Thread: Top Ten List of why Anti-Evolutionists are WRONG

But why three? Why only discard one? I guess I think you experiment is too forgiving. If the clocks don't work properly, then none will have a chance to produce offspring or even "live," thus becoming extinct.

To illustrate, if we had sets of lungs instead of clocks, wouldn't the ones that didn't work at the beginning simply die, whether or not they were "chosen?"

Originally Posted by bcomp

But why three? Why only discard one? I guess I think you experiment is too forgiving. If the clocks don't work properly, then none will have a chance to produce offspring or even "live," thus becoming extinct.

To illustrate, if we had sets of lungs instead of clocks, wouldn't the ones that didn't work at the beginning simply die, whether or not they were "chosen?"

It is called chance. Just because all of the clocks may not work straight away does not mean all will die off. In fact, a lot may die off, but those with the potential to work would just have that tiny little advantage over all the others. Hell, they may even die off because of bad luck, and instead we are left with bad clocks.

The process repeats itself until we start getting functional clocks. It is that simple.

As for Abiogenesis, I'm not an expert as my education didn't really cover it, but from what I've read up about it, I can at least point to a few good sites and videos. The videos aren't working for me for some reason, but I'm blaming Youtube for their failure.

Basically, the idea is that RNA or even simpler forms of nucleic acids were the first things to emerge along with amino acids and proteins, thanks to conditions present in the early Earth. Because of chemical processes that went on, more complex chemicals began to arise such as RNA and phospholipids, etc. Eventually, RNA starts to self-replicate, as RNA is single-stranded and does not need enzymes or proteins in order to replicate. Though the sequence of bases on the RNA molecule is completely random, this does not stop it from replicating. Hell, the random sequences that are able to replicate better begin to be selected for (thus the beginning of Evolution in a very primitive way).

Originally Posted by bluefinger

It is called chance. Just because all of the clocks may not work straight away does not mean all will die off. In fact, a lot may die off, but those with the potential to work would just have that tiny little advantage over all the others. Hell, they may even die off because of bad luck, and instead we are left with bad clocks.

But if they don't work... they'd die. That's not chance. If a person is born and their heart doesn't beat, they just die. No chance involved. If the clocks' sole function is to tell time, and they don't, then they'd immediately die, yeah?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Basically, the idea is that RNA or even simpler forms of nucleic acids were the first things to emerge along with amino acids and proteins, thanks to conditions present in the early Earth. Because of chemical processes that went on, more complex chemicals began to arise such as RNA and phospholipids, etc. Eventually, RNA starts to self-replicate, as RNA is single-stranded and does not need enzymes or proteins in order to replicate. Though the sequence of bases on the RNA molecule is completely random, this does not stop it from replicating. Hell, the random sequences that are able to replicate better begin to be selected for (thus the beginning of Evolution in a very primitive way).

So the clock analogy would be more fitting if you put the first two pieces in the box, shook it, then once they went together put in another, shake it, then once they went together put in another, and so on...

But still... until the whole clock was made, all the parts would be pretty useless... wouldn't they?

Er, no.

The clocks in this program can live without having to tell time. The ones who can't, however, have a higher chance of being killed.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Er, no.

The clocks in this program can live without having to tell time. The ones who can't, however, have a higher chance of being killed.

That's sort of why I think it's too forgiving. In reality, if an animal's organs didn't function, it would immediately die, not just have bad odds.

It's organs aren't not functioning though, because clocks aren't living things.

He even addresses this in the video.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

It's organs aren't not functioning though, because clocks aren't living things.

He even addresses this in the video.

Alright then. That makes sense if you take it that way.

But it's not too realistic then, because we're observing the evolution of an unnecessary trait, since the clock doesn't need to tell time to survive.

In this case it is an advantage to survival much like the color of a block that matches its environment is an advantage.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

In this case it is an advantage to survival much like the color of a block that matches its environment is an advantage.

Ah alright. It'd be interesting to run a simulation that's more rigorous on the clocks, to see how they'd do if their survival was based on telling time.

Yeah, or you could run a simulation of artificial life; which I what I'm working on.

25 Myths and Misconceptions about evolution:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...nceptions.html

For Ne-Yo

- Evolutionary Science is not predictive.

- It is just so unlikely that evolution could produce complex life.

- Evolution is an entirely random process

- Mutations cannot create new information.