On 2008-05-10 14:41:50 +0100, Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:03:59 +0100, Andrew <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-05-10 01:06:23 +0100, Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
said:
>>
> (snip)
>>
>> "Mutation" as such is only a very small part of Darwinian evolution.
>> Once a mutation is in the gene pool most of the work of natural
>> selection is done by non-mutative variation within a population. The
>> only 'tangible' benefit required is that a variation gives one member
>> of a species a better chance of surviving than others.
>>
> Andrew, I quite agree on this, as far as we've taken it, but there is
> still that nagging set of questions as to how a creature or clan of
> creatures could survive and sustain a very complex and long drawn out
> sequence of Darwinian evolutionary changes that didn't produce any
> benefits for a very long time and after being passed along through a
> large number of generations.
>
> I'm talking about things like the development of eyes in so many
> different species. The useful visual properties didn't (couldn't) show
> up until the very complex and very extensive series of eye structure
> mutations had gone to completion. That would have taken thousands of
> generations, and millions of years.
I don't agree. Even if an organism simply has a few light-sensitive
cells that allow it to get out of the way when a predator comes
prowling while its fellows get eaten would provide the kind of
advantage that Darwin suggested. A complete eye with all its structures
would no doubt provide a significantly greater advantage, but there is
no need to posit a complete eye as a necessity for evolutionary
advantage.
Also, eyes do not have to develop independently in all organisms that
have them. As long as rudimentary visual organs developed in the common
ancestor.
>
> What I'm saying here is, for example, an eye system, complete except
> for the lens, would not provide any Darwinian advantages and would not
> likely have continued to evolve. The process had to go all the way to
> completion before any Darwinian advantages came into play. What
> attributes of Darwinian selection kept this process going during those
> first generations, long before any benefits could be realized?
>
> Eye development doesn't seem to have had a singular mutation source.
> That is, for example, the octopus (phylum mollusca) has eyes that use
> specialized skin cells for the retina, with the optic nerve attached
> to the back of the retina. Humans and other creatures of the phylum
> chordata have eyes that use specialized brain cells for the retina,
> and the optic nerve penetrates the retina then attaches to the front
> side.
>
> These two eye development Darwinian processes seem to have occurred
> independently of each other. There must have been some positive
> effects, early on, but what were these positive effects.
Although the eye development processes have occurred independently they
may have arisen from a single mutation in a common ancestor.
>
> Gordon
>>
>>>
>>> What Darwinian selection benefits were instilled early on, by the
>>> development of visual sensors (eyes) in so many different species? If
>>> we go along with Darwinian natural selection, there had to be some
>>> benefits from the git go, so to speak. Why did the mutation process
>>> continue when the working eye wasn't available for such very long time
>>> after the mutation sequence got under way? Gordon
>>
>> It doesn't take a fully working eye to create an evolutionary benefit.
>> It simply takes an awareness of light by one or member of a population
>> the rest of whom are entirely insensitive.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then there is that thing of Super String - Membrane Theory and
those
>>>>>>> extra dimensions, universes of the multiverse, that fall so
>>>>>>> CONVENIENTLY into place with the Biblical information...Multiverse
>>>>>>> with other universes...levels of Heaven...rolled up like a scroll
to
>>>>>>> less than a Planck length.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gordon
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would be cautious about reading the Bible as a science text book.
It isn't.
>>>>>>
>>> True, the Bible is not a science text book. It was never intended as
>>> such, but there is no conflict between the Bible and science.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The Bible does not "disagree" with the scientific world unless we
fail
>>>>> to read it in the light of understanding associated with the modern
>>>>> scientific world. Gordon
>>>>
>>>> I agree, but it should be that way round.
|
