The Sex Life of 747 Aircraft

Hey Taz,You abandoned your first analogy because it had a goal, which was to produce a 747. You said that evolution is not directional.Giving an analogy where a 747 is the final result of many efforts to 'get off an island' seems to me to have the same problem. Getting off an island is a goal, isn't it?

The one thing which I have trouble with in the survival 'goal' is seed bearing plants. Obviously there is survival of the fittest...but not in the same sense as a plant which can tolerate poor soil or windy climate, harsh winters, arid ground, etc. That is much easier to grasp that the seed thing.Plants with seeds survive as species. Is it too much to ask how a plant could randomly 'decide' to produce a seed, or a mammal produce offspring?Is there something in the nature of life that causes reproduction, and why would this evolve rather than continuation or regeneration of the same organism?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Yes, all very interesting. I appreciate your reply.If life has been around for millions of years, then all that we can see now are those organisms which have reproduced. We may call that 'all of them'.Would you speculate that at one time, non-reproductive species existed, or would you say that reproduction is truly the order of the day? And if so, you didn't quite answer my question.Things either survive, or don't. Survival seems to be the goal, but perhaps it is only the accidental result? What I am asking is, even if you could say that survival 'pressures' are evolved as part of a species and continue to be part of their make-up, how would we explain the 'desire' of the first living thing to reproduce? Is there some gene which designates this drive?

Actually, Taz, some seeds are rather perfunctory, and the plants that bear them may reproduce in alternative ways that are more conducive to that species needs and abilties.There are all sorts of variables. 'Great distances' in the plant world, are often a few feet, outside of which the plant just won't grow at all. The mother plant often has no need for resources one seed is produced. Plants do not seek 'advantage' over other plants. They either have it, or don't, and bearing seed has little to do with it. What we see are the species that had an advantage. I was asking how things 'know' to reproduce, and you didn't help. Fine, then. If you want to tell me that something 'knew' to produce a seed, go ahead. Otherwise, I will have to say that out of a random selection of living things, those with seeds may have survived, the others didn't...and I still want to know what may have caused that first plant to produce a seed. It can't just sit there and 'think' of new ways to reproduce, so it either happened accidently, or was planned. Where exactly is this random mutations stuff supposed to come in?

Ned, didn't you say this? {bolding mine}I am explaining why I think it may apply. Natural selection, which is not a great term in itself, explains why a thing which reproduces continues on. I don't know why a thing would reproduce at all without either A. Knowledge that it should do so, or B. A chance event which caused it to reproduce.For every characteristic of life, we use the term 'random mutation', and if that mutation is advantageous to survival, it gets selected for. Don't you think that science is still a bit hazy about how or why a plant would come up with a whole system for reproduction when it has no idea it needs to reproduce? If you can tell me how, outside of pure luck, or sentient design, then I will withdraw my further comment and all mention of randomness. In the meantime, did you address the topic to people who may use the above argument, really, or to people who want to mock them? Because my questions are completely in line with what you asked, even if a bit more specific in nature.

Can you folks look critically at this sentence?Does it say, anywhere, that there is an anology here between the tornado and evolution?I think it is a slim chance that a thing could develop reproduction means, in one slight change at a time, without knowing what it was doing. I will call it ignorance for now, and I am not at the moment worried about what the pope says. If I don't understand a thing for myself, I could care less what anyone says.I can't comment further after rereading the OP. I don't see how the author in any way was referring to evolution as chance or random. I see that he/she gave an opinion about how likely evolution appears to them. That may be ignorant in itself, as evolution is far more likely than some other theories, but without further clarification from the author...

I would describe it more as 'the chance of evolution working to build one reproduction method seems low'...but I suppose biologists put reproduction pretty much first on the list of things which must have evolved, and yeah, I can get the mental picture from there to my satisfaction. Thanks for your responses.

Hey Ned, I know that endless speculation on chances and odds is pointless, but I wanted to make it clear, rather than look completely ignorant, that variety is more easily understood than the first 'singularity' that produced a prototype of any feature.I would never say 'how could evolution produce so many kinds of eyes' because that is pretty stupid.Where I get lost is in the idea that things occur one small step at a time. Then, I have a mental picture of a half-formed eye serving no purpose. Or, I simplify and see one tiny cell having a very simple mechanism for sight which occured all in one change. It's still mind-boggling to wonder 'why' a thing would randomly produce a collection of cells, no matter how simple, which served so much purpose. This may still be ignorant of me, but I CAN see how someone would make a statement like 'the chances are too small'...and I don't think it even is chances they are talking about. The un-scientific amoung us are just blown away that something could produce any function without planning it.

My thanks to you and everyone else who has taken some time out to answer these questions. I feel rather foolish, because I am not completely unaware of any of these examples. I am pretty familiar with natural diversity. I spend a good deal of my free time 'working' with plants, fish, birds, mammals, or insects, which I am only mentioning because people keep posting photos of simple eyes and such. I am very aware that an eye does not have to have the characteristics of a human eye in order to function, and that it may be more or less complex.I make many mistakes, still, but I didn't intend for the thread to become a baby-proofed Q and E session for anastasia. I asure you I am familiar with the processes you described, and my incredulity has persisted in some regards. If I don't find the answer I am looking for after re-reading these posts, I will write again and hopefully with more clarity. I am sure that understanding is the only bridge between belief and fact. It does me no good at this stage to 'believe' in evolution.

That's not the point, Taz. I don't need for an eye to be human in order to be 'fully formed', or to have a lens, or cornea, etc. I have already read those threads about eyeball varieties.If something serves a purpose, it is acceptably 'complete' I was more wondering what it would take for the formation of the simplest eye known. I neither imagine an eye 'appearing' nor going through a long process during which it was serving no purpose. What are the odds that the most simple eye could appear in one mutation? Not exact odds, surely, but generally speaking, is it something that science can speculate as possible?Oh, and eyes are just a random example.I understand that it is not appropriate to envision a deformed nautilus without eyes, and conclude that therefore, there was a plan for them to have eyes. At the same time, if countless things get on without them, what is the sense in getting one? People keep giving elaborate descriptions of how things 'just happened'. I am sorry, but even if it irks you, there are still elements of the whole thing which seem to be a matter of faith. Faith that a thing COULD happen. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Huh, yes, I think that in the grand scheme of things, atolls don't HAVE a purpose, they were just used by something. The same may be true of eyes, limbs, tails, or anything else. It is jus a lot more difficult to imagine the gradual formation of an eye, than it is to imagine the gradual formation of a landscape. If we took the erupting volcano to be the sudden 'mutation' which produced an atoll, thing smay be clearer, but inevitably we get into 'why did the volcano erupt' or 'why did any mutation occur which led to the formation of the eye', and it gets very hard to seperate cause from result. Not impossible, but in general, we want to look for causes. That is basically the disbelief associated with the phrase 'random mutation', because humans are just not used to thinking of things having no cause. I don't think we can completely escape looking for a cause, and without a very good knowledge of what evolution is talking about, some of the terms used DO imply a sort of 'purpose' to what may occur. To say a thing adapted to its environment becomes confusing, to say it was 'selected' becomes confusing. I mean, it's not a big deal, but you get this nice orderly picture going, and then throw in something like 'random mutation', and all hell breaks loose. You get people thinking 'hey, if this random thing produced this perfect result, that seems pretty wild'.On the other hand, random mutations AND gradual changes are easily observed, and one wonders why it took so long to really pay attention.

Maybe you all feel the same way about me as I feel when people constantly misrepresent the theory of infallibility, without learning the first thing about it. When you get into this topic, it's not so much about whether evolution explains the spirit of man, but whether faith teaches a super-imposed spirit untouchable or unknown to observation. Taz, ANY argument from authority is faulty. It does nothing to quiet the COI, and an answer, even if it be correct, is as good as invisible without it being understood. It is this very type of language that makes people wrongly feel that evolution is open for 'belief', one side against the other, etc.As you have mentioned, JPII finds it important for theologians to be current with science. I will not say that science is necessary for faith, but hello...do you want Biblical exegesis to continue in its ignorance? Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

This is really off topic here, but the point was that the Pope can not make an infallible judgement of science itself. He can simply look at evolution and give an informed opinion about whether it poses a problem to what is considered revealed doctrine. While some people trust his authority, there are almost as many who will claim he has no authority because he disagrees with their wonderful wisdom. Personally I prefer to make up my own mind, and I can't do that without knowing what the hell is going on. It is true that we all rely somewhat on the observations and knowledge of specialists. What I am suggesting is that the only way to stop ignorance, is through education. See, some Christians will trust their own pastor, for the same reason. They assume he has the 'credentials' to sort things out. Just because the Pope agrees with science doesn't mean the principle is any different. The Pope is not a science expert, he is a doctrine expert, and he effectually got 'lucky' when a careful examination of doctrine did not necessarily exclude evolution. It doesn't mean there were no concessions made in the interpretation. One might call that a cop-out, or a give and take. Many Christians aren't willing to do that. They are not willing to put what they have decided is a God-given interpretation, up to any test at all. These people need more than a science course, and more than an authority figure telling them what to think. Sure, but that's not really what we are dealing with. It is more like a person with an illness, who hears two conflicting opinions, both from 'authority'. They have a vested interest in finding which is the correct diagnosis. I can't listen to the Pope's diagnosis and take it as correct just because I have my mind made up that he is going to be correct. That is what would be faulty, circular logic. I believe in the Pope's inspiration, so therefore evolution must be true? Nah. Taz, people of faith in this day and age either must keep up with science, or ignore it and continue making statements about the age of the earth based on the Bible alone. Science is not interested in what religion says, and the understanding needs to happen on the part of exactly the pastors and preachers. People trust their preachers on religion. They have no reason not to, because most American Christians come from a long history of thinking that the Bible is the final authority, it interprets itself, and anyone who has spent as much time studying it as the preachers claim to have, should be an expert. They fail to see that they are really trusting, not the Bible, but an interpretation from authority. There is definitely a need for people to question that authority, even if it is the Pope. The only good thing about the popes is they have been able to change their interpretation in light of discovery. That has nothing to do with being infallible, and actually more to do with being wrong and admitting to it.Theologians need to know what science is saying. If they don't, they have utterly no recourse for discovering whether their own doctrines are true or false. If you have a distorted picture of reality, where is the sense in checking your beliefs against it?As long as there are arguments from two 'authorities', and they conflict, there can be no appeal to anything other than reason. I have never made pronouncements based upon my beliefs, I have simply tried to gain a better understanding. It is more insulting that you would exploit my beliefs by asking me to trust the pope sort of a priori, when you know you wouldn't have done that if he didn't accept evolution. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Interesting. Apparently, while not knowing about evo-devo, the gaps I noticed weren't noticed by myself alone. That's somewhat encouraging?The article pretty much paraphrased my own questions, but of course it opens up many more about how certain genes developed in the first place, even if I know how certain body parts came from them. Just takes the questions down to the level of the minute, and I'd still have to wonder about whether the randomness was caused, planned, foreseen, or otherwise created. Science has the unfortunate effect on me where the more I learn, the MORE perfect it seems. Good stuff tho. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Well, the assumption that I have either a lack of will or lack of capacity for 'getting it' and should thus fall back on belief, is what was insulting, but I don't care all that much.I am just arguing with the idea that stupid people should fall back on any authority, because most of them will go to the Creation Museum rather than listen to the pope. Either that, or they will go to the scientists, which isn't going to help them sort out the theological implications they may associate with evolutionary theory. There is really no good interdisciplinary? mediating authority between science and religion. It's what you might call a relatively new field of study, and many denoms as they are preached today will simply have to crash and burn. It's a little more complicated than just teaching science, and luckily, we do have these forums for the folks who have the will and the capacity to bridge gaps. No one is going to do it for us. This is my life, and my beliefs, and I could care less what anyone says about something if I don't know what they are talking about.