Why Cannot Natural Selection Explain Complexity?
411785
Genetic information is increased by mutation of the genetic material inside an organism. Natural selection simply removes the less advantageous mutations. An increase is not necessarily an improvement but is simply an increase.\n\nDo not think of one current species becoming another, instead think about one common ancestor to both and then how the mutations occurred over million of years and generations to present very different animals.\n\nCertainly, there is a consciousness that can be applied to the selection. Genocide is a good example of somebody thinking they can direct the development of a whole species. Surely the Final Solution is evidence that humans can think in this way. It doesn't mean we should but it proves that we can.
49268
I think more than any other thing--more than all other things combined, perhaps--there is a single, most important fundamental that must be understood: The Law of Mass Action.  The barrier to understanding evolution stems from the word "random."  We hear "random," and the instinct is to say, "Bull pucky."  But randomness, applied to the law of mass action, becomes every driving force in the universe, and the origin of all order.\n\nThis is a ubiquitous law in nature.  The hardest part of understanding something like evolution is trying to wrap your mind around the NUMBERS.  Those huge, infinitely-large number that are used to discuss propability are truly mind-boggling.  Once you realize that there are other examples of driving forces overcoming immense odds, your whole perspective on the probability of evolution changes.\n\nTake biochemistry.  This is some stuff that's completely undisputed.  A protein starts as a chain--or several chains--of amino acids, all strung together.  Miraculously, this protein folds into the specific conformation necessary to perform its function by the simple process of RANDONLY banging around.  That's it!  It just bangs this way and that, folds left and right, over and under, driven by nothing more than the RANDOM bumping and shifting caused by thermal energy bumping tiny articles against eachother.\n\nBUT!!!  Once it gets to a thermodynamically-stable conformation, it basically stays put.  It takes a million random bumps left and right, up and down, for each of the two joints connecting every individual amino acid on the thread, but once it goes the right way, it's mission is accomplished.  And all of this happens in the blink of an eye!  We have no concept of how incredibly quickly these minor bumps and bangs occur until the target reaches its mark.\n\nOr take diffusion.  This is an extrodinarily powerful driving force, and the law that governs it is so simple that it sounds absurd!  Here it goes:  It is more probable that something will go from where it is to where it isn't, than it is for something to go from where it isn't to where it is.  Done!  That's it.  I've just told you in a tiny nutshell what chemical engineers spend two years studying with differntial equations, labs, and computer models.  That's thermostatistics summed up.  And yet because I understood that very basic fact, I was able to understand the complex functions of the nerve cell far better than 99% of my molecular biology classmates.\n\nBear with me a bit longer: when a neuron fires, ions rush in and out of the cell in ways that depolarize and repolarize the electrical charge of the membrane.  It's really complicated-sounding stuff.  But what it really boils down to is that potassium ions (K) are concentrated in one place (mostly inside the cell), and sodium ions (Na) are concentrated somewhere else (mostly outside the cell).  All of these ions are banging around, this way and that.  Some go left, and some go right, but the membrane staps them from going through.  The special channels open up.  Na ions, being mostly outside the cell, will be far more likely to go inside the cell--where they aren't--than they are to come out of the cell--where they already are.  THat's all it is--you're more likely to go from where you already are to where you aren't than vice-versa.  It's so simple it stupid.  Yet the movement of any GIVEN ION is COMPLETELY RANDOM--and yet this action happens so quickly and so consistently and so reliably that this become the driving mechanism of all biological activity.  This random ion movement, taken applied to a massive system where thermal bumping happens millions of times per second for biliions of billions of ions happens in a reliable and concerted way every time you blink.  Every pixel you see on your screen right now is the product where trillions of random molecular collisions happened, but a handful of signific
653816
Evolution is a theory.
209928
i havent heard that example, but its possible. that would possibly fall into the category of microevolution...like when birds beaks get bigger or smaller to crack different nuts. its still a bird, with slightly different attributes. that would be an example of artificial rather than natural selection though, since it would be people choosing what they think is attractive, rather than nature killing off people who were less well equipped to deal with the environment.
918371
c is the right answer.\n\nA makes no sense in relation to the question\nB natural selection has a bit of randomness in it of course but is basically not random. I mean, the fastest critter in the herd may have had an unlucky day and so he will not procreate, oops. But otherwise, the slowest are intentionally selected by the lion and that is never random.\nD just isn't true, plenty of proof there.
204527
Evolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nAnd, for those who say that evolution does not occur:\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolution.  This is true.  However, it does provide evidence that macroevolution may be possible. Taken in the context of the other evidence for evolution, microevolution provides a mechanism by which macroevolution could occur. On its own, it doesn't prove that macroevolution occurs, but it does suggest that it is possible.\n\n3. The fossil record.\n\nAlthough the fossil record does not provide a “complete” record as fossils form only under certain conditions, it does show a gradual change in the morphology of species as well as numerous extinct species.  There are a number of methods used to date fossils, and the time period from
103711
Please take the time to\nvote for the best answer\n\nThank You!!\n\nI know this is for take yr pick\n\nConditions for natural selection\n\nThe excess fecundity, and consequent competition to survive, in every species provides the precondition for the process Darwin called natural selection. Natural selection is easiest to understand as a logical argument, leading from premises to conclusion. The argument requires the four conditions listed below.\n\n1. Reproduction. Entities must reproduce to form a new generation.\n\n2. Heredity. The offspring must tend to resemble their parents: roughly speaking, 'like must produce like'. This condition is provided by Mendelian inheritance.\n\n3. Variation in characteristics of the members of the population. \n\n4. Variation in the fitness of organisms associated with these characteristics. \n\nProvided these conditions are met for any property of a species, natural selection automatically results, as in the case of the peppered moth. If any are not, it does not. Thus entities, like planets, that do not reproduce cannot evolve by natural selection. But when the four conditions apply, the organisms with the property conferring higher fitness will leave more offspring, and the frequency of that type of organism will increase in the population. \n\nThe biologist Richard Dawkins argues that there is possibly only one condition for natural selection.
82794
The concept of evolution as an explanation for the origins of life is flawed. The theory of evolution explains the origins of species, but not the origins of life. A lump of premordial goo, no matter how well it could adapt to its environment, lacks DNA. The first cell must have had DNA to reproduce. Therefore, the first cell must have been created; that would not conflict with neither the Theory of Evolution nor the Bible. (Doesn't it say something like, "God created man from earth"? Anything organic is made from earth.)\n\nAnd that's why both the Bible and the Theory of Evolution are correct.
552488
The probability of spontaneous evolution of any complex organism is statistically about the same as the probability of a watch factory exploding and the various watch parts landing on the ground as a perfectly constructed timepiece.\n\nWhile there may be some micro-evolution, human beings are definitely intelligently designed.  Thus, it is more likely than not that God created humans.
1084307
In the example of the flagellum, scientists say that they have no clue how it could put itself together like that, but they will find a way. And same for cilium. And then the giraffe too to and extent. And the human blood clotting system. Or the dolphin.\n\nIf you know the right stuff, you know that it’s impossible. Darwin foresaw this. "If it could be demonstrated that any organ is so complex that it cannot have evolved, my theory would absolutely fall apart." This happened with those organs and animals I listed above.\n\nSo scientists say there will be discoveries in the future. Like Lucy then ape man? Turned out to be the fossil of a human. They say they will find a way.\n\nThere was recently a dinosaur discovered that still had 90% of soft tissue still on it. this couldn't have happened if dinosaurs died out more than 10,000 years ago. Scientists are not - get this- looking for another way for animals to decay and fossilize. That is not science. That's indoctrination.\n\nBut when they look at the things and find more, they will find more complexity, not less. When you look at a small section of a car motor, it looks complex. If you look at a little more, you see more complexity, not less.\n\nthings are too complex to have evolved, but they will still insist that they did. I’m sorry, but doggedly devoting yourself to a theory is not science. you cannot insist that alternatives not be taught in classrooms.\n\nEvolution is not plausible.
99308
• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n* Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n* "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/anthropic.htm\n\n*Irreducible complexity\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/irreducible.htm\n\n* Biological Evidence\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/biology.htm\n\n* The Moon\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/moon.htm\n\n*Earth's Fight Against Solar Attacks \nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/earthfight.htm
528044
It does not matter what I believe. The theory of evolution by natural selection is overwhelmingly supported by fact and argument. Intelligent Design is not supported by any facts that I know of and the argument seems to be basically, " a argument from ignorance ".
307239
I don't think you will get a satisfying answer becausae you worded your question in a rather confusing fashion.\n\nIf you don't want to discuss natural selection, don't use the word evolution at all.  Ask about Big Bang Cosmologies instead.
397544
There is plenty of unintelligent design to dismiss this idea.\n\nAn irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become - because of later changes - essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."\n\nH. Allen Orr\n\nIntelligent design does not discount everything in evolution, and so they would agree with mainstream science on the answers to most of your questions. Intelligent design allows boils down to God planned it that way.  That's why it can't be taught alongside evolution, because it involves belief, not evidence.\n\n"ID advocates are very keen to give the impression that they have the support of scientists. It is true that a number of scientists support ID, as indeed there are scientists who support Young Earth Creationism and many other pseudosciences. But they are a tiny number in relation to the total number of scientists, the vast majority of whom support evolutionary theory."\n\n...\n\n"What are the "scientific" arguments used to support Intelligent Design?\n\nA. The arguments for Intelligent Design are primarily arguments from ignorance, also known as god-of-the-gaps arguments. ID advocates also claim to have positive evidence of ID, in the form of "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity", but these arguments turn out to be disguised arguments from ignorance. In addition, ID advocates sometimes make an argument from analogy. A lot of their effort is also devoted to attacking specific aspects of evolutionary theory, rather than giving support to their own ID hypothesis.\n\nhttp://www.talkdesign.org/introfaq.html
909268
LOL - Nice argument - we can't explain it so it can't be true. \nNo irreducibly complex system has ever been discovered. Irreducible complexity comes from the Discovery Institute - basically a political organization with zero scientific credentials. Everything that you've said, and everything that they say, is irrefutably simplistic.
270102
Irreducible complexity is a controversial concept invoked in support of intelligent design which claims that the generally accepted scientific theory that life evolved through biological evolution by natural selection is incomplete and flawed and that some additional mechanism is required to explain the origins of life. An irreducibly complex system is defined as one that could not possibly have been formed by successive, slight modifications to a functional precursor system.\n\nThe concept was popularized by Lehigh University biochemist and Fellow of the Discovery Institute Michael Behe in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, wherein Behe argued that there are biochemical systems which are "irreducibly complex" because he saw no way in which these systems could be broken down into smaller functioning systems. With this argument, the book in effect supports what is known as intelligent design, a form of the argument from design, which is one of the arguments for the existence of a supernatural deity.
209715
It's NOT!\n\nEvolution is a scientific theory that explains the origin of the diversity of species (note that it does not, and is not intended to explain the origin of life). The basic idea of evolution is that mutations result in genetic diversity in a population, and consequently different traits, and different selective pressures favor certain traits over others. In a diverse population, some individuals are better suited to the environment than others, and the individuals that are better suited are more likely to survive to reproduce and thus pass their genes on to the next generation. Consequently, the next generation will have more of the "good" genes and fewer of the "bad" genes than the generation before it. Because the environment is constantly changing, the definition of "good" and "bad" genes is also constantly changing. Something that used to be an advantage can become a disadvantage, and vice versa. More often, however, neutral traits will become either good or bad. Changes in environment can include not only changes in weather or resources, but also competition from other species.\n\nAs the environmental pressures change, the population of organisms changes with it. Over time, the little changes start to add up, and eventually the population will be so different from the ancestral state that it will be considered a different species. The diversity of species results from splitting of populations. If a population is separated by some geographical or reproductive barrier, the two subpopulations will likely evolve in different ways, to become two separate species. Eventually the two species may be reunited, but they will no longer be able to interbreed. Instead, they will compete with each other, and likely diverge even more.\n\nThe theory of evolution is supported by considerable scientific evidence, and is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. It is the ONLY scientific theory currently in existence that explains the diversity of species. Some people claim that "intelligent design" is an alternative theory for the origin of species. However, intelligent design is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not supported by scientific evidence and can never be tested experimentally (not because we don't have the tools yet, but because it is theoretically impossible). Intelligent design provides an alternative to science, not an alternative scientific theory.\n\nScience is not about finding a single piece of evidence to conclusively prove a theory. It's about constructing theories to fit the existing evidence and gathering new evidence that supports or refutes existing theories. Evolution is supported by a preponderance of evidence. While no one point conclusively proves it, when all the evidence is considered in the context of existing scientific knowledge evolution is a well substantiated theory. Intelligent design is not.  What follows are brief explanations of some of the evidence that supports the theory of evolution.\n\n1. Vestigial structures\n\nOne example of a vestigial structure in humans is the appendix. It has no function. Removing it is harmful only in so far as any surgery is associated with certain risks (so I wouldn't have it removed just for fun, but it's because of the surgery not the absence of the appendix). An appendix is found in several mammals. In humans it is small and has no known function. In rabbits and many other herbivores it is large and is used in the digestion of cellulose.\n\nAnother example of a vestigial structure is the hipbones of snakes. Snakes evolved from quadrupeds, and some species still retain not on pelvises, but tiny protrusions of bone in a location that corresponds to the location of the legs in other quadrupeds.\n\n2. Microevolution can be observed in both a controlled laboratory setting and in nature.\n\nCreationists will tell you that microevolution does not prove macroevolutio