# Evolution seems to be guided



## Relaxation (Jul 12, 2010)

In the theory of evolution, simple organisms somehow sprouts out eyes, ears, noses, mouths, sperms, eggs etc

If you think that evolution or the entire universe has no guiding force, then how on earth would something randomly generate body parts that are able to sense things?

I've seen the argument made that eyes started out as "simple" light-detecting body parts. How do you randomly sprout off light-detecting body parts from nothing? You would have to have an entirely complicated mechanism that not only has the capability of sensing light, but a pathway to the brain that would need to interpret the information. 

That would be like saying one day a baby will be born and it will have gills that can breathe underwater. Would you honestly believe that could be possible at random? There are rules that exist in the universe that guide it. Life seems to evolve in ways that are aligned with pre-existing rules.


----------



## thesilenthunter90 (Mar 18, 2010)

Relaxation said:


> In the theory of evolution, simple organisms somehow sprouts out eyes, ears, noses, mouths, sperms, eggs etc
> 
> If you think that evolution or the entire universe has no guiding force, then how on earth would something randomly generate body parts that are able to sense things?
> 
> ...


Remember we are talking about evolution over a mind boggling lenght of time here. So an organisms reporduces and by chance a mutations occurs (mutations occur rapidly all the time) adn this mutations gives rise to an advantage (like a cell that detects shades of light), suddenly this organism can now see (only shades of colour ) and tis gives it an advantage of being able to stay away from predators and so its survives and reproduces and that mutation lives on in the next generation (and furthur random mutations occur until eyesight improves by the same process outlined above).

No a baby would not be randomly able to breathe under water if it had a random mutation because thats too big a leap. The best example I can give you is bacteria. I am sure you accept that bacteria can become immune to certain antibiotics because of random mutation ( the advantageous ones survive). Just by random 1 is able to survive because its had a molecular malformation on its surface (and was not killed). So this 1 survives and reproduces exponentially over 24 hrs (hence the observable mutation in bacteria and slower one in larger mammels). Evolution is a slow process of constant minor adjustments which lead to advantages. Things like eyes and ears and abilities to breathe under water dont just happen immediately they are slow improvement step wsie.

If you are questioning evolution, look up drosophila or bacteria as examples as rapidly evolving organisms which we can actively observe evolving and so giving proof of biological evolution.

If you have a ny more questions or need furthur explaination, just ask


----------



## SilentLoner (Jan 30, 2006)

Talk about oversimplification. Gotta love it when people who don't understand evolution try to debunk it.


----------



## Amocholes (Nov 5, 2003)

*Don't make things personal. Debate the topic not the debater.*


----------



## Belshazzar (Apr 12, 2010)

See:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

and


----------



## Judi (Jun 22, 2009)

To be fair on the OP, even though evolution occurs over millions of years and minute changes are culmulated. If you consider that a minute DNA change is likely to cause something bad to happen rather than good... and considering how large the population is now compared to in the past... it seems that humans can adapt (like sickle-cell blood is more advantageous in malaria infested areas) but evolving seems unlikely. We can observe them in bacteria because they are single cell organisms that multiply rapidly, but even they take a long time to be resistant to external factors that kill them. I guess I'm a little skeptic about the theory, but it's the closest thing we've got for now.

To be fair to everyone else, Relaxation doesn't show any respect to anyone who provides an alternative viewpoint! and he completely dissmisses someone's argument only to argue on a minor detail that's insignificant to try to boost his own self esteem. I hardly call this an argument.


----------



## SilentLoner (Jan 30, 2006)

Relaxation said:


> Wow what a great valuable reply again. You have shown everybody you are the expert on here about evolution. How many science degrees do you have? What peer reviewed scientific papers have you published?


I could ask you those same questions :roll


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2009)

Relaxation said:


> In the theory of evolution, simple organisms somehow sprouts out eyes, ears, noses, mouths, sperms, eggs etc


*Relaxation*. I've been sticking up for you a bit. Trying to see your points when others think you are being outlandish, making random comments (which I don't disagree with them) and to be honest I'm grateful for the threads but that's rediculous. Evolution does not work like that. I hate to use the _'go read'_ line because it's so common and normally intended to be offensive but seriously, go read a book. Read a 150 year old book infact, it's right there. No half clued up Darwanist or evolutionist thinks things randomly sprouted up.



Relaxation said:


> If you think that evolution or the entire universe has no guiding force, then how on earth would something randomly generate body parts that are able to sense things?


I've wrote this recently, to you I think. Gene mutations don't have a guiding force. They are random. The guiding force in natural selection is survival of the fittest. You may also have sexual selection.



Relaxation said:


> I've seen the argument made that eyes started out as "simple" light-detecting body parts. How do you randomly sprout off light-detecting body parts from nothing? You would have to have an entirely complicated mechanism that not only has the capability of sensing light, but a pathway to the brain that would need to interpret the information.





Relaxation said:


> That would be like saying one day a baby will be born and it will have gills that can breathe underwater. Would you honestly believe that could be possible at random? There are rules that exist in the universe that guide it. Life seems to evolve in ways that are aligned with pre-existing rules


Because it doesn't work like you think it does. It happens very slowly for a start and it happens from random gene mutations which naturally occur and may be very small, only a single monomer (letter unit of DNA) out of three million base pairs in humans. This tiny change may only have a small advantage, which in your example may allow it to react to light slightly differently or the cells involved may differentiate slightly further increasing the complexity of that organ. It also never started from a pre-existing organ, even basic proto organs like (I assume) you are imagining. That would be an intermediatry stage. It would have been from a single group of photosensitive cells. Eyes are believed to have evolved 40 different times by the way.


----------



## companioncube (Sep 7, 2008)

Relaxation said:


> That would be like saying one day a baby will be born and it will have gills that can breathe underwater. Would you honestly believe that could be possible at random? There are rules that exist in the universe that guide it. Life seems to evolve in ways that are aligned with pre-existing rules.


it wouldn't just happen for no reason and all of a sudden. part of evolution is adaption which could take tens of thousands to millions of years. we wouldn't just be born with gills all of a sudden, a whole massive group of people and their descendants would have to be in the water 24/7 trying to stay under the surface. but it still wouldn't happen, we are pretty fair in our evolution except for the random mutations that occur but it still wouldn't mean a baby would be born with gills.

adaption is one the reason that life has evolved differently dependant on where it is in the world.

i'm just interested but what do you think some of these "pre-existing rules" are?


----------



## Nae (Nov 10, 2003)

It might be expedient for those who don't accept evolution to point to the products of evolution which at its best look well suited for their purpose but what about all the imperfect or just plain bizarre examples we see? How do you answer those? Evolution can explain why some parts of an organism seem to be poorly _designed_, it is the fact that they aren't. No guide, no forethought, systems are only built upon in small steps.


----------



## LostPancake (Apr 8, 2009)

Relaxation said:


> That would be like saying one day a baby will be born and it will have gills that can breathe underwater. Would you honestly believe that could be possible at random? There are rules that exist in the universe that guide it. Life seems to evolve in ways that are aligned with pre-existing rules.


Look at all the mammals that adapted to life in the water (whales, dolphins, sea lions, etc) - none of them went back to using gills, but they just hold their breath longer, and store more oxygen in their muscles.


----------



## Relaxation (Jul 12, 2010)

To reply to some of you guys here, the theory of punctuated equilibrium trumps the theory of gradual evolution. The fossil records do not show gradual change.

low: the fact that the eye evolved 40 different times is evidence that evolution is not random. Think about how complex it is to make something that can detect light. Even as "simple" as you make it, it is an extremely complex, specialized organ.


----------



## low (Sep 27, 2009)

Relaxation said:


> To reply to some of you guys here, the theory of punctuated equilibrium trumps the theory of gradual evolution. *The fossil records do not show gradual change.*


Some don't. As some creatures have remained suitable to their environments little change has been needed. There are tons of intermediate fossils. I don't know why you creationist type folk (that's what you come off as anyway) keep saying that lame argument.



Relaxation said:


> low: the fact that the eye evolved 40 different times is evidence that evolution is not random. Think about how complex it is to make something that can detect light. Even as "simple" as you make it, it *is an extremely complex, specialized organ*.


Which would would have needed a long time to evolve and therefore debunks punctuated equilibrium in this example.


----------



## Relaxation (Jul 12, 2010)

companioncube said:


> i'm just interested but what do you think some of these "pre-existing rules" are?


For example, even if something "mutates randomly", there are only certain limited options that it can mutate into. There isn't an infinite number of things that it can generate. Why do all animals have the same 5 senses? Can there be 10 to 15 potential different senses out there? How do the cells know how/what to sense?

(The closest thing to a 6th sense would be a sonar system, but that's actually just producing noise and then listening to it with accuracy so it's using 2 existing senses.)


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

We are products of our environment, biologically. Certain features evolve to fill a niche. Lots of animals have some interesting senses that we do not, such as magnetoreception and electroreception.

Anyways, is it your position that evolution has occurred but that it's guided?


----------



## TheGreatPretender (Sep 6, 2010)

Alright, I am majoring in Biology so I can answer many of the questions from skeptics. Firstly, 100% of these problems would be answered by simply reading a textbook on evolution. Many 
people still think that evolution is up for debate because, after all, it is only a "theory". Yes it is called the theory of evolution. There is also a universal theory of gravity. Perhaps we can debate the validity of that theory as well. The point is, evolution is as accepted among scientists (atheists and theists alike) as gravity is. Trying to disprove evolution is simply ignorance. 

Your skepticism seems to come from the fact that complex organs such as eyes require much genetic mutation in order to form. You also seem to believe that the complexity of life somehow indicates that mutation was guided by God. 

Firstly, mutation is a fairly common occurrence. For example, the transposition rate in drosophila melanogaster (fruit flies) is about 10^-3 to 10^-5 per gene copy. When you think about how many genes there are an individual of any species, it comes to a fairly large number of mutations. The large majority of these mutations will be deleterious or confer a fitness disadvantage, however a small number will confer a fitness advantage. Given the large number of individuals in any species, it is not far fetched to say that many advantageous mutations arise in every generation of offspring. Given the number of generations any species will have over the course of millions of years, a large amount of genetic change and the development of complex structures is not surprising. The eye likely underwent many changes to attain the level of complexity it has today. This is not evidence of a guiding force. It simply means that at every stage of the eye's development, it had a function that increased the fitness of individuals possessing that trait.

You also mention convergent evolution as evidence of a guiding force (God). Convergent evolution is merely caused by similar selective pressures which results in the evolution of analogous traits.


----------



## lonelyjew (Jan 20, 2010)

Lol, now I understand why in every day I have my evolution class, the prof goes off about creationists/intelligent designers in frustration. I'm not going to try to explain evolution to the op, I really don't think there is any room for convincing here.

Suffice it to say though, that this obsession with the oh so complicated eye is misplaced. Flagellata, single celled protozoans, have been shown to have pigments that make them responsive to light. The eye didn't just appear out of magic, it took hundreds of millions of years to evolve from biomolecules that changed their configuration in response to electromagnetic ratiation in the visible range to what we see as an eye.


----------



## NameIsNotImportant (Aug 30, 2010)

Everyone in this thread. Read the evolutionary books, then come back.
It's either "Evolution isn't real", or "Evolution is guided". Why can't anyone read up on the books to realise how it actually works before coming with these claims? ughh


----------



## Belshazzar (Apr 12, 2010)

I put in a request to get a sticky for resources on evolution in this forum. Hopefully, it'll answer the questions of the uninitiated and curb some of the repetitive debates on this topic. Until then, the crocoduck reigns supreme:


----------



## Shonen_Yo (Sep 8, 2006)

Evolution in itself is not a random process. Mutation is more random than evolution, but there is, or rather are, guiding forces: natural selection, hybridization (flowers), genetic drift. Natural processes that make complex organs like the eyes can modify already existing functions. (



)

As for gills, if babies were born with gills, you'd have a direct violation of the hierarchical nature of organisms and contradict evolution.


----------



## NameIsNotImportant (Aug 30, 2010)

Shonen_Yo said:


> Evolution in itself is not a random process. Mutation is more random than evolution, but there is, or rather are, guiding forces: natural selection, hybridization (flowers), genetic drift. Natural processes that make complex organs like the eyes can modify already existing functions. (
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly. All of these processes might make it seem guided, but it's all explained if you read the theory or at least a summary of it.


----------



## OrbitalResonance (Sep 21, 2010)

Everything Evolves. You evolved from an egg, your car evolved through the factory, technology evolved and is evolving. If you want guided evolution look at technology. Nothing stops evolving. Look at how different people are, the chinese are different from Africans who are different from Caucasians. This is because of thousands of years of genetic drift. Thae parties became seperated geographically and thus became different.

Now, there is no evidence for or against guided evolution. The "creator" apparently built it so there would be no evidence either way. lol


----------

