Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 10 years ago

Question for those who believe the Theory of Evolution?

I've been in many debates over this (I believe the bible) and I would just like to point this out. This is kind of a rhetorical question, but any feedback would be appreciated. Now for the question.

How do you explain the symmetry in nature? How do you explain the beauty in nature? I understand very well why the world is sold on the theory of evolution, and I believe I have a firm grasp on what the theory of evolution is. If all living things evolved from a single ancestor through survival of the fittest (which took billions of years, understandably so) then don't you think it would look a little messy? The second law of thermodynamics states that in any spontaneous combustion (the chemical reaction that takes place within the nucleus of the cell's membrane that would allow the change in genetics for the process of evolution to take place) there is an increase in entropy.

Evolutionists believe that random spontaneous reactions in the DNA, which are also responsible for disease and disabilities, instead result in improved traits in natural life over a huge time span. Sure, organism may, over millions of years, finally take a step forward in the evolutionary process, and while being effective (survival of the fittest) it would not be sugar and rainbows. Animals would be messed up, ugly beasts. And why not? All they need to do is survive, right? These animals most certainly would not have symmetry (two eyes equally spaced, two legs equally spaced apart, to arms, two ears, the list goes on.) Of course, I do realize that there are many animals that are missing some elements of symmetry, such as the fluke fish, but you have to respect the fact that we see symmetry everywhere in nature.

In order for evolution to be validated, it must be understood that the evolutionary process must have happened at the same rate for all living organisms. If one species started evolving at a faster rate, lets say, a carnivore, then this animal would be responsible for the extinction of it's prey due to the fact that it's prey could not evolve fast enough to improved traits that would allow them to escape their predators. Evolution had to have worked perfectly. I'm not even going to go into the statistics and the chance of evolution to occur, but I will say that it is a billion times more likely for a species to be disease struck into extinction then it is for it to evolve in such a way that their new genetic traits compliment all five necessary traits for complex organic life.

So how do you explain it? How do you explain the beauty in nature? In art theory, one will learn that one of the defining features in beauty is symmetry. How did it happen? How did the world turn out so perfect (I know it's not perfect in many ways, but I'm talking in terms of the beauty in nature.)

Update:

In response to ca's post, you just used the classic response I get every time I bring this up.

"Well, evolution has been proved, and God hasn't."

and here's another

"Well, it was unlikely the way it happened, but it still did happen."

No, no, no. Evolution has not been proved, the world is sold on the belief in evolution simply because that is the ONLY other explanation for life without the belief in God.

Update 2:

In response to Milk and Cereal, you bring up some valid points, I was expecting (and prepared) for someone to say exactly what you just said.

Ironically, you made a good point and then completely contradicted it in your last sentence.

Humans adapt to be impressed by beauty.

If you know anything about biology, then you know this to be true. We are designed to be impressed by certain things we consider beauty. We are designed to be attracted to the opposite sex.

This means that evolution could have went about mating through other means. For example, the opposite sex could have an aroma that makes the other sex want to mate. It doesn't even have to be through sight. Either way, evolution could have had it that we found beauty in our ugly species.

I feel that I should make this clear, I'm not trying to say that the beauty in nature disproves evolution. I'm am trying to emphasis the fact that there is too much symmetry in nature for it to have happened by chance.

Update 3:

Also, as for other animals mating, they do not care for beauty or symmetry in their mates. My dog (and almost everyones else's dog) will hump anything that moves, including a shoe. Remember that God made animals for himself, but also to please man. He made these things beautiful for us as well.

Update 4:

After reading many of these responses, I will agree now that I have a pretty poor knowledge of Evolution (though I don't think people needed to be rude about it.)

I am 18 years old in my senior year of high school (probably made obvious through my youthful ignorance) and I've only taken 2 biology classes (both of which were pretty lame basics.)

I must say, I am pleasantly surprised to see real experts on Yahoo answers.

Even if life was created through evolution, it still believe it was done through intelligent design. You can pin point exactly what genetic traits make up an animals physic and anatomy, but I will never, and can't possibly, believe that it all happened by chance. I'm not trying to be stubborn or close minded, I'm not ignoring the science, I will never be blind to scientific evidence. One of my favorite quotes comes from Albert Einstein "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

The more I learn about science, the more I admire God.

9 Answers

Relevance
  • Nimrod
    Lv 5
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    >>>>I've been in many debates over this (I believe the bible) and I would just like to point this out.

    So what? Belief in a bible does not confer knowledge of critical thinking and analysis of evidence based testing of hypotheses.

    >>>>How do you explain the symmetry in nature?

    This is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

    >>>> How do you explain the beauty in nature?

    This is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

    >>>>I understand very well why the world is sold on the theory of evolution,

    No you don't. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is only appreciated by the privileged elite that has the opportunity to learn modern biology, mathematics and other natural sciences. The vast majority of the world is scientifically illiterate and is concerned with the basic goal of survival.

    >>>>and I believe I have a firm grasp on what the theory of evolution is.

    No you don't. Your "question" shows an arrogant, scientifically illiterate teenager who thinks his ignorance trumps the knowledge of specialists.

    >>>>If all living things evolved from a single ancestor through survival of the fittest (which took billions of years, understandably so) then don't you think it would look a little messy?

    If you ever looked at our genome, you would see how messy it is. No sane, intelligent designer would put together such a creation.

    >>>>>The second law of thermodynamics states that [....lots of nonsense].

    Come back when you have studied physics and thermodynamics. The second law is a complicated statistical proposition that is stated in simple language. The simple language is deceptive and leads to many misunderstandings. And it is also irrelevant because the second law does not apply to living organisms who take in energy, or to the earth's biosphere which is also constantly receiving energy. [Look up the detail about CLOSED SYSTEMS].

    >>>>>[more nonsese]

    >>>>>In order for evolution to be validated,

    Evolution does not have to be validated. Evolution happens. Get over it. Evolution means change over time. In more specific language, evolution is defined as change in allele frequency in a population over time. This is a natural phenomenon that is observed and measurable with the proper tools. More importantly, Evolution is predictable using the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

    >>>>>it must be understood that the evolutionary process must have happened at the same rate for all living organisms.

    I've hit my tolerance limit for arrogant ignorance. This is nonsense because the rates of evolution depends the the generation time. Each time an organisms reproduces is an opportunity for mutations to be passed on to the next generation. This is why we see speedy evolution in bacteria (generation time of minutes) while large mega-fauna has such a hard time responding to rapidly changing environments (generation time in decades).

    >>>>How do you explain the beauty in nature?

    This is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

    The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection explains how allele frequencies change in populations over time.

    You would not use the theory of General Relativity to explain how diseases are transmitted. you would not use Germ Theory to explain why a moving magnet induces an electric field. You would not use the theory of Plate Tectonics to explain why the tides rise and fall. This is what you are doing in effect by asking a theory of evolution to explain something completely outside its scope.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    > Question for those who believe the Theory of Evolution?

    I have one too. My question is, "Was horizontal gene transfer more important in animals during the early Cambrian than it is today?"

    > I've been in many debates over this

    Why? God did it, final answer. Once you have the final answer, you stop looking for other answers. Are you debating because you haven't accepted the final answer and are looking for someone to persuade you that maybe God didn't do everything?

    > How do you explain the symmetry in nature?

    Large structures can be built up with a few simple rules. Consider salt crystals. Very small pieces, a few simple rules.

    > How do you explain the beauty in nature?

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You happen to like things that look like safe comfortable places, or places where you can find food, or food itself, or females of your species, or even children that look like your relatives.

    > don't you think it would look a little messy?

    It is messy. It is so messy that no intelligent designer would have designed things this way.

    > spontaneous combustion (the chemical reaction that takes place within the nucleus of the cell's membrane that would allow the change in genetics

    Um, what? Nope. You need to take a biology class.

    > there is an increase in entropy.

    Earth isn't a closed system. We get a stream of energy from sunlight every day, and some of that energy is harnessed to build things on Earth.

    > it would not be sugar and rainbows

    Maybe not, but "good enough to reproduce in the local environment."

    > All they need to do is survive, right?

    They need to reproduce.

    > These animals most certainly would not have symmetry

    Whoa. Bilateral symmetry and cephalization in animals were winners in the competition for environmental resources. A few control genes helped out with specification of regular placement of structures. The symmetry in animals helped them move the mouth toward food. Having sensory organs at the mouth end helped the animals stay pointed toward the food when moving.

    > In order for evolution to be validated, it must be understood that the evolutionary process must have happened at the same rate for all living organisms.

    Wrong. Nope. No. You'll notice that Triops cancriformis is pretty much the same animal now as its ancestor was in the Mesozoic, but the Mesozoic ancestor of humans sure wasn't like what people are now.

    > If one species started evolving at a faster rate, lets say, a carnivore, then this animal would be responsible for the extinction of it's prey due to the fact that it's prey could not evolve fast enough to improved traits that would allow them to escape their predators.

    You're describing predator-prey coevolution here. It works fairly well most of the time, but sometimes a predator will indeed drive a prey animal or competitor to extinction.

    > Evolution has not been proved

    Allele frequencies in populations over time. That's a fact.

    Mutation can give a population new alleles or even new genes. Also fact.

    Some individuals have inheritable variation that will give them a reproductive advantage, or disadvantage, in the local environment. Yup!

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    I don't know if I should bother answering this, but why not. You seem rather dismissive, so I don't know how open minded you actually are. I will agree there are plenty of "evolutionists" who have a poor understanding of evolution though. I'm not one of them.

    Anyway, the usual answers follow. I can provide more detail if you want. Contact me if you're serious. I don't want an argument, but I can clear things up. Symmetrical things are 1. better adapted in most environments and thus naturally selected for through greater fitness 2. prettier, and thus sexually selected. Sexual selection is really just a special form of natural selection, but deserves its own attention because it has some neat properties. Symmetry is thought to reflect good health (though not necessarily being advantageous itself). Here's the thing you're missing - evolution does NOT say symmetry occurs by chance. Symmetry is prevalent because it is SELECTED for. Hence non-random. Odd that you suggest symmetry disproves evolution, because natural selection explains symmetry quite well.

    Yes, evolution is extremely messy, which is clearly reflected in genomic DNA scans, but the beauty of natural selection is it provides a stabilizing force. Things are phenotypically "perfect," but wow, if you look at any genome (other than maybe micro-organisms - they often have pretty minimalist genomes) it's a mess.

    I don't really get your statements regarding the statistical improbability of evolution. But I'll ramble about things that seem relevant. Things don't really evolve at the same rate. And more recent work has been demonstrating that some organisms that evolve faster (which may be through several mechanisms: larger genomes, larger effective populations, outcrossing, higher mutation rates) do have fitness advantages when the entire population is considered as a whole. At the same time, there are plenty of examples where the opposite is true. The thing is there is are both advantages and disadvantages when comparing stability (less variation) and more variability (robust to environments as a population).

    Finally, I will emphasize something that everybody screws up including most "evolutionists." There's more to evolution than mutation and natural selection. Gene flow, genetic drift, and sexual selection are absolutely critical elements for explaining the variation that exists in nature, that are commonly misunderstood or ignored.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Vertebrates, humans included, are bilaterally symmetrical about the midline of the

    body for many structures, such as eyes, ears and limbs. While the body is

    outwardly symmetrical, most internal organs are asymmetrical with respect to the

    left and right sides.1 For example in mammals, including humans, the heart is on

    the left side, the right lung has more lobes than the left, the stomach and spleen

    lie to the left, and the liver has a single right lobe. Bilateral symmetry is implemented by signalling molecules that give identical domains on left and right. A person's left eye (normally) is exposed to the same development signals as their right eye, so the two eyes grow alike. A single mutation that varies how an eye develops would still affect both eyes equally. For asymmetrical eyes, an additional mechanism must evolve to supercede the symmetry and give different development signals to each side.

    You have a poor understanding of evolution. Most of your questions could be answered if you just took a class on evolution and systematics and a developmental biology class.

    I will come back to this question later.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    people and animals are attracted to symmetry, its generally what makes a beautiful face. Its naturally in our instincts to want to have sex with people whose faces are symmetrical. If peoples legs/arms were non symmetrical then they would be eaten by a tiger and there genes wouldnt be passed on.

    Plants and micro organisms (who dont choose who they reproduce with) do not have symmetrical offspring because they cant choose to only mix with symmetrical things.

    Evolution doesnt have to go at the same rate for animals that are in competition. Also evolution usually occurs when a change in the environment happens this makes evolution happen at the same time for animals.

    Yes mutations can go wrong and turn out 'messy' some examples are: Down syndrome, autism, people born with one arm, huntingtons disease and cystic fybrosis. I think its fairly obvious why these people dont multiply.

    Also, beauty doesnt adapt to impress humans, humans adapt to be impressed by beauty.

    Btw i do beleive in god. I think god made evolution. Theres nothing to say the two can't co-exist

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    Have you heard the phase "Nature, red in tooth and claw" (Canto 56, In Memoriam A.H.H. -- Alfred, Lord Tennyson)? If you look at the beauty in nature, you have to ignore the ugly. Species produce offspring by the hundreds of thousands, only to keep a steady population, meaning that not 0.01% of their young survive to adulthood. Parasitic wasps paralyze caterpillars, then their yougn grow by consuming their living incubator from the inside. Cheetahs spend minutes suffocating antelope to death.

    As for bilateral symmetry, the majority of animals have bilateral symmetry because a common set of developmental genes, conserved across numerous phyla, establish a right and left which develop roughly equivalently segment by segment, but can develop marked asymmetries. If we had developed by a process that produced something other than bilateral symmetry, our standard of beauty would not be bilateral symmetry. Our common descent is why so much life develops in a similar manner.

    You obviously do not grasp thermodynamics as they apply to life or entropy. Only Creationists, in their effort to sound scientific--but coming off as dishonest and ignorant--treat thermodynamics in this manner. The laws of thermodynamics are well understood by biologists. DNA replication is and energy intensive process and much of the energy is used, is overcoming entropy. The local entropy decreases within the cell and its nucleus, while the entropy outside the cell is increased. Spontaneous processes can form order and symmetry without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Snowflakes are a perfect example.

    "In order for evolution to be validated, it must be understood that the evolutionary process must have happened at the same rate for all living organisms." No. The success of invasive species from larger land masses when they arrive on smaller land masses, shows that this is not true. Extinction is the rule, not the exception. Predators exist in an equilibrium with their prey, and when prey fall into short supply, many of the predators die from starvation (nature, red in tooth and claw). This balance is not stable and results in numerous dead predators.

    "...I will say that it is a billion times more likely for a species to be disease struck into extinction then it is for it to evolve in such a way that their new genetic traits compliment all five necessary traits for complex organic life." Then you will make a bald assertion for which you have no supporting data and which is in strong contrast to observation. Experiments have shown that over short periods of time (on the order of years), populations generate can generate new traits.

    Your effort to explain the mystery of beauty by resorting to ugly falsehoods is ironic, at best.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    It's all perception and philosophy. People's beliefs are formed from the the environments they grow up in, the people around them, things that happen to them, things that happen to others, and what they are taught or learn. There are many things that influence the forming of our beliefs, but not many things that can influence them after they are already formed. Humans are stubborn beyond reason. If someone doesn't believe something strongly enough they will blindly ignore any evidence or reasoning to the contrary. They might just write it off and make excuses to why they don't believe even if they see it has some truth to it. Like I said, we are all stubborn and set in our ways. Some people will go against the mold though and that is a good thing. If people never challenged the things they were taught or learned then the world would be dramatically different. All this rambling on being said, I am a firm believer in Creationism. There are some aspects of evolution I believe in though.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    how do you explain this, i prayed so much last night for god to do something for me make something happen to stop my pain.

    nothing happened?

    theres no proof of god.

    when we have proof of evolution. thats the way it just made itself. there isnt any explanation for it.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 2017
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    what difference does it make if a god created the world or if it is evolution.

    we are alive right now , one day we all die. and you will never know that you died or ever lived because you will be dead.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.