If Darwin was correct

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
I understand that, since cockroaches can survive under any environment, they do not need to learn (changing of environment has no effect on them). But for any other species, learning should be very important. Why only human beings have the ability to learn?

Environment changes, generally speaking, happen only gradually, spread out over many generations. The only exceptions are natural disasters and those are what usually cause mass extinctions.

There is plenty of time to adapt to changes in such a long period of time.

Not to mention that you're blatantly wrong in thinking that only humans can learn. There are just limitations as to what exactly species can learn. There may be few species that can actually learn human language to a limited degree and I suppose we're the only ones able to learn quantum physics, but that's not all we learn.

An observed group of Japanese macaques started taking dips in a hot spring in the 60's and they've been doing it ever since. Chimps use sticks to eat ants. Parrots can talk (well, obviously only mimic sounds a bit, but that's enough to show they learn, isn't it).

I recently saw an episode of Myth Busters where they experimented that fish can learn to associate a color with food.

What exactly do you consider learning?

I picture evolution using an analogy: high-level computer languages. At first there is language A, then B, then C (including C++ , and so on, just like environment changes. (...)

That makes no sense.

If the above picture is correct, then sooner or later all species (except cockroaches) will know that learning is the key to survive. They will develop the ability to learn as a result of evolution. But they didn't. Hence evolution theory is not correct.

No. Learning only allows one individual to adapt to changes in the environment. Evolution changes a species by trial and error over a long period of time and adapts them to gradual environment changes. Luckily, most environment changes happen over a long period of time too, as I said earlier. Individuals don't need to learn (to whichever degree you think they aren't learning) because the changes they'll likely see will be negligible.

[Atahualpa]

If Darwin was correct...

Problem solved, thread closed.

[Adrian Hon]

I think you really don't understand what evolution is - it's not about organisms getting more complex and bigger, it's about two simple things. Variation between organisms, and natural selection. Firstly, whenever an organism reproduces, there is the possibility that its offspring will not be identical to itself (in many organisms the possibility is prett much 100%), simply due to copying errors in replicating DNA.

This means that there will always be a variety of organisms out there. Now, some organisms will die earlier or later, and reproduce more or less, because some they are better adapted to their environment merely because of this random variation; some will have genes that allow them to tolerate more hostile temperatures, for example. Over time, this process of selection of the 'fittest' organisms for a given environment will cause them to continue changing - this is natural selection.

There is no 'learning' in evolution and there is no direction. The 'reason' we have all sorts of oddities like the coccyx and appendix and the ability to choke on food or water is because those problems haven't yet killed or impaired enough humans to make a difference on the population. While we may be the most complex organisms on the planet, we aren't perfect.

This is probably not a great description of evolution, I would advise you to look around on Google, but I don't think you understand it at all; then again, most people don't either.

[Mercator]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
Sincerely, from my limited knowledge, this theory has a lot of problems

Then maybe the first thing you should do is learn more about rather than dismissing it before you even know it.

One single fact is enough to throw it away: Earth is the only planet with life in its affinity. Other planets and satellites, although not as good as the earth, some of them must at least still be good enough for a single-cell creature? So, I don't believe in evolution UNLESS there is evidence to show that other planets have certain kind of life forms.

But there must be billions of planets out there that we don't know about. What if there's is life on one planet in one out of every 10 solar systems? That would still be an awful lot, but if the nearest ones only happen to have microscopic life, we wouldn't know anything about them.

Then again, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with that either. Evolution explains how life evolved into more complex forms, not how it got here in the first place.

[Adrian Hon]

Incidentally, not only do we know very little about how the brain works, but we don't know much about how to measure activity either. What does it mean for a region of the brain to be 'active'? Most people have seen the pretty pictures made by fMRI and PET machines; these colour areas based on the amount of metabolic activity going on - that is, the amount of oxygen being used by cells. Very generally speaking, neurones in the brain use oxygen whenever they fire a spike (and information is represented in the brain - in some unknown way - by these spikes).

However, there are several problems. Firstly, fMRI and PET machines do not have the temporal or spatial resolution to show what is going on at the neuronal level. The max resolution is probably a few hundred microns cubed at best, likely much more. So who is to say what 'high activity' in one area really means? Secondly, just because a neurone isn't consuming oxygen doesn't mean it's not doing any processing; it may be accepting inputs but just not generating any spikes of its own. Thirdly, it's not even known whether rate of spikes (and thus metabolic activity) even corresponds to 'neural activity' (not that anyone agrees what 'neural activity' really is). All of this relates to exactly how neurones process spikes and information, and information theory in general.

So it makes absolutely no sense *whatsoever* to talk about 'only 10% of the brain being used', on so many different levels. Now, you might not believe what I said and you can always go off and find opinions that disagree from mine, but opinions aren't equivalent. Plus, do they have a degree and masters in neuroscience? Most likely not. PWNED.

[Xin Yu]

Mercator,

The ability to learn and the ability to respond to training is different. Dogs can be trained to guide blinded people, but that is not due to their ability to learn, but rather because they are trained into doing that (reflect to stimulation).

If life is just a bunch of genes mutations with the nature selects suitable ones to stay, then life should be everywhere. The moon, for example, although does not have air and water, but some genes should be able to mutate into some form and survive there, right (for example, the cockroaches )? So I'd rather believe that the Earth was selected by a creator to create lives.

[Provost Harrison]

No, there is a distinct lack of a food source on the moon, and most reasonably advanced organisms need oxygen for effective metabolism. And then the obvious...water...

[Xin Yu]

(Rant) Why every post except mine was from evolutionists? Nobody with me? I thought I'd get some support from Christians? Anyone?

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
No, there is a distinct lack of a food source on the moon, and most reasonably advanced organisms need oxygen for effective metabolism. And then the obvious...water...

That is a narrow definition of life. Just because life forms on earth need oxygen (plants don't though), we cannot assume all life forms do. Same for water.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
(Rant) Why every post except mine was from evolutionists? Nobody with me? I thought I'd get some support from Christians? Anyone?

Because they're exhausted from being pwned in the last EvoCre thread... and the one before that... and the one before that...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
That is a narrow definition of life. Just because life forms on earth need oxygen (plants don't though), we cannot assume all life forms do. Same for water.

Name me one form of life that doesn't require water.

And plants DO need oxygen.

http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/eventscience/EBS.OS1_RS~DF.html

[DRoseDARs]

Aren't there still some archeobacteria (sp?) around deepsea vents that don't require oxygen? We know that there used to be because the atmosphere didn't always have oxygen, it had to be expelled as a waste product eons ago.

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
plants DO need oxygen.

But they must produce more oxygen than they use (or animals will have nothing to breath), so in a strict sense they do not need oxygen (they produce their own).

When you see 10+ planets with only one of them with life, and are presented with two theories:

a) one is selected by a creator to create lives.
b) lives grow by them selves on that planet, the other ones lack the conditions (defined by me and can be modified later to ensure exclusion of other planets) for life to survive.

Which one do you believe? Theory b)'s second part (other planets lack the conditions) look like some excuses to me, so I pick a).

[Adrian Hon]

Why is theory b an excuse? And if life was created by a creator, where did the creator come from? It doesn't answer anything.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Xin Yu


But they must produce more oxygen than they use (or animals will have nothing to breath), so in a strict sense they do not need oxygen (they produce their own).

When you see 10+ planets with only one of them with life, and are presented with two theories:

a) one is selected by a creator to create lives.
b) lives grow by them selves on that planet, the other ones lack the conditions (defined by me and can be modified later to ensure exclusion of other planets) for life to survive.

Which one do you believe? Theory b)'s second part (other planets lack the conditions) look like some excuses to me, so I pick a).

That's a pretty strange line of reasoning, just because we know very little about under what conditions live can form (we haven't even set foot on any other planets to do a thorough search for microbial life or even got a decent look at any other solar systems) doesn't mean we should jump to conclusions about Magic Sky Faeries.