OP
sk8bloke22
roll for life
- Thread Starter
- #301
atmosphere in perfect conditions.......that may hav taken years for that to happen, millions of years. if the atmosphere was in different conditions compared to know, how would we live on this planet.
ok about the body and the organs. well if we ourselves are therefore open systems, then surely something most hav tydied us up or wateva. u assume god, but if the thoery of evolution is correct, then surely the placement of body parts is an affect of the natural selection of nature itself. the theory of evolution assumes that other millions of years and through a process of natural selection, life evolves and alters itself, byitself. well, consider that, then we obviously did not just appear on the earth by a magic wand pointed by god, but came into an existance through millions years of evolution. just as early discovered skulls of wat is considered to be early man (often compared to aboriginis) is slightly different in shape to the typical human skull no, as in distinctive differences.
heres some more stuff from that website:
"The Eye
Creationists just love the human eye. It is an amazingly complex organ with hundreds of parts all working together, and our bible thumping friends like to cite it as an example of something that evolution could not have produced. The argument consists of two parts: the eye is too complex to have formed randomly, and natural selection does not apply to it because the eye is useless until fully formed, and would not have been favorable in beginning stages. The creationists are right about one thing. The eye is too complex to have formed randomly. The odds of one forming without any direction are incredibly small, and no one in their right mind would claim otherwise. Fortunately, evolution does have direction. Evolution is not random, because of natural selection. That brings us to the second part of the argument. According to the creationists, natural selection would be of no help because the eye can't be used (and therefore cannot be an advantage to an organism) until it is fully formed. Let's examine different types of eyes and see what exactly "fully formed" means.
When we hear the word eye, we usually think of the large white sphere like objects inside of our skulls. What we don't realize is that complex animals such as humans, frogs, and lizards aren't the only ones fortunate enough to have the ability to see. Frogs, I believe, have the best eyes out of any animal. It is believed that their eyes can actually detect single photons of light. What is important here, though, is whether or not simpler forms of eyes exist. If we find very primitive eyes on ancient organisms, then we know that intermediate stages in the development of the eye would be prone to natural selection because they do work, unlike what the creationists are telling us.
Fish have simpler eyes than us, and they work perfectly fine. Arthropods have simpler eyes than us, and they work perfectly fine. Many mollusks have eyes which are far simpler than ours (except for cephalopods -- they have advanced eyes), and they work perfectly fine. However, the furthest away you can get form the standard definition of an eye, in my opinion, is the eye of a planarian. Planarians are members of the acoelomate flatworms. Flatworms are one of the oldest species of animal, and were the very first to have tissues organized into organs. These tiny creatures, as incredibly simple as they may be, have eyes. Actually, they aren't even called eyes. They're called eyespots. These eyes, really, are just a collection of light sensitive cells connected to the incredibly tiny brain of the planarian. They can't form even the simplest of images. They can only detect large differences in light. The eyes can't even move. They're stationary. These eyes are incredibly simple and underdeveloped, yet they serve a purpose that is definitely prone to natural selection. The same applies to all of the other primitive sight organs in organisms. There are plenty of fully functioning intermediate stages of the eye for natural selection to act upon.
So what does it mean, exactly, that natural selection can aid the evolutionary process? It means that the incredibly tiny odds of eyes as complex as ours forming shoot way up into the range of the probable. Creationists love to say, "The odds of random mutations forming a human being through evolution is quite like a monkey accidentally typing an unabridged dictionary". Actually, it's not at all like it. Natural selection lets organisms develop one helpful trait, then pass it on, rather than having to form that same trait over and over again with every generation by random chance. Imagine a monkey randomly punching keys on his type writer. What are the odds of the monkey typing the word "Hello"? There are twenty six keys (twenty seven if you include the spacebar), and there are five letters in the word hello. That means that the odds of the monkey accidentally typing the word correctly are one in twenty seven raised to the fifth power. My calculator tells me that is one in 14,348,907. The problem with this calculation is that it does not take three things into account: natural selection, several monkies, and alternate possibilities. Now, since we are using this as an analogy to demonstrate the evolution of the eye, and the eye is a helpful organ, let us use natural selection to pass on correctly punched letters. Suppose the monkey types the letter M. That is an incorrect letter (or a harmful mutation) and will be thrown out. The monkey tries again. S. Again, that is incorrect. The monkey tries a third time. H. Bingo! Now, in the real world, helpful mutations (or in this example, correct letters) are passed on to offspring. Without natural selection, the monkey would have to type E after H. If he screws it up, then he has to start all over again. If, by some miracle, he manages to type HE, he still has to type the L. If he misses it, he has to start all over again, and it might be a very long time before he punches HE again to win another shot at it. You can see that typing the word HELLO without natural selection can be a very, very long process.
With natural selection, however, the monkey only has to get the right letters once. When he types H for the first time, that's all he has to do, because natural selection lets him pass the H down. If he screws up the next letter, it's no big deal because he'll just go back to H again. The monkey type HE. Now, for L. After several misses, the monkey hits L. Again, after several more misses, our friend hits another L, and finally, an O. This process with one monkey would probably take no more than five minutes. It's really just the amount of time would take for you to hit every letter on the keyboard five times. Actually, it could be a lot less than that because you would only have to hit each key five times until you hit the right letters. A monkey, with natural selection, can easily type the word hello. Unfortunately, we're talking about dictionaries, not single words. One monkey using this method to type a dictionary would take centuries. Luckily, in the real world, there is not just one monkey. There is also not just one mutation a day. There are thousands. Imagine thousands of mutations every day of the year for ten years. For a hundred. For a thousand. A million. A hundred million. How about three and a half billion years? (The oldest fossils ever found have been dated to about 3.5 billion years.) The odds are dramatically more likely now, but that's still not the end of the story.
Creationists make the very false assumption that the way that life is now was the only path is could have taken. They think that after 3.5 billion years of evolution, in every possible scenario, the newest result would be humans -- tall, bipedal organisms that have no hair and the ability to speak. They also think that these organisms would have evolved from chimpanzees, and chimpanzees from simpler primates, and primates from monkeys, and monkeys from other mammals, and mammals from reptiles, reptiles from amphibians, amphibians from fish, and so on. They act as if this evolutionary scenario is the only one that would have worked. They cannot be more wrong. There is an astronomical amount of possible evolutionary paths. The one that we see today is just one out of the radically different possibilities. There is nothing special about it. What does this have to do with the formation of complex organs? Let's go back to our example with the monkey and the typewriter.
Assuming that the word "hello" is the only word that the monkey can type is exactly like assuming that the evolutionary path that we see today is the only one that could have happened. To make things a bit more realistic, let's lengthen the word hello to "hello my name is dave" (for simplicity's sake, I took out punctuation and capitalization). It's going to take a little longer for the monkey to type this sentence because it's significantly longer. But what if we take into account that this is not the only sentence that the monkey could type? The earliest parts of the sentence will remain the same in different scenarios, just as the earliest organisms in different evolutionary paths will be very similar. All life forms are carbon based and all life forms need energy, so the basics won't change much. But as life evolves, a huge multitude of possibilities open up. While the first organisms in different paths will probably all be single celled prokaryotes, the organisms several billion years later will be dramatically different, allowing for more workable paths (and correct words for the monkey). Let me give some examples of what else the monkey could type instead of hello my name is dave.
hello my name is davi
hello my name is davr
hello my name is dklr
hello my name is fiem
hello my name jb dufk
hello my nafu uf gjkn
hello mb jfhu fh ijwn
hello jm dfjh efuhfeu
hello sdfkjiu ehufugg
hello fjigjenbufpwkjdf
hello fhigjkdswjfdioef
And so on. The very basic forms of life (the word hello in our example) will remain the same, while more complex organisms can be completely different. This increases the monkey's chances of typing a correct sentence dramatically, and speeds up the process by enormous amounts. The chances of the monkey typing one specific combination of letters of those examples are small, but the chances of the monkey typing any of those combinations is actually a very easy task.
Between natural selection, the fact that so many mutations occur each day, and the astronomically huge number possibilities, the evolution of complex organs such as the eye is a very easy task for evolution. Once again, creationist attacks fall flat on their face."
ok about the body and the organs. well if we ourselves are therefore open systems, then surely something most hav tydied us up or wateva. u assume god, but if the thoery of evolution is correct, then surely the placement of body parts is an affect of the natural selection of nature itself. the theory of evolution assumes that other millions of years and through a process of natural selection, life evolves and alters itself, byitself. well, consider that, then we obviously did not just appear on the earth by a magic wand pointed by god, but came into an existance through millions years of evolution. just as early discovered skulls of wat is considered to be early man (often compared to aboriginis) is slightly different in shape to the typical human skull no, as in distinctive differences.
heres some more stuff from that website:
"The Eye
Creationists just love the human eye. It is an amazingly complex organ with hundreds of parts all working together, and our bible thumping friends like to cite it as an example of something that evolution could not have produced. The argument consists of two parts: the eye is too complex to have formed randomly, and natural selection does not apply to it because the eye is useless until fully formed, and would not have been favorable in beginning stages. The creationists are right about one thing. The eye is too complex to have formed randomly. The odds of one forming without any direction are incredibly small, and no one in their right mind would claim otherwise. Fortunately, evolution does have direction. Evolution is not random, because of natural selection. That brings us to the second part of the argument. According to the creationists, natural selection would be of no help because the eye can't be used (and therefore cannot be an advantage to an organism) until it is fully formed. Let's examine different types of eyes and see what exactly "fully formed" means.
When we hear the word eye, we usually think of the large white sphere like objects inside of our skulls. What we don't realize is that complex animals such as humans, frogs, and lizards aren't the only ones fortunate enough to have the ability to see. Frogs, I believe, have the best eyes out of any animal. It is believed that their eyes can actually detect single photons of light. What is important here, though, is whether or not simpler forms of eyes exist. If we find very primitive eyes on ancient organisms, then we know that intermediate stages in the development of the eye would be prone to natural selection because they do work, unlike what the creationists are telling us.
Fish have simpler eyes than us, and they work perfectly fine. Arthropods have simpler eyes than us, and they work perfectly fine. Many mollusks have eyes which are far simpler than ours (except for cephalopods -- they have advanced eyes), and they work perfectly fine. However, the furthest away you can get form the standard definition of an eye, in my opinion, is the eye of a planarian. Planarians are members of the acoelomate flatworms. Flatworms are one of the oldest species of animal, and were the very first to have tissues organized into organs. These tiny creatures, as incredibly simple as they may be, have eyes. Actually, they aren't even called eyes. They're called eyespots. These eyes, really, are just a collection of light sensitive cells connected to the incredibly tiny brain of the planarian. They can't form even the simplest of images. They can only detect large differences in light. The eyes can't even move. They're stationary. These eyes are incredibly simple and underdeveloped, yet they serve a purpose that is definitely prone to natural selection. The same applies to all of the other primitive sight organs in organisms. There are plenty of fully functioning intermediate stages of the eye for natural selection to act upon.
So what does it mean, exactly, that natural selection can aid the evolutionary process? It means that the incredibly tiny odds of eyes as complex as ours forming shoot way up into the range of the probable. Creationists love to say, "The odds of random mutations forming a human being through evolution is quite like a monkey accidentally typing an unabridged dictionary". Actually, it's not at all like it. Natural selection lets organisms develop one helpful trait, then pass it on, rather than having to form that same trait over and over again with every generation by random chance. Imagine a monkey randomly punching keys on his type writer. What are the odds of the monkey typing the word "Hello"? There are twenty six keys (twenty seven if you include the spacebar), and there are five letters in the word hello. That means that the odds of the monkey accidentally typing the word correctly are one in twenty seven raised to the fifth power. My calculator tells me that is one in 14,348,907. The problem with this calculation is that it does not take three things into account: natural selection, several monkies, and alternate possibilities. Now, since we are using this as an analogy to demonstrate the evolution of the eye, and the eye is a helpful organ, let us use natural selection to pass on correctly punched letters. Suppose the monkey types the letter M. That is an incorrect letter (or a harmful mutation) and will be thrown out. The monkey tries again. S. Again, that is incorrect. The monkey tries a third time. H. Bingo! Now, in the real world, helpful mutations (or in this example, correct letters) are passed on to offspring. Without natural selection, the monkey would have to type E after H. If he screws it up, then he has to start all over again. If, by some miracle, he manages to type HE, he still has to type the L. If he misses it, he has to start all over again, and it might be a very long time before he punches HE again to win another shot at it. You can see that typing the word HELLO without natural selection can be a very, very long process.
With natural selection, however, the monkey only has to get the right letters once. When he types H for the first time, that's all he has to do, because natural selection lets him pass the H down. If he screws up the next letter, it's no big deal because he'll just go back to H again. The monkey type HE. Now, for L. After several misses, the monkey hits L. Again, after several more misses, our friend hits another L, and finally, an O. This process with one monkey would probably take no more than five minutes. It's really just the amount of time would take for you to hit every letter on the keyboard five times. Actually, it could be a lot less than that because you would only have to hit each key five times until you hit the right letters. A monkey, with natural selection, can easily type the word hello. Unfortunately, we're talking about dictionaries, not single words. One monkey using this method to type a dictionary would take centuries. Luckily, in the real world, there is not just one monkey. There is also not just one mutation a day. There are thousands. Imagine thousands of mutations every day of the year for ten years. For a hundred. For a thousand. A million. A hundred million. How about three and a half billion years? (The oldest fossils ever found have been dated to about 3.5 billion years.) The odds are dramatically more likely now, but that's still not the end of the story.
Creationists make the very false assumption that the way that life is now was the only path is could have taken. They think that after 3.5 billion years of evolution, in every possible scenario, the newest result would be humans -- tall, bipedal organisms that have no hair and the ability to speak. They also think that these organisms would have evolved from chimpanzees, and chimpanzees from simpler primates, and primates from monkeys, and monkeys from other mammals, and mammals from reptiles, reptiles from amphibians, amphibians from fish, and so on. They act as if this evolutionary scenario is the only one that would have worked. They cannot be more wrong. There is an astronomical amount of possible evolutionary paths. The one that we see today is just one out of the radically different possibilities. There is nothing special about it. What does this have to do with the formation of complex organs? Let's go back to our example with the monkey and the typewriter.
Assuming that the word "hello" is the only word that the monkey can type is exactly like assuming that the evolutionary path that we see today is the only one that could have happened. To make things a bit more realistic, let's lengthen the word hello to "hello my name is dave" (for simplicity's sake, I took out punctuation and capitalization). It's going to take a little longer for the monkey to type this sentence because it's significantly longer. But what if we take into account that this is not the only sentence that the monkey could type? The earliest parts of the sentence will remain the same in different scenarios, just as the earliest organisms in different evolutionary paths will be very similar. All life forms are carbon based and all life forms need energy, so the basics won't change much. But as life evolves, a huge multitude of possibilities open up. While the first organisms in different paths will probably all be single celled prokaryotes, the organisms several billion years later will be dramatically different, allowing for more workable paths (and correct words for the monkey). Let me give some examples of what else the monkey could type instead of hello my name is dave.
hello my name is davi
hello my name is davr
hello my name is dklr
hello my name is fiem
hello my name jb dufk
hello my nafu uf gjkn
hello mb jfhu fh ijwn
hello jm dfjh efuhfeu
hello sdfkjiu ehufugg
hello fjigjenbufpwkjdf
hello fhigjkdswjfdioef
And so on. The very basic forms of life (the word hello in our example) will remain the same, while more complex organisms can be completely different. This increases the monkey's chances of typing a correct sentence dramatically, and speeds up the process by enormous amounts. The chances of the monkey typing one specific combination of letters of those examples are small, but the chances of the monkey typing any of those combinations is actually a very easy task.
Between natural selection, the fact that so many mutations occur each day, and the astronomically huge number possibilities, the evolution of complex organs such as the eye is a very easy task for evolution. Once again, creationist attacks fall flat on their face."
21 Pages.. 
