Evolutionists please inform me...?

Question

how did that first single cell organism know what its offspring would need to survive the multitudes of problems faced over all the centuries in order to form you? Or was it all included on those protein strands that randomly formed together. Pretty Miraculous eh?

Answer 1

Mutations caused by imperfections in the reproduction process create new traits. Those new traits are judged by the environment. If a trait is detrimental it usually peters out into nonexistence. If a trait is beneficial then it will likely distribute itself throughout the species. No choices are made.



It is the pressures of the environment that cause the fit to survive and the weak to die. That is natural selection. If the environment is cold, the creatures with the most insulation will survive. If the predators hunt their prey via sight, prey that blend in with their environment will survive. THAT is what drives evolution, not choice, natural selection.





*edit1*

"I have probably read more books on the subject than anyone in here."



"How did that first single cell organism know what its offspring would need to survive the multitudes of problems faced over all the centuries in order to form you? Or was it all included on those protein strands that randomly formed together."



Judging by the second quote I would say the first is false.



Organisms do not make conscious decisions of what their offspring and the later evolution of the species will be like. Nor does the DNA of one generation include the blueprints of the next. The DNA is altered minutely from generation to generation. Those minute changes can have both subtle and drastic consequences due to the interdependence of the many parts of our genetic code (any one bit of code may fill several roles). If the changes that are incurred make one more fit to survive in a given environment it is likely to be passed down to the next generation and so on until the entire species has the trait. If a trait is detrimental the opposite is true. The creature with that trait is likely to die out before reproducing.





*edit2*

"Where were the instructions to mutate from?? It was obvioulsy part of it to begin with."



There is nothing telling any organism's DNA to mutate. The act of creating the next generations' DNA via reproduction is a complex and imperfect process not to mention the environment may play a role in altering DNA (such as photons knocking proteins apart). Mutation is not a trait, it is an unavoidable fact of life.





*edit3*

"Doesn't a "Code" imply someone or someone designing it to read it? Or just more randomness."



No, it doesn't. "Code" or "information" are human constructs. The universe is nothing but bits of particles flying through space. The matter of DNA is no different then the rest of the matter in the universe. If you are arguing that life has "order" and thus must have been created then what about crystals? They line up in orderly and sometimes complex fashions. The idea of "order" is subjective.



The very first step in abiogenesis was nothing more than a self replicating molecule. It wasn't even life, but since it was self replicating it was subject to evolution due to minor chemical alterations over time.



Here are some informative links:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14726-did-evolution-come-before-life.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhWds7djuWo





*edit4*

"I do believe the problem is logic more than an understanding of how it works. I just wonder how logical it is to believe in all the Randomness that is presented to me in all the answers."



How can you deem it illogical if you don't even know how it works!?! Knowing how it works should have been the VERY FIRST step you should have taken instead of going listening to creationists lie about how evolution is "illogical". I have never NEVER seen an accurate depiction of evolution by a creationist.







*BOTTOM LINE*

You keep repeating the question "how did life learn to mutate" or something along those lines. In answered that before, but let me reiterate.



Reproduction is an imperfect process. Some times bits of code get added, subtracted, and shuffled for no good reason. This creates new traits. Mutation is not an evolved aspect of life, it is an unavoidable inherent aspect of life.





*edit5*

Deem whatever you want miraculous, but going by your standards dominoes falling over is miraculous. Rocks a little bit of snow slipping at the top of a mountain and causing an avalanche is miraculous. A bolt of lightning starting a forest fire that spans thousands of kilometers is miraculous.



You just gotta stop using that word.



And on another not it sounds to me you think mankind is some sort of end result or the ultimate goal of billions of years of evolution... It's not. We are just a single notch on still growing tree. Just because we thinking turned out to be a pretty useful adaptation doesn't mean humans are inherently superior to all other forms of life. If anything intelligence will probably turn out to be detrimental as every day is another day we might just wipe ourselves out with our own technology.





*edit6*

"So the "tools" were there before the life. Still looks like a plan to me........"



What tools? I never mentioned any tools. I just told you that the first steps in the development of life were nothing more than singular molecules. No tools.





*edit7*

I'm happy that I could help with my links, but I think you either haven't really read much of my long answer (you had a lot of comments I was responding too) or you just haven't actually understood what I have been saying.



DNA mutates, we can't stop it and mutation is not a adaptation itself. Mutation leads to variation, the pressures of natural selection get rid of the variants that are not seel suited for the environment. Evolution is very simple once you understand it.



This may sound bias to you, but creationist sources don't present any sort of knowledge. All they do is use logical fallacy after logical fallacy. Young Earth creationism is completely motivated by religion. Believe whatever you want to believe, but evolution is hands down the winner when it comes to scientific evidence.

Answer 2

Wow, so much ignorance.



See, you start right off the bat assuming that there's some kind of "direction" or imperative or something for life and/or evolution -- there's none. Organisms (and genes in humans and all other animals) don't "know" anything. The ones that happen to be well-equipped to survive in their environment *do* survive, so they're the ones who are around to pass on their traits. The ones that aren't well-equipped never get to reproduce (or reproduce a lot less frequently), so they die out. Repeat that over and over and over, over billions of years -- that's evolution by natural selection. No guidance, no direction, just things that can survive do, mutations that help get passed on, and ones that don't, well, don't.



Somehow I doubt you've "read more books on the subject than anyone in here." If you had, I'd think you wouldn't have such a basic misunderstanding of how it works. Oh, and by the way -- reading books doesn't mean you understood them, and even if you were the world's #1 authority on evolution I *still* wouldn't take your word for anything...because appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy. You'd still have to show evidence for what you'd say.



Perhaps you should go read some books (and try to understand them) on critical thinking and logic? I think it would help you understand some basic things.



Peace.

Answer 3

Using the verb "know" implies consciousness. Single cell organisms didn't "know" anything. Self-replicating systems naturally accumulate. These systems existed before life did.



The first form of sexual reproduction was likely bacterial conjugation. Reproduction increases genetic variation; variation increases adaptability; adaptability increases chances for survival.



This is exactly what the term "natural selection" means. I don't doubt your intelligence, but natural selection isn't complete randomness. It includes a portion of randomness (mutation, et al), but the process is a cumulative process, not a jackpot-or-nothing shot-in-the-dark.



I hope I've been of some small help in clearing up your questions. The mere fact that you're asking deeper questions than "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" is an indication that you're not speaking out of pure ignorance. Just remember to keep digging deeper and never let your ego get in the way of knowledge.



--

EDIT: I notice that you are questioning where self-replicating systems get their "instructions" from. These "instructions" aren't comparable to a manual; they're guided by the laws of the environment. Did these laws come about by chance or a higher intelligence? That's up to you. But those questions are not matters of evolution.



Evolution, contrary to somewhat popular belief, does not address the origin of matter. It only deals with replicating systems and life once it's here. Abiogenesis addresses the theory of living matter from non-living matter. The process is basically simple chemicals changing to bacteria through many unguided intermediate steps.



Whether or not you accept this as a replacement for the idea of God is entirely up to you. However, evolution requires no leap of faith.



--

EDIT2: Perhaps I gave you too much credit. The whole "pretend we are cells" argument is a dishonest tactic and you know it.



The problem with accepting a "plan" is that it is a false choice, an argument from ignorance, and an argument from personal incredulity (among others) wrapped into one claim which masquerades as scientific evidence.



By saying that life contains a plan from God, you're saying that an unexplainable being of an unexplainable substance in an indeterminable location using unexplainable means at an unknowable time created a "plan" for life. This requires a HUGE leap of faith.



Stating that life as we know it is too improbable, too varied, or too complicated is not scientific in any context; it is not an answer, a theory, or even a cogent hypothesis.



--

EDIT3: "I will be sure to mutate my genes so that my offspring have no recollection of the word Miraculous."



This illustrates exactly why your "lets pretend we are cells" argument is dishonest. Natural selection doesn't imply that a living organism consciously directs its genes to change with a particular goal in mind.



Clearly, genes can be manipulated. Farmers have used artificial selection for millenniums to produce better crops and livestock. Darwin's contribution to science was the recognition that similar selection happens naturally at a pace dictated by a species' environment. If you understand evolution as you claim, then you would know this.



So either:

a.) you understand evolution and are being knowingly deceptive by using ridiculous hypotheticals, or

b.) you haven't a clue what you're talking about.



This is not a false dichotomy, it is a true choice.



I'm inclined to argue that you don't actually understand basic evolutionary principles. My evidence is your repeated false premise hypotheticals and your admittance to relying mostly on Creationist books as your source of information and understanding of how evolution works.

Answer 4

That question suggests you either know nothing about evolutionary theory or you're being intentionally obtuse.



Organisms which survive an environmental change are genetically equipped to do so. Their genome has evolved, through random mutation (using "random" in this context as "unguided"). To put it in layman's terms, they got lucky. Their ancestors didn't "know" what would happen in the future, and even if they did there is no way they could intentionally modify the genome of their offspring. Other members of the population, who don't have the same genetic mutations, may die off. This changes the make up of the population, leaving it genetically distinct from the one before it. Evolution.

Answer 5

Well obviously since that first organism was surviving pretty well in its environment, its offspring would have those same traits. Only when conditions changed and the need to adapt arose did natural selection start to weed out the boys from the men. By the time this occurred, there had to have been millions of single celled organisms.

Answer 6

Incredible how much you have to educate yourself to be of use to your children, isn't it? I'd affirm her feeling that the ark was too small, then I'd talk about a few arguments -- absence of evidence for a worldwide flood, the Mediterranean flood theory, and maybe some other flood stories. If I didn't have a good answer, I'd say, "I believe that the story is a myth, but I'll have to think about that some more," and likely sit down sometime together and research together. My belief is that it's important as a parent to admit I don't know, and teach my children how to find answers. That's worth way more than actually finding a conclusive answer.

Answer 7

Although you may have read a lot books about evolution, you still hold the concept that someone or something must "think" and "design".



Every single cell organism evolve according to its environment by mutation of its cell.



If the environment is too cold, it will mutate itself to survive the cold.

If the environment is too hot, it will mutate itself to survive the heat.



The single cell organism do not do any thinking or designing. It just mutate itself to suit its environment.



The gene of mutation is bulid in its DNA.



That is evolution - mutation of gene to suit harsh environment to survive.



The evidence of such mutation is still around - viruses / bacteria.

Answer 8

It didn't "know" anything. It didn't have to. Natural selection weeds out that which doesn't work and lets that which does work continue. Nothing needs to "know" anything. It's a completely natural process. Any organism that didn't have what it took to survive didn't survive.



You don't quite grasp the concept of natural selection.



EDIT: Wait - you're asking a question that shows you don't understand the basics of evolution yet you ignore the answers that point out the gaps in your knowledge? How very typical of creationists.



And your many books are probably creationist books with their completely backwards depictions of evolution.

Answer 9

Evolution is blind, there is no forward planning. The adaptions which lead to more offspring are the ones that get selected.



Mutations are random, most are harmless, some are deadly, but a very few are beneficial. Given enough time the beneficial mutations accumulate because they are more successful at replicating.

Answer 10

Yes it does imply choice. Not conscious choice, but definitely choice. Evolution is not random. It specifically chooses those traits that best allow the organism to survive in an ever-changing environment. That's how God designed the system. Pretty wondrous, isn't it!

Answer 11

Your problem is that you assume there was a plan/goal.



edit: Natural selection does not mean a choice happened. Natural selection describes the process through which the most fit organisms tend to survive to reproduce while unfit organisms die out. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

Answer 12

Thank you. You have put into words what I wonder also.





PS: To "Marine 63" There may be no such thing as a evolutionist as you say, but "evolutionist" is a word. There are two types of evolutionists -- naturalistic and theistic.

Answer 13

Nature knows pretty well all the nitty gritty of survival. Take a worm or a termite for example. See them closely and discover how they adopt to their environment and quickly adjust. Termites and worms are sensitive to sun's heat and quickly dig the earth to hide. Same with the first cell who created humans.

Answer 14

Trial and Error.

The whole point of evolution is that there were many things created, only the one that worked survived and continued.



Natural Selection at it's best.











Edit: Why ask something you know nothing about, and refuse to listen to the answers? That makes no sense.

Answer 15

It was quite awhile before things got as complex as a whole cell. The first life was more like this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515171023.htm

Answer 16

Clearly, a magic man in the sky told it what to do, and then that magic man impregnated a woman so she could give birth to him so he could sacrifice himself to himself to allow himself to change a rule that he made and if you don't worship his son who is really him even though it's somebody else and give him ten percent of your money he will send you to a magical place where you will be tortured for eternity and suffer the worst torment ever imagined because he loves you and wants you to be happy.



When you drop a rock, who tells it to fall? How does gravity know which way is down?

Answer 17

the first cell multiplied and all the offspring adapted to their environment



nature isn't making a choice, the fittest survive and the weakest die off

Answer 18

You seem to think evolution is a conscious effort.



It's not.



Beneficial mutations survive; harmful ones do not.



All you're doing is showing us how little you know about the subject. And yes, if you know so little and insist on keeping it that way, it seems miraculous.

Answer 19

The "cult" of evolution MUST remove the possibility of God at all costs.



To believe in evolution, you must "believe" (I.e., religious) that there is no God.



And of course, there is no way to know that.

Answer 20

You do not understand the theory of evolution.



Knowledge is not necessary: inheritance, mutation, & survival. That's it.

Answer 21

Natural Selection. The word Miraculous is a logical fallacy.



Oh, and so is the word "evolutionist".



Ha! Evolution is a cop out? And Miracle isnt? Miracle: Explaining the unexplainable and scientifically impossible through the use of God, relinquishing yourself of the burden of proof, because "god did it!" How many miracles have there been since the invention of modern science? None, because we actually know jack **** for once.

Answer 22

The first organism didn't "know" or need to "know". It was concerned with it's own survival period. Whatever changes led to our current existence are totally irrelevant to what the first organism supposedly "knew"

Answer 23

To ask a question about evolution you first need to know what evolution is.





It's based on natural selection. It's not "preprogrammed."

Answer 24

You don't understand evolution. Evolution is not a conscious agent, it is directed by natural selection and random mutations.

Answer 25

there's no such thing as an evolutionist

how about reading a science book, you might find the answer

natural selection...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090121-lizard-ants-missions.html

Answer 26

There are literally thousands of books and articles written about evolution and abiogenesis.



Read one.





. . . oh!

Answer 27

Nothing was included, that's what natural selection is all about.

Answer 28

Hm, not an evolutionist (not a creationist, either, mind you), but methinks a good eighth-grade biology textbook would do you well.

Answer 29

if it didn't, would we know about it?



for all we know there were millions of instances where it failed to work, but it only takes once. one successful time to create life

Answer 30

WHAT?!



well i'm pretty sure the first single celled organism didn't "know" anything... it was hardly even alive.

Answer 31

i dont think evolution really deals with origin thats like a seperate problem .. but one that hasnt really been satisfactorily explained either ..

Answer 32

calling that miraculous would mean miracles happen, which means that god exists, so no it's not miraculus just lucky

Answer 33

How did Adam and Eve know they were humans :>

Answer 34

Who said it knew that?

Answer 35

Jared, it's simple God told it!

Answer 36

777

isn't it obvious?