[_ Old Earth _] God Can Count - Can Evolution?

[Asyncritus]

I've been struck at the sheer number of instances in nature where there is quite clearly a serious amount of counting going on.

Evolution, being the beggarly, non-intelligent, random etc etc process it is claimed to be, is faced by the simply shattering fact that every living thing has significant examples of counting in its make-up.

Equally obviously, there is no necessity or survival advantage in having a certain, exact number of, say, petals in a flower, chromosomes in a nucleus, or fingers on a hand. Other numbers would do as well.

Evolution supporters need to rally round the drooping flag, and account for this entirely contrary universal phenomenon in the natural world.

Remember, mutation and natural selection can't count!

That being so, look at this tiny sample of examples, which are everywhere, and account for the reason for the precision of the count.

This stargazer lily (like all other lilies) counts in threes.

There are six sepals (3x2), six petals (3x3) six anthers (3x2) and the stigma is 3- branched (3x1).

Now how did this plant learn to count? Could such exact counting be the product of chance mutations and natural selection?

The number of seed leaves (cotyledons) in the seed is very strictly counted as well.

Monocotyledons (like lilies, grasses) have exactly ONE seed leaf, no more, no less.

Dicotyledons (like oaks, poplars, hibiscuses) have exactly TWO seed leaves, no more, no less.

​

So consistent is the count, that angiosperms (flowering plants) are divided into those 2 groups, on that basis.

So we have plants counting, accurately, consistently and precisely. Evolution? Chance? Utter nonsense.

The animals are no less precise, and there are innumerable examples we could use, but a couple will suffice.

The mammals have one heart, and 2 lungs. No more, no less. Mankind has 5 fingers on each normal hand and 5 toes on each normal foot. Such examples could be multiplied ad infinitum.

But did our 'ancestors' know how to produce 5 on each hand and foot? And one heart, with two lungs? Most unlikely.

And when we get into the cell itself, we see counting aplenty. In mitosis, the original number of chromosomes is reproduced ecactly in the daughter cell. So 24 chromosomes in the parent cell is duplicated exactly in each of the daughter cells.

In meiosis, EXACTLY HALF the number of chromosomes enters each of the daughter cells.

Why? Because when the male and female cells combine, a new cell WITH THE ORIGINAL NUMBER of chromosomes is produced.

But can a cell count? No, it can't - but SOMEBODY COULD, and did, when designing the process.

And it is perfectly obvious that an enormous intelligence is at the back of all this, not brainless, random, evolution, Dawkins' blind watchmaker.

We may look later at other examples of this, if we get the opportunity.

 

[Barbarian]

In all the cases I know about, it's genetic modification. You know, mutation and natural selection.

A key question in biology is how differences in gene function
or regulation produce new morphologies during evolution.
Here we investigate the genetic basis for differences in leaf
form between two closely related plant species, Arabidopsis
thaliana and Cardamine hirsuta. We report that in C. hirsuta,
class I KNOTTED1-like homeobox (KNOX) proteins are
required in the leaf to delay cellular differentiation and
produce a dissected leaf form, in contrast to A. thaliana, in
which KNOX exclusion from leaves results in a simple leaf
form. These differences in KNOX expression arise through
changes in the activity of upstream gene regulatory sequences.
The function of ASYMMETRIC LEAVES1/ROUGHSHEATH2/
PHANTASTICA (ARP) proteins to repress KNOX expression
is conserved between the two species, but in C. hirsuta the
ARP-KNOX regulatory module controls new developmental
processes in the leaf. Thus, evolutionary tinkering with KNOX
regulation, constrained by ARP function, may have produced
diverse leaf forms by modulating growth and differentiation
patterns in developing leaf primordia.
http://www-plb.ucdavis.edu/Labs/chan/pbi292/PBI292 112806 paper 2pm.pdf

Surprise.

 

[Barbarian]

In all the cases I know about, it's genetic modification. You know, mutation and natural selection.

A key question in biology is how differences in gene function
or regulation produce new morphologies during evolution.
Here we investigate the genetic basis for differences in leaf
form between two closely related plant species, Arabidopsis
thaliana and Cardamine hirsuta. We report that in C. hirsuta,
class I KNOTTED1-like homeobox (KNOX) proteins are
required in the leaf to delay cellular differentiation and
produce a dissected leaf form, in contrast to A. thaliana, in
which KNOX exclusion from leaves results in a simple leaf
form. These differences in KNOX expression arise through
changes in the activity of upstream gene regulatory sequences.
The function of ASYMMETRIC LEAVES1/ROUGHSHEATH2/
PHANTASTICA (ARP) proteins to repress KNOX expression
is conserved between the two species, but in C. hirsuta the
ARP-KNOX regulatory module controls new developmental
processes in the leaf. Thus, evolutionary tinkering with KNOX
regulation, constrained by ARP function, may have produced
diverse leaf forms by modulating growth and differentiation
patterns in developing leaf primordia.
http://www-plb.ucdavis.edu/Labs/chan/pbi292/PBI292 112806 paper 2pm.pdf

This "fuzziness" in the definitions of Monocotyledonae and Dicotyledonae is not simply the result of poor botany. Rather, it is a real phenomenon resulting from the shared ancestry of the two groups. It is now believed that some of the dicots are more closely related to monocots than to the other dicots, and that the angiosperms do not all fit neatly into two clades. In other words, the dicots include a basal paraphyletic group from which the monocots evolved.

Genetic model for flower formation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABC_model_of_flower_development

Surprise.

 

[Asyncritus]

Again, if you are evolution's prize representative on the forum, evolution's inability to answer simple questions is demonstrated once more.

As pointed out above, there is definite, distinct, mathematically exact patterning being demonstrated in the plant AND animal kingdoms.

Mathematical exactness is contrary to all evolutionary premises. A random process cannot produce consistent, mathematically exact results.

Variation is inevitable if evolution is really the process which has produced the angiosperms. The statisticians will tell you that very forcibly.

But what do we see?

Plants counting in threes (as in the monocots), in fours and fives (as in the dicots).

All mitotic and meiotic divisions producing mathematically exact multiples of the chromosome complement in the parent cell: n X1 in the case of mitosis, and n x 0.5 in the case of meiosis.

I call your attention to the fact that these two processes are fundamental to all life. If those multiples were incorrect, then life as we know it could not continue.

All creatures have an exact chromosome complement: any variation producing deformity or death. That is mathematically exact counting - a consequence of mitosis and meiosis occurring.

Now it should be obvious that a cell could not have figured out those mathematically exact ratios by itself. Can a cell count? Definitely not. Can evolutionary processes count? Never.

So who or what did?

Mathematical exactness is a death blow for evolution.

But consider also, the fact that the human genome contains approximately 3.9 BILLION bits of information - and every time a cell divides, mitotically or meiotically, that amount of information is copied precisely and exactly.

Meiosis re-arranges some of it along the chromosomes - but the AMOUNT of information is static, and copied exactly.

This is a pair of processes which cannot have evolved by mutation and natural selection. Such counting precision is beyond the reach of chance, and therefore of evolution.

It fails to account, again, for another monumental feature of living creatures.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

The fact that a certain number keeps repeating in nature should be no surprise. Those numbers are the most efficient or otherwise offers the best chances of survival for a species. As an example, we have one mouth because having multiple mouths would be redundant; our single mouth serves its purpose just fine and spending energy on maintaining a second mouth would be wasteful. Another example is eyes. We have two of them, which allows us depth perception. One eye couldn't do that, and more than two would confer no additional advantage.

The species doesn't decide to "count" and copy everyone else in their species. It's genetically coded. Likewise for meiosis. The reason they produce exact numbers of gametes is because that's the most efficient way to reproduce.

 

[Grazer]

This is a pair of processes which cannot have evolved by mutation and natural selection. Such counting precision is beyond the reach of chance, and therefore of evolution.

But what if evolution is not about chance? What if there is a designer behind the mechanism of evolution i.e God? The title seems to suggest that you are pitching God and evolution as competing explanations. They are not competing, they are different types of explanation. Evolution is a mechanism, God is an agent.

I've found http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-response useful

 

[Asyncritus]

The fact that a certain number keeps repeating in nature should be no surprise. Those numbers are the most efficient or otherwise offers the best chances of survival for a species. As an example, we have one mouth because having multiple mouths would be redundant; our single mouth serves its purpose just fine and spending energy on maintaining a second mouth would be wasteful. Another example is eyes. We have two of them, which allows us depth perception. One eye couldn't do that, and more than two would confer no additional advantage.

The species doesn't decide to "count" and copy everyone else in their species. It's genetically coded. Likewise for meiosis. The reason they produce exact numbers of gametes is because that's the most efficient way to reproduce.

It is this kind of loose thinking that has allowed evolution to take the stranglehold on biology that it has done.

Far too few intelligent questions have been asked of its proponents, and the swallow, swallow, swallow reflex is invoked when any evolutionary nonsense is produced.

Take the following, for example:

Likewise for meiosis. The reason they produce exact numbers of gametes is because that's the most efficient way to reproduce.

Meiosis counts the number of chromosomes in the parent nucleus, and halves it precisely. That halved number then enters the gamete, which fuses with another gamete to produce the new zygote which contains the original number of chromosomes needed by the species.

It's got nothing to do with efficiency, but everything to do with exactness.

The question before you is, can a cell count? Clearly not. Therefore this is a designed process, which has not evolved from anything. It appeared fully formed and perfect right from the very beginning.

 

[Asyncritus]

But what if evolution is not about chance? What if there is a designer behind the mechanism of evolution i.e God? The title seems to suggest that you are pitching God and evolution as competing explanations. They are not competing, they are different types of explanation. Evolution is a mechanism, God is an agent.

I've found http://rachelheldevans.com/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-response useful

We agree that there is a Designer.

I have shown and been showing, that evolution has far too many great holes to be admitted as a scientific theory with any degree of validity.

In this particular instance, the reproductive processes depend on exact counting to produce the correct number of chromosomes in each new organism.

But evolution and counting, and mathematical precision are at opposite ends of the universe. Evolution is totally untrue, and cannot begin to explain the origin of the vast number of complex processes we see everywhere in the living world.

Have a look on this forum at its staggering number of failures to account for the enormously complex behaviours in the natural world.

See for yourself how it cannot begin to account for the origin of innumerable instincts - migration and pollination being two of the most startling ones.

Then ask yourself, how can I possibly think there is any correctness in this hopeless mishmash of speculative nonsense which utterly fails to account for ANY of the features of instinct extant today?

Truth be told, there isn't any.

 

[Grazer]

We agree that there is a Designer.

I have shown and been showing, that evolution has far too many great holes to be admitted as a scientific theory with any degree of validity.

In this particular instance, the reproductive processes depend on exact counting to produce the correct number of chromosomes in each new organism.

But evolution and counting, and mathematical precision are at opposite ends of the universe. Evolution is totally untrue, and cannot begin to explain the origin of the vast number of complex processes we see everywhere in the living world.

Have a look on this forum at its staggering number of failures to account for the enormously complex behaviours in the natural world.

See for yourself how it cannot begin to account for the origin of innumerable instincts - migration and pollination being two of the most startling ones.

Then ask yourself, how can I possibly think there is any correctness in this hopeless mishmash of speculative nonsense which utterly fails to account for ANY of the features of instinct extant today?

Truth be told, there isn't any.

Well firstly, I would be more willing to listen to biologists and scientists on whether the theory of evolution has "too many great holes to be admitted as a scientific theory with any degree of validity" Many Christian scientists, the most prominent one I can think of being Francis Collins (former director of the human genome project), accept the evolution theory on the strength of the evidence available as does Dennis Venema who I linked to earlier which brings me onto my next point.

I would question what you believe the theory of evolution is, what it explains and what it's based on. I'm not talking about the theory as young earth creationists and Richard Dawkins portray it as. So lets start there.

E-1) Change over time. This is the most basic meaning of the English word “evolution,” simply meaning that something changes with the passage of time. For example, we might talk about the evolution of popular music, or the evolution of stars. With regard to living things, this simply says that things are different than they were in the past (there used to be dinosaurs; now there aren’t). Almost nobody denies this meaning.

E-2) Common ancestry. This is central to what scientists usually mean by “evolution.” Common ancestry (or common descent) means that life has branched out, so dogs and wolves are distant cousins, dogs and cats are more distant cousins, and if you go back far enough dogs and fish, or dogs and trees, had a common ancestor. You can put humans in the family tree as well – related to chimpanzees, more distant from other mammals, and so forth. This says nothing about how or why this occurred, merely that life has branched out in this way. Sometimes people distinguish between evolution as “fact” and as “theory,” and the distinction is between common ancestry as the “fact of evolution” and the “theory of evolution” that tries to explain how it happened. Many people don’t appreciate that the evidence for common ancestry is overwhelming. It might have been reasonable to question it 50 years ago when it was just based on things like fossils and anatomy, but now DNA technology has provided powerful independent confirmation (Meaning that the family relationships that show up in the DNA of species agree extremely well with those that had been previously deduced from other evidence)

E-3) Evolutionary mechanisms (genetic variation, natural selection). This refers to specific natural mechanisms (first proposed by Darwin, although in a primitive way because genetics was not yet understood) that cause species to change. Genetic variation is the fact that (due to mixing of parental genes and to mutations) children have different genes and different traits. Natural selection refers to the fact that the traits will make some children more likely to survive and pass their genes on to future generations. E-3 is clearly correct on some scales, as it can be directly observed (for example, the evolution of bacteria resistant to certain antibiotics) or studied at the level of individual traits (for example, a recent study traced the evolution of lactose tolerance in humans as milk-producing animals were domesticated in different societies).

At this point, we need to observe that these first three meanings of evolution are extremely well established. To deny these senses of the word is now almost indefensible. If we tell people they need to deny these things in order to follow Jesus, that is a huge stumbling block, not too different from telling them that following Jesus requires saying the Earth is flat.

E-4) Mechanisms (E-3) account (physically) for common descent. This is typically what scientists mean by “the theory of evolution.” We know these mechanisms produce changes in species, but do they account for all the evolution (in the E-2 sense) that has happened through the history of life on Earth? Most biologists, including most Christians working in these areas, would say “yes,” but it is certainly not as 100% established as the previous meanings. It is very important to note the word “physically” in our E-4 definition. When we say the mechanisms account for what happened, that is at the physical level – it says nothing about whether this is nature acting by itself (of course for a Christian there is no such thing as nature acting by itself!) or whether God is working through nature.​

The above is what scientists mean by theory of evolution. Now I mentioned Young Earth Creationists and Richard Dawkins and the below is generally how far these 2 take the theory:

E-5) Origin of life (chemical evolution). The theory of evolution is only an explanation for the development of life from other life. How life began in the first place is a different question, but people have proposed somewhat similar theories (the technical term is abiogenesis) of how that happened. That is an area where there is much room for doubt; some people see it as an insurmountable problem, while others think science is coming closer to good explanations. If you want to question this, you probably shouldn’t use the word “evolution” – use some other word like abiogenesis, because this is not what the scientific community typically means by evolution.

E-6) Evolutionism. I use that term to refer to a meaning that is not science at all, but rather an ideology that sometimes masquerades as science. This starts with the philosophical position that natural explanations exclude God (the “God of the Gaps” error). Since science has produced these natural explanations for life, those with this ideology claim to have pushed God out of the picture. Of course these metaphysical conclusions are not science in any way – those who advocate this meaning are simply pushing atheistic philosophy, and it is wrong to try to claim it is a result of science.​

The definitions have been taken from http://steamdoc.s5.com/sci-nature/Chapter5.pdf

The theory of evolution has to pre-suppose the existence of a self replicating cell and there are questions that it can't answer but mostly because they are questions that the theory is not designed to answer. There are also so many questions about the mechanisms itself but that is not a base to say it doesn't qualify as a scientific theory.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

It is this kind of loose thinking that has allowed evolution to take the stranglehold on biology that it has done.

Far too few intelligent questions have been asked of its proponents, and the swallow, swallow, swallow reflex is invoked when any evolutionary nonsense is produced.

Take the following, for example:

Likewise for meiosis. The reason they produce exact numbers of gametes is because that's the most efficient way to reproduce.

Meiosis counts the number of chromosomes in the parent nucleus, and halves it precisely. That halved number then enters the gamete, which fuses with another gamete to produce the new zygote which contains the original number of chromosomes needed by the species.

It's got nothing to do with efficiency, but everything to do with exactness.

The question before you is, can a cell count? Clearly not. Therefore this is a designed process, which has not evolved from anything. It appeared fully formed and perfect right from the very beginning.

You're operating under the false assumption that evolution is incompatible with the existence of God. I'm not arguing that the process wasn't designed. God, for whatever reasons, chose to make our planet mutable. On both local and macro levels, conditions change. As such, it was a stroke of brilliance to have exactly the meiotic form of reproduction we discussed. It allows for small mutations to be introduced and, through gene shift, improve the species relative to the novel conditions.

Do you feel it's somehow beyond God's capabilities to create such a system? I certainly don't.

 

[Asyncritus]

E-2) Common ancestry. This is central to what scientists usually mean by “evolution.” Common ancestry (or common descent) means that life has branched out, so dogs and wolves are distant cousins, dogs and cats are more distant cousins, and if you go back far enough dogs and fish, or dogs and trees, had a common ancestor. You can put humans in the family tree as well – related to chimpanzees, more distant from other mammals, and so forth. This says nothing about how or why this occurred, merely that life has branched out in this way. [...]

Many people don’t appreciate that the evidence for common ancestry is overwhelming.​

I think this is one of the most foolish consequences of believing the theory of evolution.

It is perfectly logical IF evolution is indeed fact. That life as we know it evolved from progressively simpler and simpler organisms, beginning with the infamous 'common ancestor' is a beautifully elegant idea.

People who think this utterly fail to be able to produce any fossil evidence of such an organism

And utterly fail to realise that if such an organism ever existed, then it must have been the most complex thing ever - containing as it must have done, the genetic potential for all the forms of life within itself.

That, however is ridiculous, and a complete reversal of any evolutionary ideas, which go from the simple to the complex, not the other way round.

E-3) Evolutionary mechanisms (genetic variation, natural selection). [...] E-3 is clearly correct on some scales, as it can be directly observed (for example, the evolution of bacteria resistant to certain antibiotics) or studied at the level of individual traits (for example, a recent study traced the evolution of lactose tolerance in humans as milk-producing animals were domesticated in different societies).

As you may not have noticed, these pathetic examples of 'evolution in action', trotted out with dismaying frequency by its supporters, can in no way account for the origin of new genera or any higher taxa.

Lenski, you may recall, produced about 35,000 generations of E. coli, and failed completely to produce even a single new species of Escherischia, merely a novel biochemical mechanism, which Behe has discounted completely.

Yet, we have in the Cambrian fossils, the gargantuan explosion of species, and all higher taxa right up to phyla many of which are still here today, and some which are now extinct.

The rate of speciation shown by these miserable examples you have brought forth is far too low to account for the emergence of the Cambrian biota.

Evolution fails to account for any of this.

If we tell people they need to deny these things in order to follow Jesus, that is a huge stumbling block, not too different from telling them that following Jesus requires saying the Earth is flat.

My objections to evolution are not religious-based.

I think that the scientific facts, meaning observable fossil evidence and the construction of the natural world today, are evidences of the non-evolution of so many things that to argue for 'mutations and natural selection', those usual suspects, being able to account for any of these, is indefensible in the extreme, as our friend Barbarian has been demonstrating very clearly.

You may like to have a look at the evidences I have put up on this forum to see exactly how strong the case against really is. You may also like to have a look at the book 'How Does Instinct Evolve' (http://www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com)where this argument is detailed, and several entirely new lines of argument brought forth, which are the finish of the theory.

E-4) Mechanisms (E-3) account (physically) for common descent. This is typically what scientists mean by “the theory of evolution.” We know these mechanisms produce changes in species, but do they account for all the evolution (in the E-2 sense) that has happened through the history of life on Earth?

The answer to that question is an unequivocal NO, it does not.
​

The above is what scientists mean by theory of evolution. Now I mentioned Young Earth Creationists and Richard Dawkins and the below is generally how far these 2 take the theory:

E-5) Origin of life (chemical evolution).​

John Lennox shows the absurdity of Dawkins' position (and the position of abiogenesis research as a whole) in his book 'God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?

You might like to have a look at that too.

​

The definitions have been taken from http://steamdoc.s5.com/sci-nature/Chapter5.pdf

The theory of evolution has to pre-suppose the existence of a self replicating cell and there are questions that it can't answer but mostly because they are questions that the theory is not designed to answer. There are also so many questions about the mechanisms itself but that is not a base to say it doesn't qualify as a scientific theory.

Hawking said that a single contrary fact is enough to destroy a scientific theory.

On this very forum, there are enough contrary facts to destroy the theory many times over, and I recommend that you have a look at some of them.

 

[Asyncritus]

[...]

Do you feel it's somehow beyond God's capabilities to create such a system? I certainly don't.

I don't suppose it is. But to use such an inefficient, moronic, and incompetent method to produce the flowers of creation visible everywhere in the natural world, is incompatible with my estimate of the Creator.

But what do you make of the mathematical argument I have brought forth above?

Mathematics and evolution are entirely in opposition to each other. That is my contention.

However, as Sir James Jeans (an astronomer) once famously said: 'The universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician'.

That being so, and the people who talk about the anthropic principle agree wholeheartedly, we can easily understand the evidence we see, as in the above OP.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

I've concluded you are either a troll or have a ridiculously poor grasp of science. The problem is, if I do the rational thing and refuse to continue the discussion, you will interpret that as "winning" due to absence of a counter-argument. Such a pain...

I don't suppose it is. But to use such an inefficient, moronic, and incompetent method to produce the flowers of creation visible everywhere in the natural world, is incompatible with my estimate of the Creator.

You've made no argument for why evolution is any of those things. Your argument was that it couldn't count. In any case, unless you have a better idea of how to do this, we should probably stick with what God came up with.

But what do you make of the mathematical argument I have brought forth above?

Had a good laugh, thank you for the release of endorphins.

Mathematics and evolution are entirely in opposition to each other. That is my contention.

My contention is that such a statement is ludicrous. That aside, your argument isn't mathematics, it's numerology. The only thing this is good for is a fortune telling racket.

However, as Sir James Jeans (an astronomer) once famously said: 'The universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician'.

. . . as we know of no life elsewhere in the universe, I'm baffled by why you chose to include this. The man also was a huge proponent of steady state, which has since joined the flat earth theory in the dumpster.

That being so, and the people who talk about the anthropic principle agree wholeheartedly, we can easily understand the evidence we see, as in the above OP.

You know what? I take back what I said. I do give up, you can reply and have the last word and claim victory. I respect that there are valid, arguable cases against evolution. This, however... good luck with it.

 

[Asyncritus]

I've concluded you are either a troll or have a ridiculously poor grasp of science. The problem is, if I do the rational thing and refuse to continue the discussion, you will interpret that as "winning" due to absence of a counter-argument. Such a pain...

You have no case to present, that much is obvious.

And no, I won't count myself as 'winning'. The case is already won, as your inability to produce any shred of credible refutation shows quite clearly.

Go outside. Pick a flower. See if it counts in 3's, 4s or 5's. Is that a lie, or an easily observable scientific fact?

As a pro-evolutionist, you need to explain how that counting came about - if you've got a conscience, that is.

Had a good laugh, thank you for the release of endorphins.

'As the crackling of thorns under a pot...' comes to mind.

My contention is that such a statement is ludicrous. That aside, your argument isn't mathematics, it's numerology. The only thing this is good for is a fortune telling racket.

Hmmm. I thought that the ability to count in 3s, 4s and 5's is the basis of arithmetic, which is a very significant branch of mathematics. Or so I thought anyway.

. . . as we know of no life elsewhere in the universe, I'm baffled by why you chose to include this. The man also was a huge proponent of steady state, which has since joined the flat earth theory in the dumpster.

You ever read anything about the anthropic principle? No? I thought not. Go look at some of the mathematical facts they bring up and see if Jeans wasn't correct.
http://deusdecorusest.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/fine-tuning-argument-and-anthropic.html

You know what? I take back what I said. I do give up, you can reply and have the last word and claim victory. I respect that there are valid, arguable cases against evolution. This, however... good luck with it.

I accept your apology.

 

[Grazer]

I've read Gods Undertaker, I've read and own all of John Lennox's books. I'm familiar with his arguments which are more aimed at Richard Dawkins' interpretation/view/use of evolution theory as opposed to the theory itself. As is Francis Collins books.

The definitions I referred to (the first 3 at least) do you dispute these? Whether they account for everything is the disputed part but that wasn't the point. It was to outline what was meant by evolution and evolution theory (4th definition) since I've had conversations with people who deny that evolution of any kind has taken place. The last 2 are nothing to do with the theory but more about world views. If the first 3 are fact what is the best explanation for them? There is some discussion over whether small changes lead to big changes and definitions of micro & macro evolution. We haven't gotten into the evidence for the age of the earth which is another factor.

The Cambrian Explosion and the fossil record generally are massive discussions in themselves. Stephen Jay Gould along with Niles Eldredge observed that the record shows short periods of rapid change and led to their theory of 'punctuated equilibrium'. Simon Conway Morris commented:

Forms transitional between species can be observed today and can be inferred to have existed in the past. Nevertheless, the net result is very far from a seamless tapestry of form that would allow an investigator to read the Tree of Life simply by finding the intermediates - living and extinct - that in principle connect all species. On the contrary, biologists are much more impressed by the discreteness of organic form, and the general absence of intermediates

Francis Collins comments:

While there are many imperfections of the fossil record, and many puzzles remain to be solved, virtually all of the findings are consistent with the concept of a tree of life of related organisms. Good evidence exists for transitional forms from reptiles to birds, and from reptiles to mammals. Arguments that this model cannot explain certain species, such as whales, have generally fallen by the wayside as further investigation has revealed the existence of transitional species, often at precisely the date and place that evolutionary theory would predict

Regarding that we haven't found the organism that is touted as "the common ancestor" The fossil record is notoriously incomplete, particularly for small and soft-bodied forms. Some researchers argue that the apparent rapid diversification of body plans is an artifact of an increase in the rate of fossilization, due in part to the evolution of skeletons, which fossilize more effectively. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Below are some articles which people may find useful:

http://biologos.org/questions/cambrian-explosion
http://biologos.org/questions/complexity-of-life
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

 

[Milk-Drops]

I'm curious as to why Asyn is attributing the human ideal of counting to organisms. Asyn is asking why certain numbers pop up repeatedly and how the organism ( knows) to keep replicating this number.


As far as I can tell organisms don't "know" or "count" when they reproduce. The sex cells combine and combine the genetic inforamtion from both sides, along side with the mutations and copy errors. This means if both cells had the information to have 2 hands, its the most likely that the organism will have 2 hands.

I don't see how this impacts evolution in the slightest.

 

[Barbarian]

Go outside. Pick a flower. See if it counts in 3's, 4s or 5's. Is that a lie, or an easily observable scientific fact

Turns out, it doesn't count. Mutations.

Four-Leaf Clover Gives Up Its Secrets

ScienceDaily (June 25, 2010) — Ending a period of "bad luck" for clover researchers, scientists report finding the gene that turns ordinary three-leaf clovers into the coveted four-leaf types. Masked by the three-leaf gene and strongly influenced by environmental condition, molecular markers now make it possible to detect the presence of the gene for four-leaves and for breeders to work with it.The results of the study, which also located two other leaf traits in the white-clover genome, were reported in the July/August 2010 edition of Crop Science.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100624141000.htm

Surprise.

 

[lordkalvan]

For anyone seriously interested in the almost ubiquitous appearance of Fibonacci sequences in nature, this site has a great deal of information explaining why the 'counting' that the OP finds so inexplicable as a natural phenomena isn't so inexplicable after all:

http://www.maths.surrey.ac.uk/hosted-sites/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html

God may indeed be a mathematician, but this doesn't mean that he didn't use naturalstic processes to achieve his ends, despite the OP's vision of an interventionist supernatural divinity conforming to a toddler's idea of a God who directly causes effects the toddler cannot imagine a naturalistic explanation for. If this is not the case, perhaps the OP can explain why God could not have used naturalistic processes to produce his desired outcomes, the only supernatural intervention required being the initial creative act that began the Universe?

 

[Asyncritus]

LK

I had a look at the link you provided, and found this:

Several organisations and companies have a logo based on this design..

meaning the Nautilus shell. Note the loaded expression.

Now are you saying that Fibonacci designed this, or did the Designer design Fibonacci and his series?

It took Fibonacci to figure that series out. Evolution could not have done this because creating the series is a relatively complex mathematical affair.

Yet, we see examples of it in many places as the OP and your link show. Mutation is a random occurrence, and random occurrences cannot produce mathematically exact designs and mathematically exact processes.

In the higher plants, you have the equally serious problem that they emerged, patterns and all, suddenly in the fossil reccrd. They did not evolve from the gymnosperms - they couldn't, for anatomical reasons.

They simply appeared and that's it. Here's the first orchid fossil, with a bee stuck in the amber medium.

So not only did the angiosperms come into existence, the bees did as well at the same time: or the flowers could not be fertilised: remember the bucket orchid?

There are about 20,000 spp of orchid today. There could have been the same number 10 -15 mya. Where did they all come from? Evolution? No chance.

For this ancient bee, carrying a flower into the afterlife allowed it to deliver a rare gift to today's biologists. The extinct species of stingless bee was found encased in amber with a well-preserved part of an ancient orchid attached to its back. The amber, dug up in a mine in the Dominican Republic, is 10 million to 15 million years old.
The pollen-bearing package represents the first known fossil of an orchid, researchers say.

You may recall Darwin's 'abominable mystery' comment regarding the origin of the angiosperms. It would be most surprising if Barbarian couldn't find another few evolutionary swipes as to their origin, but like all his previous efforts, he will again fail on the great question 'why did this happen?'

 

[lordkalvan]

^ The Fibonacci Sequence describes a phenomenon, this does not mean that Fibonacci constructed that phenomenon. Just because you see the word 'design' in a paper does not mean that the phenomenon in question is the work of a supernatural intelligent designer. Nature is infinitely capable of producing structures that are mathematically complex, no supernatural intervention required. Consider, for example, differential sorting of pebbles by wave action, ice crystals and all those examples discussed in the paper you were linked to.