8 ms·

If every part of a human coming from evolution, how it synchronize between each part? Is there any books explaining evolution in detail? How cell formed? How t

by zakki 3y ago

If every part of a human coming from evolution, how it synchronize between each part? Is there any books explaining evolution in detail? How cell formed? How they found a way to multiply? How they choose DNA to store the information? And so on.

getoffmycase 3y ago
There is literally a world of biology (text)books that describe the process of evolution and how life came to be. I would recommend finding a syllabus at a local college for a biology class, getting the textbook second hand and then reading it
taneq 3y ago
It doesn't. Everything that's poorly 'synchronized' just dies out and the more effective organisms keep reproducing. This explains basically everything past the original question of how the original self-replicating chemical reaction started.
TravisCooper 3y ago
[flagged]
- thewarpaint 3y ago
  What’s your theory/understanding then?
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    Magic, one assumes.
- InSteady 3y ago
  >Which came first, the Heart, Blood Vessels or Blood? Which ones were "selected for" before the others arrived? How would a random process, uncoordinated through time select for these things and keep them while they're "not useful" until they are? etc etc Evolutionary biologists have very detailed answers to all of these questions, plus a bunch more that are far more complicated and confounding to laypeople. You can even find some great popular science books that hold your hand and walk you through some of the absolutely mind-boggling ways in which we have found evolution to work. It doesn't require any advanced math courses to wrap your head around if you go at the topic patiently and with an open mind. The numbers and timescales on which evolution has been operating are astronomical, far too large for a human mind to comprehend in any meaningful sense. Of course it's products are also going to be a challenge to comprehend. Especially if you start forming opinions before you have consulted the experts and put in the hard work of trying to learn how those experts know what they think they know.
  - TravisCooper 3y ago
    This is absolutely untrue. It's strange that an uncoordinated, random walk of mutations would keep a profound number of changes in tact, ready for some other random bit to take place and it all just "fall into place". The eye didn't evolve. Hearing didn't evolve. Smell didn't evolve. These explanations are always full of "must have" and "must have been". This line of thinking is just hopeful projections of desired causality.
    - deadbeeves 3y ago
      >It's strange that [...] An appeal to incredulity is not an argument. >These explanations are always full of "must have" and "must have been". Any explanation that starts with "must have" requires that there is a single theoretical framework that could possibly apply to the world as we see it today. Since you reject this necessity, you must think there's an alternative framework that accounts for all observed phenomena (or that accounts at least as well as the theory of evolution). What is that framework?
      - TravisCooper 3y ago
        >An appeal to incredulity is not an argument. It IS strange, using the evolutionary framework itself, that useless mutations will hang around for thousands or millions of years (countless generations) before dropping perfectly into an extremely complex system, that itself is but a small part of a larger complex system. Evolution teaches that small, immediately useful mutations build upon one another, reinforcing the beneficial nature of the mutation. It's impossible to build large, complex life systems (with a large number of prerequisites at each step) this way. For example, the Heart, Blood Vessels and Blood. They're each extremely complex but useless without the other two. How would evolution slowly evolve a heart with no blood or blood vessels? How would evolution slowly evolve blood but no blood vessels or heart? How would evolution slowly evolve a network of blood vessels but no blood to carry or heart to pump?
        deadbeeves 3y ago
- overtomanu 3y ago
  You can take evolution of eye for example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
- nkrisc 3y ago
  [flagged]
- RangerScience 3y ago
  When we design systems we seek to use (1) as few parts as we can with (2) as simple interactions between them as we can and (3) with as simple parts as we can. Cars, databases, folding chairs. Emergent (evolved) systems use (to their benefit!) a great deal of interacting parts, with complex interactions, and with complex parts. Economies, ecologies, the Internet; to some degree, neural net AIs. It’s possible to set aside the question of evolution vs creation, and just notice that these two categories exist, and we’re clearly in the latter.

by zakki 3y ago

getoffmycase 3y ago

There is literally a world of biology (text)books that describe the process of evolution and how life came to be. I would recommend finding a syllabus at a local college for a biology class, getting the textbook second hand and then reading it

taneq 3y ago

It doesn't. Everything that's poorly 'synchronized' just dies out and the more effective organisms keep reproducing. This explains basically everything past the original question of how the original self-replicating chemical reaction started.

TravisCooper 3y ago

[flagged]

thewarpaint 3y ago
What’s your theory/understanding then?
- rsynnott 3y ago
  Magic, one assumes.
InSteady 3y ago
>Which came first, the Heart, Blood Vessels or Blood? Which ones were "selected for" before the others arrived? How would a random process, uncoordinated through time select for these things and keep them while they're "not useful" until they are? etc etc Evolutionary biologists have very detailed answers to all of these questions, plus a bunch more that are far more complicated and confounding to laypeople. You can even find some great popular science books that hold your hand and walk you through some of the absolutely mind-boggling ways in which we have found evolution to work. It doesn't require any advanced math courses to wrap your head around if you go at the topic patiently and with an open mind. The numbers and timescales on which evolution has been operating are astronomical, far too large for a human mind to comprehend in any meaningful sense. Of course it's products are also going to be a challenge to comprehend. Especially if you start forming opinions before you have consulted the experts and put in the hard work of trying to learn how those experts know what they think they know.
- TravisCooper 3y ago
  This is absolutely untrue. It's strange that an uncoordinated, random walk of mutations would keep a profound number of changes in tact, ready for some other random bit to take place and it all just "fall into place". The eye didn't evolve. Hearing didn't evolve. Smell didn't evolve. These explanations are always full of "must have" and "must have been". This line of thinking is just hopeful projections of desired causality.
  - deadbeeves 3y ago
    >It's strange that [...] An appeal to incredulity is not an argument. >These explanations are always full of "must have" and "must have been". Any explanation that starts with "must have" requires that there is a single theoretical framework that could possibly apply to the world as we see it today. Since you reject this necessity, you must think there's an alternative framework that accounts for all observed phenomena (or that accounts at least as well as the theory of evolution). What is that framework?
    - TravisCooper 3y ago
      >An appeal to incredulity is not an argument. It IS strange, using the evolutionary framework itself, that useless mutations will hang around for thousands or millions of years (countless generations) before dropping perfectly into an extremely complex system, that itself is but a small part of a larger complex system. Evolution teaches that small, immediately useful mutations build upon one another, reinforcing the beneficial nature of the mutation. It's impossible to build large, complex life systems (with a large number of prerequisites at each step) this way. For example, the Heart, Blood Vessels and Blood. They're each extremely complex but useless without the other two. How would evolution slowly evolve a heart with no blood or blood vessels? How would evolution slowly evolve blood but no blood vessels or heart? How would evolution slowly evolve a network of blood vessels but no blood to carry or heart to pump?
      - deadbeeves 3y ago
overtomanu 3y ago
You can take evolution of eye for example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
nkrisc 3y ago
[flagged]
RangerScience 3y ago
When we design systems we seek to use (1) as few parts as we can with (2) as simple interactions between them as we can and (3) with as simple parts as we can. Cars, databases, folding chairs. Emergent (evolved) systems use (to their benefit!) a great deal of interacting parts, with complex interactions, and with complex parts. Economies, ecologies, the Internet; to some degree, neural net AIs. It’s possible to set aside the question of evolution vs creation, and just notice that these two categories exist, and we’re clearly in the latter.