Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Simple to Complex - Reproduction
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 69 (168556)
12-15-2004 1:42 PM


So, I hear from Creationists a lot that it's just impossible (or at least too damn unlikely) that evolution could start with a single celled organism, and wind up with us. That a single celled organism is too simple to change over generations into something as complex as mankind, no matter how much time passes.
Now... maybe I'm being dense here, but isn't every single one of us the result of two extremely simple things complexifying into people? I'm not talking about evolution, I'm talking about the fact that each of us comes from sperm and ova.
Starts really simple. Winds up really complex. Only takes nine months.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 12-15-2004 2:15 PM Dan Carroll has replied
 Message 5 by Mammuthus, posted 12-16-2004 3:32 AM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 6 by coffee_addict, posted 12-16-2004 3:52 AM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 10 by jar, posted 12-16-2004 6:22 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 50 by TheLiteralist, posted 12-22-2004 3:08 AM Dan Carroll has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 69 (168564)
12-15-2004 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
12-15-2004 1:42 PM


What forum?
Where do you want this put (Santa )?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-15-2004 1:42 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-15-2004 2:33 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 69 (168573)
12-15-2004 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy
12-15-2004 2:15 PM


Re: What forum?
Hoof, I dunno. Biological Evolution, I guess? Maybe Miscellaneous Topics in C/E?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminNosy, posted 12-15-2004 2:15 PM AdminNosy has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 4 of 69 (168575)
12-15-2004 2:35 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 5 of 69 (168801)
12-16-2004 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
12-15-2004 1:42 PM


I think one problem with the creationist argument is that "simple" organisms are not simple. Bacteria are extremely complex as they have evolved for billions of years and would not resemble bacteria from millions of years ago any more than we resemble dinosaurs. Bacteria have highly complex biochemistry and very complex interactions with one another including frequent horizontal transfer of genetic material which makes their population dynamics highly variable.
But your overall point is correct...a simple egg and sperm can very quickly form a much more complex set of differentiated tissues that work together to form an organism...in only 9 months...4 billion years gives it a bit more playing room.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-15-2004 1:42 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2004 2:55 PM Mammuthus has not replied
 Message 57 by Kevin, posted 12-22-2004 6:27 PM Mammuthus has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 6 of 69 (168803)
12-16-2004 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
12-15-2004 1:42 PM


Creationists often say that 3.8 billion years just isn't enough for evolution to occur through random mutation and natural selection. I posted this on another thread and I think it has some merits here.
Let's count the zeros.
So, we believe that the first life on Earth came about say 3.8 billion years ago.
That's 3,800,000,000. It is also important to note that the humans have the longest lifespans among the mammals. So, say that each generation is 50 years.
3,800,000,000 / 50 = 76,000,000
That's 76 million generations, and I'm being conservative, too. Up until 200 years ago, a human generation is only about 30 years. That would make 3.8 billion years to equal 126,666,666. That's about 130 million generations.
But we know for a fact that the vast majority of organisms both in the past and present have much shorter lifespans, thus much more generations per unit time.
Certain insects only have about 10 days per generation. So, for them 3.8 billion years mean 138,700,000,000 generations. That's 138.7 billion generations.
But wait, that's not all. So far, I've only put into consideration a single family line. Especially insects and bacteria, there are literally trillions and trillions of organisms reproducing and mutating. Take 138.7 billion generations and multiply that by a a few trillions or so and you get to see the number for beneficial mutations to occur.
The question is how often do you see this kind of number show up in your everday life? Another reason why you don't want to use common sense for something like this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-15-2004 1:42 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 69 (169007)
12-16-2004 3:53 PM


So, do any creationists wanna clear this up for me? By all appearances, the jump from simple to complex has happened to each and every one of us, not to mention the six billion-odd other people on the planet.
Why is it so impossible?

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2004 4:06 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 12-16-2004 6:54 PM Dan Carroll has replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 69 (169008)
12-16-2004 3:53 PM


Damn double-posting, grumble, grumble...
This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 12-16-2004 03:53 PM

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 69 (169015)
12-16-2004 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dan Carroll
12-16-2004 3:53 PM


But, uh, intelligence! Yeah! And it's in, uh, the genes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-16-2004 3:53 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 69 (169125)
12-16-2004 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dan Carroll
12-15-2004 1:42 PM


If you begin at the most simple level is there any other way to go than towards increasing complexity?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-15-2004 1:42 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 11 of 69 (169132)
12-16-2004 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dan Carroll
12-16-2004 3:53 PM


But we come from complex.
So it's complex -> simple-> complex, It's easy if you have the information. What we don't believe - is that random mutation can gives us hearts, lungs and systems. I.e The information.
But also - if you have to put in you have to put out, and how can all the exact mutations needed, come about? Don't tell me, chance right?
Lam - you assume the present is the key to the past. But in Genesis, they lived for nearly a thousand years. So this is why your example is one of theoretical endeavour, add uniformitarianism.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-16-2004 06:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-16-2004 3:53 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 12-16-2004 6:59 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 17 by Dan Carroll, posted 12-17-2004 9:35 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 18 by Parasomnium, posted 12-17-2004 10:02 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 12 of 69 (169136)
12-16-2004 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
12-16-2004 6:54 PM


Mikey Mouse writes:
Lam - you assume the present is the key to the past. But in Genesis, they lived for nearly a thousand years. So this is why your example is one of theoretical endeavour, add uniformitarianism.
"They" who? Humans? Insects? Mammals?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 12-16-2004 6:54 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 12-16-2004 7:11 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 13 of 69 (169143)
12-16-2004 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by coffee_addict
12-16-2004 6:59 PM


Humans.
Lammy writes:
But we know for a fact that the vast majority of organisms both in the past and present have much shorter lifespans, thus much more generations per unit time
My point was in reference to this quote. I agree that in the present organisms have shorter lifespans. But vast crocs have been found in the fossils, and vast whitesharks etc. These critters lived longer as they were bigger and didn't stop growing.
So you can see how your quote incorporates the present being the key to the past.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-16-2004 07:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by coffee_addict, posted 12-16-2004 6:59 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 12-16-2004 7:38 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 69 (169153)
12-16-2004 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mike the wiz
12-16-2004 7:11 PM


These critters lived longer as they were bigger and didn't stop growing.
That is a nonsense statement.
But that logic a Great Dane lives longer than a Yorkie. Want to check the life expectancy of them?
Come on Mike. First there is no supporting evidence that things lived longer during Biblical times than they do today. If you are going to drag in the ages of the Patriarchs then I will drag in the Gilgamesh Saga and show that the Biblical Patriarchs only lived about 1/10th. as long as those folk.
There is no evidence to support complex--->simple---complex and until some can be placed on the table it belongs in the realm of belief, not science.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by mike the wiz, posted 12-16-2004 7:11 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 12-17-2004 8:15 AM jar has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 15 of 69 (169294)
12-17-2004 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
12-16-2004 7:38 PM


You misunderstand;
Complex (male and female) -> then Dan's 9 months. Show me a pregnancy that requires no male and female, and no priori information whatsoever. Otherwise, this is far from ex nihilo, doc.
Fact is that many, many fossils are found - of bigger organisms - they just don't voice it because evolutionists are looking for evolutionistic evidence.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-17-2004 08:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 12-16-2004 7:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 12-17-2004 9:05 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024