The evolution of the first primordial cell into human beings (for example) requires massive increases in complexity. The first step in this long process would have occurred when this first species of cell produced a more complex offspring cell.

Ok, I'm no expert, but this is a bit confusing from a genetics point of view: It's my understanding that the DNA of the parent cell determines the structure (or complexity) of any offspring cell. So how did the offspring cell end up more complex than the parent? I could think of only two scenarios, none of which make any sense to me:-

1. The increased complexity of the offspring cell came from the DNA of the parent cell - but this means that the DNA of the parent is more complex than the parent. Huh?

2. If the increased complexity of the offspring cell didn't come from the parent cell, it must have come from the offspring. So somehow the offspring cell made itself more complex - therefore the offspring cell is more complex than itself. Huh?

Me no understando!

Views: 2151

Replies to This Discussion

I would agree except for one niggling detail: The creationists want to change what kids are taught in school, which means dilution of actual knowledge, and abortion of the methods needed to perform critical thought.

So, as Christianity is BASED UPON the idea that wanting knowledge was SO BAD that it got Adam and Eve kicked out of the garden of Eden, and IS THE ORIGINAL SIN....the sin Christianity is BASED UPON...(NO original sin, no need to have yourself be your own son to die for 3 days to forgive you for...)..

You KNOW how traditional christian educational values are going to stack.

Learn'm enough to get a job, but not so much they question the bible...but to teach them it is the most important book in the world.

So, yes, the only reason most scientists get involved is to try to clear up the misconceptions...but, engineers and scientists tend to communicate via facts and figures...and that doesn't work on/translate into understanding for the rest of the population very well.


Scientist: "Here are facts that prove my point"

Evangelical: "Here are feelings that prove my point"

Audience: "I like how that one's point made me feel"


Anthony, I'll trying to sell you ring species, again. Check these examples out, and let us know if it doesn't fit your criteria for examples of transitional species. Keep in mind these examples are just contemporary, and add in some millions of years for futher depth of the possibilities.

Also, consider mules! It shouldn't be hard to imagine how a mule could have been a species that's transitional between donkey's and horses, although it's unlikely that's exactly how it happened.

(I'm not actually expecting any reasonable responses from you any more... I'm just including more info in this particular thread for other readers who will be more interested in such details.)

What were these two miracles and how do you know that the only possible explanation for them is that they were miracles?

It's good to be skeptical of scientific explanations, and I too appreciate and enjoy many mysteries. I'm not here to say science will learn all the answers, but just saying that it learns more answers on a daily basis. Do you think we can get to Mars? I do, but I wish we'd be learning how to accomplish other things that seem more important to me. Our resources are limited, so there's only so much science can do in a day or a decade.

Meanwhile, how could a chapter from ancient scripture possibly have more credibility? Is it just because people have believed it for so many centuries, or is there real evidence that these are the real words of a one and only God?

Wow, you really DON'T understand evolution.


Almost every assertion you have made about it is so false its if all of your information was spoon fed propaganda from a creationist.

A great starting point is knowing that fossils are not "All found, then lined up to see what looks like what".

They are found in LAYERS of, the ones in the bottom layers were deposited FIRST.

The ones in progressively upper layers were deposited, progressively, later.

If all critters and flora, etc, were created at the same time...all the fossils would be intermingled over the entire time frame.

In other words, we might find a dinosaur fossil that was deposited on TOP of a mastodon fossil.

The facts though, the one's you studiously ignored and went with cherry picked propaganda instead that what we consider to be the earliest versions of things are in fact (FACT) deposited first...and, stuff we see came later, is deposited on TOP of the older stuff.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for all the critters and so forth to have been around at the same time, based upon the EVIDENCE.

If just ONCE we found a monkey at the bottom where in that layer, we now only see sponges and so the monkey came first...and THEN some sponges...Fine.

However, there are still sponges and, it is possible that they can be in any layer AFTER monkeys appeared.

The reality is that there are NO examples of a descendant being found lower down in the layers than its ancestors....the ancestors came first (DOH), and, THEREFORE are expected to be found closer to the bottom than its descendants.

So, if we dig down almost anywhere we have sedimentary layers...we never ever find a single period in time where when ONLY primitive versions are present...where modern versions are below them.


Of course, from geology, we know about tectonic plate shift, and that sometimes, what WAS a seabed, is now part of a mountain range, and the plate may have slid over or under another one...but, if you know that, can can still see which plate ends up on the top or bottom in a subduction zone...we still know which layers in which plates are older or younger...even if flipped upside down or straight up, etc.

These concepts have back-up confirmation methods as well, such as assorted marker isotopes, known pressure/temperature requirements for certain minerals to form, magnetic orientations present at different times in the past that are preserved to this day in the rocks. and so forth.

So, instead of a vapid creationist version, we have a rich and vibrant world that makes sense...and, which is BEST EXPLAINED by science.

Science is not a replacement for religion...they are actually not related per se.

Science is a METHOD TO LEARN ABOUT HOW THINGS WORK...not a belief system.

If we have a hypothesis that allows us to predict the motion of the planets, etc, to within a few miles....and later, we find a better one that predicts the motion to a few meters, or millimeters,...its not as though the previous hypothesis was worthless. it stood as a stand in until something better came along.

Evolution is a FACT.  There are no findings that could reasonably be expected to overturn that conclusion among those that use it and find it indispensable for explaining how things work.

we can still learn MORE about how evolution works though...there's always new ideas and research.

The new ideas are about details, not the concept that things evolve.

And stop using the propaganda terms "micro and macro evolution", there is only evolution, creationists made up the other terms to confuse you (Successfully).

Essentially, so you never look at the whole picture...lets say its a connect the dots picture of a dinosaur.

If you only look at a few dots, you can't tell its a dino...

If you connect them all though....its very clear.

By focusing you on the dots, and saying, well, there's no dots between THOSE dots...they imply that there's no picture...or a picture of Jesus and not a dino, etc.

If we put enough dots, for them, between all of the dots, its a line, not a series of dots.


We have enough dots to see the picture, and, its a dino, not jesus mary or joseph.

Take off the blinders man!


We can roughly date fossils so there's a lot more to it than just lining them up the way you'd arrange rocks from smallest to largest. The notion that God would put one proto-horse in the world one year then a few million years later a slightly different one then a few million years after that a slightly different one and so on is a more complicated explanation than simply creatures change over time.

We know about DNA and DNA would inevitably allow change over time. God would have to intervene to stop it. 

I see your falling back on the time-tested creationist strategy: ignoring questions and spouting rhetoric. I'll ask again: by what mechanism does many small changes not add up to a big difference?

And btw, if you want a great example of micro-evolution becoming macro-evolution: look at the evolution of the whale. For example:

I'm not going to waste my time addressing all those quotes... ultimately, it doesn't matter what those people said, and I asked you a direct question which you have ignore, flagging you as a time waster.

Gould: "... does [the lack of fossil evidence] permit us to invent a tale of continuity in most or all cases?"  Is inventing tales good science?

Well, yeah, sometimes, and those tales are expected to eventually be proven or disproven. Paleontologists are not just accidentally finding fossils that fit conveniently into a pattern, but they're even predicting now where they can find them, based on geological history and other fossils already found. I've seen creationists so positive that paleontology is a scientific conspiracy that they believe that many fossils found were previously planted there by paleontologists! Talk about making up stories... that's something the worlds religions has been doing for millennia, and each story comes from local beliefs that are never expected to be proven or provable, much less compatible with each other.

Increased complexity?

Yes...the title of this discussion thread you started.

Not sure what your driving at, but I understand that complexity can't be defined mathematically. 

I'm driving at nothing. You have a problem understanding increased complexity and I'm asking you to give us a concrete example. You don't have to define it scientifically...just give us one concrete example of increased a specific animal and a specific feature (the emergence of venomous sacks/teeth in a specific species of snakes) or some mass emergence of a new form of life (like multi-celular lifeforms). Just give us a concrete example and we can talk about it.

The evolution of the car, say, from a T-model Ford to a 2016 Ferrari, represents an increase in complexity.

I don't think you are serious here mixing up the advance of man and tecnology with biological evolution.

 Sorry to be so amateurish.

No. No amaterusishness. Just not able to understand exactly what your question it.

Complexity is actually a mathematical topic and it can't be a topic if it can't be defined.


Computational complexity theory

Complexity theory

Beyond that, as you seem to know, we all have a basic understanding of what complexity involves. Getting into Harvard with a 1.5 GPA is a lot more complex than getting into trouble for shoplifting, for example. LOL

The evolution of the car, say...

Cars didn't evolve, they were designed... hence why it took a fraction of the time evolution took to get to us.

I take it you don't believe it, then? Why not? You asked for an example of one species turning into another species and I gave it to you on a silver platter.


Discussion Forum


Started by JadeBlackOlive. Last reply by Pope Beanie Jan 31, 2017. 5 Replies

Do You Need The Universe To Have Had A Beginning?

Started by Tom Sarbeck. Last reply by Davis Goodman May 19, 2017. 32 Replies

African clawed frog

Started by JadeBlackOlive. Last reply by Pope Beanie Oct 21, 2016. 2 Replies

3.7-billion-year-old fossils

Started by JadeBlackOlive. Last reply by JadeBlackOlive Sep 1, 2016. 2 Replies

Blog Posts


Posted by ETRON on September 6, 2019 at 12:44pm 0 Comments

© 2023   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service