A direction to Evolution?

[SecularCauses]

Dating the origin of life to a time of bilions of years ago still doesnt help explain how lfe could start from nonliving matter. So how can scientists assert that life started by a random chance formation of a living organism from nonliving chemicals? Dr John Ashton, Professor of Biomedical Sciences of Victoria University states, "despite more than 50 years research, scientists still do not have a workable viable explanation of how life could start.
We are still near the bottom of the evoluntionary tree - only up to the worms. Not only have scientists not observed any of this new genetic information being generated, but on the basis of probability there is simply not enough time in the supposed four billion years of evolution for all the genetic information required in the genomes of all the millions of different species of bacteria, fungi, plants and animals to evolve as a result of random mutations. If the evolution of simple cell is statistically impossible, the evolution of higher organisms is even more impossible. As University of Rochester biology professor Allen Orr points out "The overwhelming majoriy of random mutations are harmful, that is, they reduce fitness, only a tiny minority are beneficial".

I don't think the claims are in any way scientifically valid. The professor you cited appears to have written a creationist book, not a peer-reviewed science book, that is being sold for mass publication at Amazon. His background is listed as having a masters in chemistry and his doctorate is in philosophy. He holds no degree in molecular biology, evolutionary biology, mathematical biology, or any subject which he appears to claim mastery over in his creationist book. As I don't want to waste my money on buying a creationist book, as it is likely to be worthless, please state the specific reasons upon which he basis his conclusions. Otherwise, all we have from you is a blanket assertion, and no basis for agreeing with it.

[SecularCauses]

i believe you are not correctly stating the position of modern biologists. They are not maintaining that the human brain is less complex than the nervous system of a cock roach. In fact, most will brag about the fact the human brain appears to be the most complicated system we have encountered in the universe/multiverse. What they are saying is that they reject the idea of a planned stage of evolutionary development where organisms become increasingly intelligent. The fact is intelligence is just one option among many that may be used as an adaptation, and it is an expensive one at that. This accounts for the fact that humans are alone on this planet when it comes to intellect. While it may be true animals have some reasoning power, they simply do not come close to what humans can accomplish intellectually. But, if humans became extinct tomorrow, what the biologists would point out is that the earth may never again produce intelligent life that comes any where near human intelligence ever again.

So, while biologists recognize the human brain's complexity, and relative differences between different life forms, they reject the idea that evolution is somehow headed towards creating greater intelligence. Cock roaches have remained rather dumb for a damn long time.

[Bernard]

Maybe if you responded rather than reacted to what you don't like you might learn something, and, heaven forbid, find out where you may have got it wrong a bit.

Dating the origin of life to a time of bilions of years ago still doesnt help explain how lfe could start from nonliving matter. So how can scientists assert that life started by a random chance formation of a living organism from nonliving chemicals? Dr John Ashton, Professor of Biomedical Sciences of Victoria University states, "despite more than 50 years research, scientists still do not have a workable viable explanation of how life could start.
We are still near the bottom of the evoluntionary tree - only up to the worms. Not only have scientists not observed any of this new genetic information being generated, but on the basis of probability there is simply not enough time in the supposed four billion years of evolution for all the genetic information required in the genomes of all the millions of different species of bacteria, fungi, plants and animals to evolve as a result of random mutations. If the evolution of simple cell is statistically impossible, the evolution of higher organisms is even more impossible. As University of Rochester biology professor Allen Orr points out "The overwhelming majoriy of random mutations are harmful, that is, they reduce fitness, only a tiny minority are beneficial".

Okay, reasonvemotion -- this was unbelievably rude. If you would like to create a new thread on this forum to talk about the crap that John Ashton says, please do so. I believe your 768 posts sufficiently qualifies you to create new threads at this forum. I had created a very elaborate header for a very controversial topic in philosophy and science. I have included pictures as well. You came along and totally ruined this thread by cluttering it with the latest Intelligent Design advocacy.

So please, by all means, start a new thread about this. I am not trying to censor you or shut your voice down. I am simply stating that your replies in this thread are not appreciated and they are not appropriate. I would be glad to discuss John Ashton with you in another thread.

[Kuznetzova]

Maybe if you responded rather than reacted to what you don't like you might learn something, and, heaven forbid, find out where you may have got it wrong a bit.

Listen you little twerp -- you do not come into my thread and hijack it and then start barking orders in my face. Are we clear on this?

If you desire to talk about abiogenesis and Intelligent Design -- then by all means MAKE A NEW THREAD ON IT and I will come into that thread and discuss it with you. This is the second time I have extended my hand of invitation and cooperation to you.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

To say that evolution has a 'direction' indicates that it has an ultimate destination where it will cease to occur. That sounds like a religious concept to me. Which living thing will reach this 'destination' first? There are billions of living organisms that have all evolved in different directions. Billions that ceased to evolve because they became extinct. Please explain further.

[jinx]

Man cant be 'evolving' if he is DECAYING.

http://www.genetics.org/content/156/1/297.full

175 NEW mutations a generation. Whatever. Listen to John Sanford on youtube. He modeled it. Neodarwinian myth is the most retarded and scientifically inhibiting religion in history. There is no direction to 'evolution' because man is not 'evolving'.

[John]

Some recent futurist writers have suggested that evolution is speeding up in an exponential manner. However, proposing a "speed up" implies that there must be some direction that the process is going.

It might make more sense to talk of the rate of change, or frequency, increasing rather than speed in which case direction is not implied.

[Bernard]

Maybe if you responded rather than reacted to what you don't like you might learn something, and, heaven forbid, find out where you may have got it wrong a bit.

Listen you little twerp -- you do not come into my thread and hijack it and then start barking orders in my face. Are we clear on this?

If you desire to talk about abiogenesis and Intelligent Design -- then by all means MAKE A NEW THREAD ON IT and I will come into that thread and discuss it with you. This is the second time I have extended my hand of invitation and cooperation to you.

You have somehow confused me with RVE as you haven't invited me to start another thread.
First time I've been called a little twerp. The appellation doesn't fit, rolls off like water on a duck's back, maybe its a projection...?
Its a stretch to assume you own a thread because you began it. What are we to do? Lick your boots and only agree with what you say?

I don't believe in an over arching intelligent designer, but that said there is nothing but intelligence out there!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-FyKoU2uRo

Proof of evolution in only eight and a half minutes. Enjoy.

[jinx]

Vegetariantaxidermy, absolute retard atheist cult leaders (all the retards on youtube) and #1 atheist cult leader (Dawkins) depend on their readers/viewers scientific ignorance and utter gullibility (which they eaaaassssyyyy get).

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Vegetariantaxidermy, absolute retard atheist cult leaders (all the retards on youtube) and #1 atheist cult leader (Dawkins) depend on their readers/viewers scientific ignorance and utter gullibility (which they eaaaassssyyyy get).

I take it you didn't watch the video then. Btw, the retards are at the BEGINNING of the video.

[thedoc]

Evolution has no inherent direction or purpose, evolution is strictly reaction to the environment. In a stable environment there is little or no change in a species, when the environment is undergoing change the species will evolve to adapt or go extinct, but there is nothing directing evolution either from within or without, other than the environment.

[Mike Strand]

Natural selection in response to environment is the guiding force of evolution, but it can operate only on variation that already exists in a population. This comes from genetic mutation, the only source of new genetic material. Gene flow is a third cause -- the spread of new genetic material from on population to another of the same species (transference of genes from one gene pool to another). Genetic drift is a fourth cause -- random change in the frequency of the different forms of a gene (alleles), which affects a small population more powerfully than it does a large one.

As thedoc points out, environment is the medium in which all four causes are realized and which affects the directions of the many species as they evolve.

Some folks believe that a Supreme Being started evolution from giving a "spark of life" to some chemical compounds a long time ago, and now it's just running its course. Others believe God is more directly involved (i.e., a fifth cause of evolution). The "God" factor, however, isn't apparent in the data we have so far.

[Bernard]

As I see it, natural selection doesn't respond to the environment; living things do. Living things are what is at the heart of evolution, not mechanical-physical processes. The most characteristic and defining thing about living beings is that they are aware. Without awareness there is no will or drive for anything. Without them there is no game. Where you get stuck is in a prevailing anthropocentric view that humans are some sort of end pinnacle of consciousness; that living things are rare in the cosmos, and that it can't get much better than us as far as being conscious goes! There is nothing out there that is not either alive itself or the result of something living: the very physicality of the universe is but a facet of something alive and sentient beyond imagining, but this is not God, as there are going to be living things yet vaster and more unimaginable... and so it goes on forever, in inner and outer space.

Life is about life not physics, and what constitutes life are living things, endless living beings. Its so easy; we only need to comprehend ourselves.

[jinx]

Natural selection, genetic drift, speciation, change in allele frequency over time , these mechanisms/processes generate NO new genetic information, on the contrary selection and speciation thin genetic variation. They have NOTHING to do with the alleged origin of all life on earth being a single organism BILLIONS of years ago other than university teachers INTENTIONALLY omitting that they are NOT sufficient for alleged process. There is no source of bulk amounts of NEW genetic information. Neofunctionalization for the most part is delusional (look at someone with trisomy). CF, PKU, sickle cell anemia- ONE base substitutions. Teachers INTENTIONALLY omit that sickle cell trait- a 'beneficial' mutation- is a LOSS of function mutation. The beta globin protein gets WRECKED a little. IT IS THE GREATEST MYTH IN DOCUMENTED HISTORY (6,000 years). I wouldnt want to be a biology/genetics university teacher facing God when they die, my goodness, they will have HELL to pay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Spetner

We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein and that means a loss of genetic information. ... Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that is lost sensitivity to it. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.
—Lee Spetner, Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution

Highly recommend his book.