in general your on to something .."step by step" is a bit tricky since it implies a direction or a plan for the future and you would get flack from an evolutionary biologist on that notion since evolution is not directed along any predertimed plan.

If life started all over on the earth there is nothing in natural selection that guarantees complexity or that humans would evolve.

All organisms have an evolutionary history and in that sense .. looking backwards in hindsight .. it could be said that one form allowed or dis allowed a current form to evolve.

So yeah .. the human eye did not simply emerge .. there are intermediate forms but all along nothing pre planned although it may "seem" that way.

MB ...

Mohave

Complexity is not the same as good. Life is a bit like the windows operating systems. Each time a problem arises, it is fixed by adding something extra. The 'proper' way to solve those problems, if intelligence was involved, is to remove the defective systems, and replace them with something better. This has not happened with living things. Instead, we get all sorts of extra complexity added, in a way that is just plain inefficient.

We get chemical systems that push in one direction, countered by chemical systems pushing in the other, to achieve a balance that could be achieved much more simply and efficiently without the immensely complicated chemical interactions.

For example : a human foetus produces chemicals to induce the mother to release more resources. The pregnant mother releases chemicals to stop releasing those same resources. The reason this system evolved is clear, but the end result is definitely not optimal. And no intelligence would have designed things that way.

Lots of people rave on about the wondrous nature of life. However, the complexity of life is rather frequently a result of inefficiency and extraordinarily poor control systems. While we may admire life's diversity, we should not get mystical about it. At the end of the day, much of it is just plain defective.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

Evolution is not step wise in the same way as the development of new technology is.

It's true, though the genetic side of evolution is strikingly machinelike. Whether its a soybean or a lobster, its mass production is by standard machines following universal instruction codes. It's kinda like if all our radios, wristwatches, and jumbojets ran off identical circuitry.

I don't agree. Though as I said I understand your view but your blowing it out of proportion.

First .. integration is a hallmark of slick engineering that is killing many birds with a single stone is efficient engineering. Human engineers don't do that as effectively as living things in fact many times a multi tool is a failure. I never said complexity is good but integration of systems is efficient design. Integration is like simplifying a math equation to it's bare relationships but still complex enough to handle any situation.

A plant for example is highly integrated. It does everything an animal does to survive and yet it's parts are very limited. We are still amazed by it's ability to split water and convert energy solar to chemical energy. Compare that to human designs trying to duplicate the same process. Where is it being done more efficiently ?

Second .. it's easy to critique any design biological or man made the day after it is designed. Without knowing what the design had to accomplish given many opposing design criteria and limited resources and commitments to past designs one can not critique in a meaningful manner how efficient an overall design solution solves a problem.

So you choke because of relative wind pipe location .. big deal .. stop complaining your breathing is also tied into your speech which is also located near your eyes and ears so you can carry on a converstation with all your senses in the same locality and you can even eat and develope knew theories of science while you eat and watch lectures on biology on youtube.

I would not like talking out of my ass so I could eat with my mouth and avoid choking. :-D Just remember not to eat and talk at the same time.

It's easy to design from a clean black board a simple tool but to design a series of tools .. a multi tool let us call it .. that must solve many problems all packaged in the same unit and to also have to work from a pre existing design is very tricky.

An airplane in good weather flies .. it does not walk .. run .. eat .. reproduce and repair itself. We don't ask that much from it's design. We just hope it takes off and lands safely in the right place in one piece and does not cost to much along the way.

For example : a human foetus produces chemicals to induce the mother to release more resources. The pregnant mother releases chemicals to stop releasing those same resources. The reason this system evolved is clear, but the end result is definitely not optimal. And no intelligence would have designed things that way.

No intelligence that we know of could of designed it in the first place. I can tell you are an "optimist"

So the human heart that beats .. How many times in a lifetime ? .. and you conclude it is defective ? You can make a better heart ? Has anyone yet ?

Your a tough customer. :?

Again your getting carried away. The arguement that inefficiencies or imperfections can be found in nature is NOT used in biology to belittle the design of life but much much much more as a secondary last kick to counter creationist views of intelligent design.

Sorry .. I don't know any biologist that work with biology that do not marvel the designs they see in life.

MB ..

It's true, though the genetic side of evolution is strikingly machinelike. Whether its a soybean or a lobster, its mass production is by standard machines following universal instruction codes. It's kinda like if all our radios, wristwatches, and jumbojets ran off identical circuitry.

Hello Pong ...

Yes and no .. if it was standardized and it was following some universal design code in time the system would fail. ( This is so beyond mutations or juggling the genetic system .. the information )

It is not like mass production of automobiles where every part must fit exactly to narrow specifications. Theory might suggest this and theories are often simplified compared to what happens in real life accross thousands of different species and huge populations but the fine tuned clock that we so admire would not work in the biological world where variation is vital and where plasticity and acclimation and other things are in play.

So in that sense we have something that looks like a defect in engineering but is in fact a very complex design feature.

By complex I mean difficult to grasp when viewed from human engineering. One would never suggest we vary the size of nuts and bolts in auto production just to vary things up and make a better product.

It makes perfect sense in biology.

MB ...

Theory of evolution or theory of creation well both are not yet proven there are still so many factors and questions that had been answered

Originally Posted by jazzy07

Theory of evolution or theory of creation well both are not yet proven there are still so many factors and questions that had been answered

Please keep in mind two things:

1) one of the above is actually a theory, grounded in significant scientific evidence such that it is also a fact; the other is a fantasy based on superstitious nonsense and without any scientific evidence. Essentially, one is "proven" and one isn't.

2) this is a science forum and you are welcome to post, but please do so with a mind for science and try to avoid making undereducated statements like the one quoted above. If you have questions about the science behind evolution or wish an education on it, you need only ask and there will be those who can answer or at least point you in the correct direction.