Did you know that according to the current theory, evolution has foresight?
Current theory of evolution, which is fundamentally a historical narrative that attempts to reconstruct unseen past events, is full of narratives that ascribe foresight to evolution.
For example. Given the observation that many species have eyes and that there is a real selective advantage to sight(being able to see both predators and prey), an average evolutionist would simply conclude - "Thus, many species developed eyes through evolution".
But obviously, eyes are beneficial only when they exist and thus, they cannot be the reason to develop eyes. We as humans are able to develop for e.g. firearms, because we know in advance that firearms are beneficial to us in dangerous situations and environments. But nobody in their right mind would claim that because firearms are beneficial, particles will rearrange themselves to form firearms and then, we will just select them. Well, this is exactly what evolutionists presuppose in their explanations - "eyes are beneficial, therefore DNA particles will rearrange themselves to code for eyes". And according to evolution theory, this has happened 100 times independently in evolutionary history. (Wiki: "Complex, image-forming eyes have evolved independently some 50 to 100 times".)
So now, the mutations are not random and evolution is not blind, but mutations are specific and evolution has foresight by ordering the mutations for the future benefit. The reality is of course that...(continued)
...evolution has no foresight - it is a process, a selective mechanism that acts in the present time in the constraints of a random process which is mathematically not capable of extracting functional information from the pool of infinite junk DNA sequences. So, underlying logic of evolution theory invokes mysterious powers that provide evolution with foresight. And now, evolutionists don't have to provide any scientific or mathematical consideration for...
..how a particular physical result was achieved.
How can a rational person consider this a scientific theory?
- Annsan_In_HimLv 73 years agoFavourite answer
Your Q was moved out of Religion & Spirituality by some unknown person, to this Biology category, so the claim here by one person that we have "another covert creationist in our midst" is unwarranted. My answer is to show the way old evolutionary theories have developed, so that you might better understand such concepts as "foresight" when applied to ideas about DNA coding itself for improvements.
After Charles Darwin's second book on evolution (1871), much thought was applied to his theory, that nature itself determined the development and progress of all living things. This implied that any man-centred or God-centred view of the world was mere wishful thinking. For example, Charles Kingsley described the impact of Darwin's theory like this:
"Men find that now they have got rid of an interfering God - a master-magician as I call it - they have to choose between the absolute empire of accident, and a living, immanent, ever-working God." In the 19th century, the whole fabric of Christianity was called into question, with science, philosophy and history used in an attempt to show that the Christian faith no longer had a leg to stand on. However, the Scottish Free-Church man, Henry Drummond, pointed out a problem with the idea of the survival of the fittest. Even in the animal world, he said, survival is not simply a matter of stealth and strength. Care and compassion pay an important part. So Darwin's theory has been modified because of that truth.
That's by way of a general introduction. Now, what is a scientific definition of Darwinism? I take the following from 'Life' book - Nature Library - Evolution. The full title of Darwin's first book states his own definition; "On The Origin Of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." His second book was, "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex". Darwin believed that "A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase." And also that a creature's desirability as a mate played an important part in promoting desirable, or beneficial traits. Darwin accepted an accurate and convenient term proposed by Herbert Spencer; "survival of the fittest". He had shown that all life is one, because all life has arisen from one unremembered beginning.
But Darwin did not know about DNA and the role of genes, so evolutionary theory today has... evolved accordingly! "In 1856 Austrian monk Gregor Johann Mendel launched the first of a series of experiments that were to demonstrate that inheritance, like evolution, is not a chaos or chance, or miracle, but a matter of law. Darwin never heard of Mendel's work, and the monk's reports lay ignored by the scientific world for decades." Others contributed to the development of evolutionary theory. Hugo de Vries (d. 1935) developed the first mutation theory through extensive studies of the evening primrose. He thought he had formed new species through mutations. (He had actually identified segregated characters, not mutations but his work provided a platform on which to build.) De Vries discovered the import of Mendel's work and, in a paper read before the German Botanical Society in 1900, he gave Mendel full credit for one of the most momentous discoveries in scientific history.
Now, I relate all of that to show why Darwinian evolution is not the same as evolutionary theory today. A lot that Darwin proposed is now known to be wrong, and later discoveries have caused evolutionary theory to develop, so most writings on the subject deal with the up-to-date understanding, though tribute is always paid to Darwin's original proposals
DNA is now understood to be part of a massively complex chemical interaction within cells that requires information to be de-coded by brainless cells, in order for them to replicate successfully. The question is where do we apply the word 'foresight'? To brainless cells, or to the creator of DNA? That is the question! Try asking again, once more in the R&S section, and if you get such questions removed, email me so that I might (hopefully) assist your enquiry.
- CECIL WLv 73 years ago
Not at all. Too much competition.
- Anonymous3 years ago
You clearly demonstrate with this and all your other puerile questions that you are not a rational person. There is a lot of evidence to show that you are not a rational person. The evidence is your many puerile questions on Y!A about evolution. Your lack of rationality is further demonstrated by the fact you have made absolutely no attempt to discover what the science of evolution says or to think through your questions. Further evidence, if it were needed, is that you never pay any attention to answers given.
I am not one for reporting people here on Y!A but I think it is about time that Y!A was free from your constant asinine rants. If you posed genuine questions and accepted the answers that would be great. May be it would take you a long time to grasp the subject of evolution but genuinely interested questions asking for explanations and seeking clarification are the kinds of questions that other people are very happy to answer. However, what you are doing is exploiting Y!A as your personal soapbox to rant about evolution not being, in your very ill-informed opinion, true.
Here are some facts you will not cogitate on:
1. Clearly you think evolution is not true. If it were not true we would require an alternative explanation. I suspect that yours would be creation and that your chosen creation myth will be the Judeo-Christian one. However, if evolution were not true no creation myth would become the default alternative. Any alternative explanation would require evidence and no creation myth has any.
2. All mainstream Christian denominations accept evolution is true. You may belong to one of these. It would not surprise me to learn you do not know the official teachings of the denomination to which you belong.
3. Evolution does not have foresight. I would have hoped that somebody with a modicum of intelligence could understand this aspect of evolution. Eyes did not evolve as the complex organs we know today in say mammals from nothing. They evolved by cells evolving the ability to detect the presence of light. This gave organisms with this trait an advantage over other organisms. Sensitivity to light evolved by mutation. In the process of natural selection that advantage was selected for. If sensitivity to light had provided no advantage it would not have been selected and natural selection would gradually have removed it.
4. You show your lack of knowledge in this subject area by how you employ the term 'random' when it refers to the role played by genetic mutations in evolution. In this sense it does not refer to the chance occurrence of a mutation. Indeed the rate at which mutations occur can be measured and predicted. In this sense 'random' is used to mean mutations occur irrespective of their effect on the cell/organism in which they occur.
- ChemFlunkyLv 73 years ago
No, any apparent "foresight" is just a matter of inaccurate explanation.
The probable sequence of evolution that lead to the modern mammalian eye (and many other eyes, there are extant examples of essentially every stage in this list):
Patch of photosensitive cells (simple light sensitivity)
Patch of photosensitive cells in a slight dip in the skin (crude directionality)
Patch of photosensitive cells in a deep dip in the skin with a constricted lip (crude imaging)
Deep pit becomes enclosed, and filled with consistent clear fluid; this allows for light filtering, and reduces infection and contamination.
Lens develops for better image creation
Focusing muscles develop to distort the lens as needed
More details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
With a little application of thought, you can see how 1. each step in that sequence could happen through a fairly minor random mutation, from a population that had the previous type of eye/no eye, and 2. each step would be more useful, and thus lead to higher survival rates, than the one before (assuming the creature had enough brains to make use of the information from the eyes, which is another thing that could happen in small, obvious steps). This is all that natural selection requires. That a trait could arise/improve through small random mutations, and that said trait could then improve survival, and thus increase its representation in the next generation.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Anonymous3 years ago
si tacuisses philosophus mansisses.
you can look it up. I doubt you will take it to heart.
- RealProLv 73 years ago
No. A creature was not born one day with a fully fledged set of blue eyes with mascara as an offspring of two parent creatures who didn't have eyes.
It just so happens that mutations are frequent, and in one of the billions of iterations of some organisms, there developed chemicals in certain parts of cells that were sensitive to light.
Is that step so hard to believe?
This creature through a series of chemical reactions was able to sense differences in light intensity. However crude it was, it was an improvement over sensing no light.
Then a natural series of events followed. The creature could find more food, have favorable conditions for reproducing and lived longer on average.
It may have also died. Doesn't matter. Another one will be born a few million years from then, and again, and again until one time it happens to catch on and enough of the population has eyes that it's now a feature and not a bug.
And now you can read this. Any problems?
- OutahereLv 63 years ago
Firearms were invented when the environment was right in terms of technology availability and were perceived by conscious thought. Firearms did not evolve by a natural process.
Evolution has no such conscious motivator or foresight. It requires only prevailing environmental conditions and random genetic mutation. If an environmental condition, such as light, offers an advantage to things that can see, then any genetic mutation to favours light sensitivity gives an advantage and will be inclined to survive and develop further.
Multiple organisms share the same environment so it makes sense that they would each evolve so as to better exploit their environmental niche. It requires no conscious thought, no plan and does not necessary require a direct serial relationship. Rather evolution can occur in parallel so, for example, eyes can evolve independently in a number of organisms.
Some animals that are less reliant on light because of their habits or environment have developed other senses such as sonar, heat sensitivity or electrical sensitivity. If it favours the organism in its environment, a genetic mutation tends to survive.
I see no mystery in that and no departure from the random nature of genetic mutation that expresses itself as evolution.
- NooseLv 53 years ago
Foresight is an understatement; according to the stupid myth, things happened by accident and then became advantageous and were improved through more accidents thereafter. The kind of accidents that cause the development of a tail over a period of time in some apes and a reverse sequence accident that cause the lose of a tail on man over a similar amount of time.
I have no problem with people believing in myths, i do have a problem when people say it is a fact.
- Anonymous3 years ago
I see we have another covert creationist in our midst. Come out of the shadows and show yourself and your true objectives.
- ?Lv 73 years ago
1. Evolution is not a theory. It is a proven fact.
2. Evolution is NOT an historical narrative. And it does Reconstruct past events through research and carbon dating and digging up bones and other artifacts.
your understanding of evolution is very limited.