While raising an interesting question, what we have here is an uncalled for conclusion. "Since salamanders lost their eyes God doesn't exist."

Macro-evolution and micro-evolution are very different beasts. The development of the eye would be macro-evolution, while the loss of the eye sight would be micro-evolution.

A salamander is in a cave in the dark and it's eyes are completely useless. It's very possible that random chance would allow a deformed blind salamander to be the producer of the population, and all would be blind henceforth. The same probabilities do not exist for the evolution of the eye.

The very notion that the eye could evolve is absolutely ridiculous. The author notes that it started with some light sensitive cells. They happened to be equally spaced and positioned on the creature, and these light sensitive cells just happened to be connected to the brain in a way that the light sensitivity could be registered, and that creature happened to be the one who lived and fathered all other creatures, and those children creatures happened to somehow gain eyesight out of light sensitive cells?

I call BS. Any idiot can make an argument based on infinity. Here's one for you. Given as space is infinite it is assured that there is another habitable planet out there. As it is assured that there is at least one habitable planet and space is infinite, then it is assured there are actually an infinite number of habitable planets out there. Given that there are an infinite number of habitable planets, then it is assured that there is at least one habitable planet very close to the earth in terms of atmosphere, temperature, etc. It follows that there are an infinite number of planets very close to the earth, an infinite number of planets exactly like the earth, an infinite number of those planets supporting life, and infinite number of those life forms exactly like us, an infinite number of those life forms that have followed the same evolutionary paths, made the same decisions, and as such are exact replicas of us today. In other words, using the infinite argument suggests that there are an infinite number of earth "clones" floating around in space. This does not even address the earths that are more advanced or less advanced than us by a few billion years, nor the other species that are slightly or vastly different than us. It's kind of amazing we've never met any of them.

The probabilities against this sort of thing are so vast that only an argument of infinity can satisfy them. I guess the question is whether you believe space is infinite. If you do then get excited, because an infinite number of you "clones" are reading this same article and thinking this same thought right now!

Go read The Mathematics of Monkeys and Shakespeare.

i'm unclear on what you mean by macroevolution and microevolution and how you separate the two. perhaps you could explain and include clear examples. so often these types of responses run amok, because no one clearly delineates the terms they're using, and just assumes that the way they take them and the arguments they produce with them are pretty much intuitive and acceptable.

You obviously have no idea about what your talking. You got your facts all wrong pal. Space is not infinite, it's just really large. And evolution advances through many small imperceptible increments spawning millions and millions of years. Not because a deformed individual could reproduce and have descendants, that`s not the reason these salamanders are blind. One individual means nothing in evolution's scale, it's a completely statistical process.

How do you know space is not infinite? Have you seen where it ends? If space is not infinite, how will you know where it ends, and what is beyond where it ends? More Space? Beyond some mathematical theory, where is the proof that space ends some where?

The only difference between micro- and macro-evolution is the taxonomic level at which it occurs: microevolution referes to evolutionary change below the level of the species and macro-evolution to evolutionary change at or above the level of teh species. Nothing else distinguishes them from each other.

"The very notion that the eye could evolve is absolutely ridiculous."

>>No, it isn't, In fact, we have an excellent understanding of the stages by which a complex eye would evolve, given that those intermediate stages still exist in living organisms like molluscs, planaria, nuatilus's (see <link> ).

"I call BS. Any idiot can make an argument based on infinity."

>>The conclusion that eyes are the result of evolution isn't based on infinity. In fact, the eye-spot to complex eye could occur fairly rapidly (see <link>).

"The probabilities against this sort of thing are so vast that only an argument of infinity can satisfy them."

>>How excatly have you calaculated the probability agaisnt, and is the exact value? Show your math.

Re: Monkey's typing Shakespeare

Monkey's typing randomly at a keyboard does not model fundamental elements of evolutionary change--it incorporates neither selection with resepct to environment nor inheritance of traits selected for by subsequent generations.

But if we're going to use monkey’s typing randomly to represent natural mechanisms that introduce change in a population’s genetic composition, we can add those necessary elements to our example by stating that whenever a monkey types a character in the correct location not only will subsequent attempts by that monkey begin with that character in place (selection) but all other monkeys typing away will begin subsequent attempts with that character alredy fixed in place (inheritance).

As time progresses and more and more characters become fixed in the 'population' of letters we'll wind up with texts more and more similar to the final complete works of Shakespeare.

With selection and inheritance added Shakespeare’s plays can rapidly be generated by small numbers of random generators—monkeys, computers, whatever. In 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed, modeling how evolution selects for adaptive changes produced by mutations. On average, the program re-created the phrase TOBEORNOTTOBE in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. The entire play "Hamlet" took just four and a half days to generate.

And that was a single random generator—a single monkey, as it were.

If you recognize that blind salamanders can evolve from sighted salamanders through random chance, then why would you not recognize that a salamander with a complex eye could have evolved from a salamander with a less complex eye,

which could have evolved from a salamander with a simple eye,

which could have evolved from a simpler salamander with a complex arrangement of light-sensitive cells,

which could have evolved from an even simpler salamander with a simple arrangement of light-sensitive cells,

which could have evolved from an even simpler creature with a clump of cells on its head that happened to be more sensitive to light than the rest of its skin cells?

If you're separating "macro" and "micro" evolution, you're just not taking the idea far enough in your mind. Evolution has taken place over billions of years and the lifespans of hundreds of billions of life forms. Billions of various micro-evolved traits combined in different ways to produce the macro-evolved species we see today. It's all a function of the same graph.

Tjcerveza asks: How do you know space is not infinite? Have you seen where it ends? If space is not infinite, how will you know where it ends, and what is beyond where it ends? More Space? Beyond some mathematical theory, where is the proof that space ends some where?

LeRoy: This is, in truth, a very complex topic. Suffice it to say that we have pretty good reasons for believing that we live in a finite universe. [On the other hand, we may very well live in a 'multi-verse', with an undetermined number of 'other universes' out there.] A good place to begin an exploration of these questions would be the Wikipedia article on Olbers' Paradox.

If we do live in a multi-verse, I have in the past made the suggestion that we reserve the word 'cosmos' to refer to the totality of universes, and reserve the word 'universe' to refer to this particular universe. This would prevent a great deal of confusion, but I am not aware that anyone has taken me up on my suggestion.

I don't see the point in debating whether knowledge or intelligence is involved in evolution or not.

Can evolutionists acknowledge knowledge in evolution?

jwa?

"Can evolutionists acknowledge knowledge in evolution?"

Can you rewrite that question in a way that expresses what it is you want to know?

Does evolution work using knowledge?

It is not possible that biology has no knowledge.

Evolution has knowledge and design. There seems to be an intelligent plan to survive and adapt according to some written statements.

BaselessGull: Does evolution work using knowledge?

LeRoy: No. No 'knowledge' is required for evolution to work. All that is required is genetic variation, natural selection, and differential reproduction. This is why nearly all evolutionary scientists believe that evolution would be a universal phenomenon: if there is life on other planets, the rules of evolution would be very much the same as they are here on Earth...even though the outcome would likely be radically different.

BaselessGull: There seems to be an intelligent plan to survive and adapt according to some written statements.

LeRoy: I have no idea what written statements you are referring to; perhaps you should cite some. But, as I also pointed out in another thread, it does not require any intelligence at all to 'survive and adapt'. Birds do it, bees do it; but so do plants, and algae, and bacteria, and amoebas...none of which has anything corresponding to intelligence.

Evidently knowledge, reason, understanding, and intelligence have been "proved" to be a result of evolution.

So whatever you do, it is most assuredly evolution in action and no more.

Ah, if I am interpreting your words correctly, then it is your opinion that evolution must be guided by some sort of conscious force or will.

But that's not true. Evolution is the product of millions of random mutations.

Say you have a duck who hatches three ducklings. One of the ducklings is born with a random mutation that allows him to dive deeper in search of food, therefore expanding the number of food sources available to that duck.

When the three ducklings are adolescents, a weather anomaly kills off most of the food in the shallow parts of the water, and the two normal ducklings starve without having reproduced. The deep diver lives long enough to have ducklings of his own, and they inherit their father's mutation.

As the mutated ducks continue to live longer and therefore produce more offspring than the normal ducks in the area, they become the dominate variety of duck in the region. The same thing that happened with the diving mutation happens with a feather mutation, then a beak mutation, and, eventually, the un-mutated ducks die off or are crowded out, and a whole new species of bird takes over the area.

There's no plan there, no blueprint or guiding force. It's all a result of chance. Mutations persist because individuals possessing those mutations survive and reproduce. Those mutations become dominant if the mutated individuals produce more offspring than the non-mutated individuals. That's the entirety of it.

Natural selection isn't intelligent, it isn't goal-oriented, and it has no foresight. It doesn't act to achieve a preferred outcome immediately or at some later time. It simply selects for or agaisnt changes in genetic composition of a population on the basis of whether they increase or decrease fitness in the environment the population exploits at the time selection occurs.