Evolution: Ask A Question

[CrownOfLove]

Hi, i've seen a lot of people who seem to be unsure what to believe in relation to evolution (many have real misconceptions about what the theory is all about), so i though it might be a good idea to have a thread where people who are unsure about things can ask questions, where skeptiks can offer problems they have with evolution and where i (among any other evolutionists who know their stuff) can respond to them.

I would rather this thread was kept from having any long debates (though i accept that certain points may have to be debated). Also, i think the questions should stick to life on earth (leave cosmology or big bang/universe theories out of it. I'd also appreciate if God/relgions questions were kept away.

Having said that, i think it might be quite a good idea to maybe have some questions on ID (Intelligent Design) also, so people can hear both sides.

[Vulgotha]

Is Evolution an entropic process?

[CrownOfLove]

Is Evolution an entropic process?

*has a suspicion that this is one of those question which stems from not understanding the 2nd law of thermodynamics*

No evolution is not. The earth is not a closed system so there is no need for it to be.

[Vulgotha]

I understand the laws.

Entropic means chaotic.

So why bring this up? I simply inserted a more colorful adjective, it had nothing to do with the Thermodynamic laws here...

In fact I don't know how I could even insert the laws of Thermodynamics into this. That wasn't some sort of veiled stab.

[CrownOfLove]

Okay, beg your pardon. It was just a little confusing. Surely seen as the whole point of evolution is chaos working to create order, it should be obvious to anyone who understands the theory that it is not really an entropic system.

Seen as i assumed you understood how evolution worked, the only motive i assumed you could have for asking the question, was that you were going to then say 'But that contradicts the 2nd law of thermo, which means it can not be true!;.

Obviously i am mistaken though. However, i am curious, what was your purpose in asking the question?

[Vulgotha]

Simply to see what your response would be, as an Evolutionist.


Because looking through my eyes, it can't possibly be a well structured process. Nature has never sponatenously formed such by itself. (some could try and SQUUEEZE Thermodynamics into this, but I don't... I simply use the Thermo-laws as proof that the Universe has an age, and is "Winding down" so to speak.)


Thats my point of view is all. And knowing how that is my point of view, I need to understand you people.

Elsewise we have this massive communication\understanding Barrier like we do in the religious debates.

[CrownOfLove]

Right okay, fair enough.

I would advise you to re-read the 2nd law of thermo though if you are interested in entropy. People (on both sides) often try to quote small segments of each of the laws, without actually understanding what the whole law means. If you think that the 2nd law just says' chaos will always increase in any system', then you are mistaken. If not, then don't worry about it.

[Vulgotha]

lol ..

a debate\discussion for another time. (not saying I disagree with you)

I started to post somthing else, and then realized I had forgotten the information. So basically I want to re-read some things again before I properly respond to that.




...I do however think that overtime our genetic structure is weakening... We're gaining new flaws and etc. But I don't believe that has to do with Entropy, so much as speciation and the thin spreading of Genes (as no new information can ever be produced, via mutation or otherwise).

I think thats why you get all those "Genetic Doomsday" scenarios in movies? Like "The Last Mimzy".

I'm unsure if this is purely an I.D.\Creationist maintained view, or of its Universal...

I've heard Evolutionists proclaim it to be true.

[123456]

I know I've posted about this before, but I still fail to see how evolution is not a random process. Natural selection is not completely random and makes enough sense, however before that can even take place, evolution relies on random mutations of organisms. If mutations are random and 100% necessary for evolution to occur, then how can evolutionists rightly say that evolution is not a randomized process?

[hgmaster]

...I do however think that overtime our genetic structure is weakening... We're gaining new flaws and etc. But I don't believe that has to do with Entropy, so much as speciation and the thin spreading of Genes (as no new information can ever be produced, via mutation or otherwise).

What would be these flaws your speaking of? Not that I am disagreeing with you, but light maybe shed on specific things.
Surely Genetic diversity is key. Look at your favorite sport. Do you see a rise in talent coming from a mixed race?

[123456]

I've heard there are evolutionary/genetic trends in organisms that have been used I guess to help figure out different ancestries. If any of that is true, how accurate is it and are we able to use it to predict what human beings may eventually evolve into?

[CrownOfLove]

replies to Vulgotha

...I do however think that overtime our genetic structure is weakening... We're gaining new flaws and etc. But I don't believe that has to do with Entropy, so much as speciation and the thin spreading of Genes (as no new information can ever be produced, via mutation or otherwise).

I think thats why you get all those "Genetic Doomsday" scenarios in movies? Like "The Last Mimzy".

I'm unsure if this is purely an I.D.\Creationist maintained view, or of its Universal...

I've heard Evolutionists proclaim it to be true.

Well that certainly isn't the case for the majority of life on earth. I'm sure that has happened to some species, but most likely they died out because of that. It certainly isn't the case with most though.


However, you may have a point in relation to humans. Seen as we have such incredible medicines and healing methods now, we aren't dying as easily as we used to. This is, in my opinion, certainly a good thing, but it does mean that people with bad genes that in wild would have been killed by natural selection, get to live and reproduce, therefore passing on their genes.

Replies to 123456

I know I've posted about this before, but I still fail to see how evolution is not a random process. Natural selection is not completely random and makes enough sense, however before that can even take place, evolution relies on random mutations of organisms. If mutations are random and 100% necessary for evolution to occur, then how can evolutionists rightly say that evolution is not a randomized process?

Because, although the mutations are random, the choosing of which survive is not. It's not like mutations randomally occur, and then randomally get passed on. Good mutations, that are benefitial for survival, are usually passed on. Bad mutations that harm the owner, don't often survive many generations.

Think of it this way, these are pretty much the ingredients of evolution:

1) Reproduction: Not random
2) Mutation: Random
3) Survival: Not random

So although parts of evolution are random, as a whole system it certainly is not.

I've heard there are evolutionary/genetic trends in organisms that have been used I guess to help figure out different ancestries. If any of that is true, how accurate is it and are we able to use it to predict what human beings may eventually evolve into?

Well, i'm afraid i'm not to knowledgable on this subject, but i think human evolution is more likely to be predictable by looking at the way society is evolving then to look at genetic heritages of other species.

Seen as natural selection doesn't really operate on humanity in the normal way any more, it is hard to really predict much about how we will evolve.

[Faceless]

I have nothing to add to this topic except for this should be a very interesting thread to follow as it grows. I love reading on this subject.

[QuickSilverD]

However, you may have a point in relation to humans. Seen as we have such incredible medicines and healing methods now, we aren't dying as easily as we used to. This is, in my opinion, certainly a good thing, but it does mean that people with bad genes that in wild would have been killed by natural selection, get to live and reproduce, therefore passing on their genes.

I heard that in the future, there will be genetic manipulation, which would allow parents to “choose” genetic characteristics of their Childs and of course these “genetic controls” would allow us to eliminate any disfavourable mutations and traits, like genetics diseases and allergies and all that stuff that makes us weak somehow while also enhancing favourable traits and this would somehow make the newborn more intelligent and strong, you get the picture.

But basically with all the advances we see today I have no doubt that scientists will find a way to control “our evolution” so I have no worries whatsoever about this “genetic doomsday”. Wouldn’t you agree?

[proof]

I have a question; Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[FatalBeliever]

It's obvious the chicken came first.
Cells would of created it.
An egg would have died without anything to look after it

[Se7enwolf]

No one here can answer any of these questions since no one really knows and as on the matter of evolution, they are always changing the theory on it to fit whatever findings they come across as so it stays "fact" to them. Such as with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, they just simply twicked both of them to fit one an other

[123456]

I heard that in the future, there will be genetic manipulation, which would allow parents to “choose” genetic characteristics of their Childs and of course these “genetic controls” would allow us to eliminate any disfavourable mutations and traits, like genetics diseases and allergies and all that stuff that makes us weak somehow while also enhancing favourable traits and this would somehow make the newborn more intelligent and strong, you get the picture.

First of all, this is completely messed up. Call me names if you want, but playing God is not something we should be doing...

But basically with all the advances we see today I have no doubt that scientists will find a way to control “our evolution” so I have no worries whatsoever about this “genetic doomsday”. Wouldn’t you agree?

Assuming we don't kill ourselves first. Keep in mind, technology has led us to great technological advances- including chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Your statement depends on which we choose to use more of. I guarantee that one nuclear bomb will kill more people than a single vaccine will save

It's obvious the chicken came first.
Cells would of created it.
An egg would have died without anything to look after it

So cells just happened to make the first chicken? That was lucky! That reminds me of abiogenesis debates, which out of respect for Crown, I wont get into here. Riddle me this though... Even if you were lucky enough to somehow produce a chicken, how would it create an egg without a rooster? There would have to be at least the two of them before they could reproduce.

[Axe&Hammer]

I have a question; Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg arrived on the biological scene millions of years before aves evolved(late Jurassic)

[123456]

But where did the egg come from?

[QuickSilverD]

First of all, this is completely messed up. Call me names if you want, but playing God is not something we should be doing...

I see nothing unmoral with using science to “improve” ourselves, the way I see it is not any difference to been vaccinated. Playing God you say, fixing a problem I say. Let’s face it people who shouldn’t be reproducing are doing it; the only way to prevent the flaws in their DNA to destroy us is with genetic manipulation.

Think about it, what is so wrong with that?

If you get really sick, some heart condition, but say we have the technology to “clone” parts of our body, or let’s say that there is a method to cure cancer but its research is using thousands and thousands of foetus (artificially created and aborted too) and you have cancer, would you refuse to take the treatment even if it could save your life?

Assuming we don't kill ourselves first. Keep in mind, technology has led us to great technological advances- including chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Your statement depends on which we choose to use more of. I guarantee that one nuclear bomb will kill more people than a single vaccine will save

I have faith in humanity.

We are now aware of all the things that are wrong with us and we have predicted some outcomes of what will happen with this planet and our race if we keep a bab track, and since we are aware of that I believe that we will make everything right at the end

[123456]

I see nothing unmoral with using science to “improve” ourselves, the way I see it is not any difference to been vaccinated. Playing God you say, fixing a problem I say. Let’s face it people who shouldn’t be reproducing are doing it; the only way to prevent the flaws in their DNA to destroy us is with genetic manipulation.

Think about it, what is so wrong with that?

Yes, well I can just imagine printing out an internet coupon for a "buy one get one free" deal on "improving" your embryo.

"Oh, you want to ensure your future son will never have a heart murmur? Ok, done. Now what else would you like done?"

"Um, lets make his eyes blue and hair blond."

"Ok. Anything else? For another $2500 we could ensure he will have a large penis..."

The problem is that genetic manipulations will be abused. Besides, yes, some people are born blind, deaf, retarded, whatever... However, a disorder of some sort does not mean that that person is necessarily weaker than anyone else. Someone born blind can have an entirely different perspective on the world, and many blind people have done amazing things. I simply have a problem with us judging what is a "good" trait vs a "bad" trait.

If you get really sick, some heart condition, but say we have the technology to “clone” parts of our body, or let’s say that there is a method to cure cancer but its research is using thousands and thousands of foetus (artificially created and aborted too) and you have cancer, would you refuse to take the treatment even if it could save your life?

If my option was to have babies created and then murdered to save my own life, then yes, I would rather die. I will not place the importance of my life above anyone else's, including an unborn fetus. Besides, no fear in death

I have faith in humanity.

More than I do. Not that I live in constant fear, but I highly suspect we will be our own demise.

We are now aware of all the things that are wrong with us and we have predicted some outcomes of what will happen with this planet and our race if we keep a bab track, and since we are aware of that I believe that we will make everything right at the end

Not quite. There are still many medical mysteries out there. I'm sure there will be more to come as well. We do have tremendous power when it comes to our ability to cure illnesses, but we are certainly far from perfect. Besides, generally speaking, the poor are still left SOL and people with money are given our immediate attention. I'm sorry, but you should not have to buy your own health.

[hgmaster]

But where did the egg come from?

The laying of eggs is something that a species does because it only has one body opening for the disposal of waste and procreation.
Mammals, reptiles and amphibians depending on the species can give birth live or lay an egg.

[123456]

The laying of eggs is something that a species does because it only has one body opening for the disposal of waste and procreation.
Mammals, reptiles and amphibians depending on the species can give birth live or lay an egg.

Yes, which would mean then that that entire specific reproduction system would have had to evolve over a great period of time. For that matter, pretty much any reproductive system must have evolved over time. So then, how do we get more animals until reproductive systems have been properly evolved?

[Grifer]

Yes, which would mean then that that entire specific reproduction system would have had to evolve over a great period of time. For that matter, pretty much any reproductive system must have evolved over time. So then, how do we get more animals until reproductive systems have been properly evolved?

Throuh self-cloning and other means of asexual reproduction.