Evolution's 'master mind' hmmmm..... wonder why it can never be found?

...because it exists only in the imaginations of people unable to truly imagine a viable alternative to a bearded magic space guy with a pointy finger?

You are like some very strange yokel in the late 1800's looking at one of the first cars and going,

"So...the horse is very small and hidden inside, right? Or the horse is invisible, right? Or there's a long wire running under the ground connecting the car to the horse, right? I mean, it has to be one of those!"

Well if that doesn't reveal the secret location of evolutions master mind, what else is left?

"There is no horse." Err, let's try again.

"The horse is a lie." Nope, not much better.

"Luke, I am your horse.........

So, see that, there's more to be unveiled here after all.

"A horse is a horse, of course, of course..."

Or, rather, it is always of the horse kind."

Have I got that right?

So tell me, what is a koala? Is it of the marsupial kind (aka a kangaroo and a koala are the same thing to Noah?) Or is it of the bear kind (very much confusing bears and koalas alike?) Perhaps we're thinking too small here; perhaps it is of the "Funny-looking animals only found in Australia" kind.

Yep, see the knowledge keeps pouring in here, sooner or later we're gonna pin down the location of the master mind of evolution, piece by piece, kind of like how a platapus ...'evolved'.

Not too far off...they do call it "horse" power...lol.

Let me double check this quote regarding the location of the elusive master mind of evolution...
"because it exists only in the imaginations of people unable to truly imagine a viable alternative to a bearded magic space guy with a pointy finger?" I'm not sure which way this piece fits the puzzle.

Lovin' me some OP.

Evidently, there is no answer!

Wow, you've stumped 'em, OP!

Actually, I think we're all stumped at this point!
It's a good puzzle but, who knows which way is up here?

Evolution's "master mind"...WTF are you talking about?
There is no master mind behind evolution.

That would be like watching a boxing match between Mike Tyson and Bill Gates and thinking, "Mike Tyson must be really intelligent for defeating Bill Gates!"

Nope sorry bud, that logic doesn't make any sense at all.
Mike Tyson is bigger, stronger, and quicker and therefore would win, plain and simple. No intelligent master mind needs to be involved.

Genetic mutations (random) which are acted upon by natural selection (not random) is essentially the core of evolution. The reason why I say natural selection is not random is because creatures do not have a random chance of surviving and reproducing in any particular environment. It is only those creatures that are best able to survive and reproduce in any particular environment who will go on to survive and pass on their genes, and their genes will become dominant over time, while the genes of the creatures who are less able to survive and reproduce will become less and less overtime and eventually extinct.

No intelligent force is required to make this happen. This is just how things are. The members of a species who do the best job surviving and reproducing will have more offspring and pass on more of their genes to future generations. Their future offspring will do the same, making those genes dominant. When more beneficial genetic mutations occur, the process will go on and on, and the beneficial genetic mutations will become dominant in the gene pool, because those mutations either increase survivability or increase reproductive success.

Evolution, like gravity, or the speed of light, is just a normal part of the physical world. It just is.
There is no intelligent force behind it because it doesn't need one.

You don't need to be intelligent to know that Mike Tyson would crush Bill Gates in a boxing match. When it comes to boxing, Mike Tyson has features that increase his survivability (brute strength, aggression, dexterity). So in a boxing environment, Mike Tyson would come out on top because natural selection favors his traits. No intelligent mastermind needs to be involved.

In an environment that requires quick technical thinking, Bill Gates might come out on top because natural selection would favor his traits in that particular environment.
Once again, no intelligent mastermind need be involved, this is really just common sense.

It doesn't take a God to decide that a stronger man can overpower a weaker man, or that a smarter man can out-think a dumber man. This is just how things are, no mastermind needed.

I don't think you understood OP's question, but I'm not going to rephrase it for OP.

OP's question:

"Evolution's 'master mind' hmmmm..... wonder why it can never be found?"

Please clarify what he meant by "mastermind" since you suggested I misunderstood the question.

I can only give you my take of it, and it's not my thread.

I think Op is looking for (not so much) the physical transitional link but the evidence that there was a mental transitional link.

Meaning Poop flingers to Agriculturalists in Sumeria.

Meaning I bang a rock with another rock to I study the transitions of planets in the stars.

That sort of thing.

It is generally understood that this transition occured "Overnight" compared to other developmental transitions.

For a creature to be modified into a stronger/faster/smarter form means redesigning all organs simultaneously, this cannot happen by luck. All genetic codes would have to rewritten at the same time to recreate bigger organs, limbs, heads, brains etc. It would be essential that the growth rate of all cells be accelerated equally also, and everything would have to stop at the same time. All this would require a very knowledgeable molecular biologist to accurately rewrite the dna blueprint, just one error (like a blood vessel to the brain) could result in death. My posted question is where is the amazing "master mind" located? Why doesn't such an advanced scientist speak to mankind, all tell us to take care of all living things and each other? The answer is creatures were correctly designed by Jehovah from the start, that's how equilibrium of the eco system is maintained, not by lucky accidents. Ro1:20

Ah, see, that's why I didn't want to rephrase OP on his behalf. I thought we were having a different discussion altogether lol.

Nevertheless, still loving OP's points.

I think you harbor a few misconceptions about what evolution is. Creatures of a certain species don't become noticeably stronger, faster, or smarter within a few generations. The process is accumulative and can take a very long time.

Genetic codes are rewritten, and this process happens when two separate humans mate and have children. The two parents each have their own unique genetics, and their children will have an equal combination of half of each parent's genetic traits. This reproductive process allows for an almost infinite amount of combinations of genetics within humanity, allowing for a wide variety of genetic variations. Natural selection will ensure that the genes best suited for survival and reproduction are the ones that end up dominant.

Any errors in the genome, of which there have been many, usually get weeded out. If a certain trait decreases survivability or reproduction, then natural selection will weed it out of the gene pool.

All organs DO NOT need to be redesigned simultaneously as you stated. There are a wide variety of organ sizes in humans today, limb sizes, head sizes, etc. A midget can have sex with a 7 ft tall giant and have perfectly healthy children with proportionate sized limbs, organs, etc.

If God correctly created all creatures from the start, then what the hell happened to the dinosaurs? Natural selection certainly weeded them out. The dinosaurs were unable to adapt quickly enough to drastic changes that happened to the Earth, and so they died out.

Also, the God hypothesis doesn't explain the millions of fossils of extinct species that have been found. Why did so many of God's perfectly created species die out?

The God hypothesis is just impossible (unless you believe God created evolution). No creature would exist today if it did not have the ability to evolve. The environment continually changes and creatures must evolve or die.

Read my signature.

Conception of an embryo does not rewrite it's genetic code, the combination becomes a unique code that replicates over and over for the person's life span. Species do not change no matter how much time is involved, they continue to reproduce the same species as God designed them to and governs by genetic blueprints. If natural selection weeds out traits, what is the location of the mind making the selections, how is it's research and development done, where is it's data stored? The theory of evolution is a misconception of divine design, that's why the 'master mind' making selections will never be identified.

"Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory."

There was something obviously wrong with that scientist.
I know what evolution is about, as do many other people. Just because one scientist can't comprehend what evolution is doesn't mean that there is something wrong with evolution.

There is something wrong with that scientist's thinking or his perceptions of evolution.

The genetic code of a newborn is unique.


Yes. And when mutations occur, that code becomes slightly altered.


Yes they do.


There wouldn't be any species alive today if there was no evolution. Basically you're saying that God created ALL species at the same time. If that's the case, then you're also saying that humans walked with dinosaurs? C'mon, you can't be serious!


There is no mind making the selection.

The creatures that are best able to survive and reproduce will have more offspring and will spread their genes. The creatures that are less able to survive and reproduce will have fewer offspring and their genetic line will disappear, while the stronger genetic line will become dominant.

There is no mind or intelligent being involved in this process. Natural selection is just the natural order of things.

Take 500 rabbits (250 white, 250 black) and introduce them to a cold, snowy environment that is covered with snow for most of the year. What would you expect to happen?
Assuming the rabbits are able to survive in this environment, we might expect the white rabbits to survive better and reproduce more simply because their fur is white and would blend in with the snowy environment better than the rabbits that have black fur. White rabbits can camouflage themselves in the snow better and are harder to spot by potential predators. Any predators will more easily spot the black rabbits in the snow, therefore we could expect more black rabbits to die from predation. If more black rabbits die from predation, then they will have fewer opportunities to reproduce and have offspring. Therefore we can conclude that white fur will become the more dominant characteristic of this population of rabbits because white rabbits are better suited to surviving in that snowy environment.

That is natural selection in a nutshell.
No intelligent being is required to make the decision that white rabbits will survive better in a snowy climate. It is really common sense, no thinking is required.


No, you're wrong.

Oh really, have you found and identified the mind making the 'selections' and rewriting dna blueprints? Didn't you just admit "There is no mind making the selections"? How is a decision made without a mind, by making a wish upon a star? If so, who's in the stars deciding weather or not to answer?

Genetic mutation, sexual reproduction, genetic drift, and natural selection are not a "mind".

They're unconscious processes.


Yes, because there is not a giant mind in charge of everything.


There is no overall mind in charge of the operation.
But I guess you could say that all or many of the living organisms involved in evolution do have minds and do play a part in the processes that make up evolution.

So the living organisms involved in evolution are the one's making decisions, not some outside force.

Do you mean the cells are making the selections/decisions?

Is it not reasonable to assume that the missing link is just that.. still missing?

Evolution is both fact and theory.. It's a shame that people discredit everything about something just because there are still unanswered questions.

Parts of the theory of evolution have been proven to the point of observation. Period.

[link to www.biomedcentral.com]

Published: 12 May 2010

"This study provides empirical evidence of eco-morphological differentiation occurring very quickly after the colonization of a new and vacant habitat"



"After a volcano erupts, a lake may form in the cooled crater and become an isolated aquatic ecosystem. This makes fishes in crater lakes informative for understanding sympatric evolution and ecological diversification in barren environments. From a geological and limnological perspective, such research offers insight about the process of crater lake ecosystem establishment and speciation. In the present study we use genetic and coalescence approaches to infer the colonization history of Midas cichlid fishes (Amphilophus cf. citrinellus) that inhabit a very young crater lake in Nicaragua-the ca. 1800 year-old Lake Apoyeque. This lake holds two sympatric, endemic morphs of Midas cichlid: one with large, hypertrophied lips (~20% of the total population) and another with thin lips. Here we test the associated ecological, morphological and genetic diversification of these two morphs and their potential to represent incipient speciation.

[link to www.biomedcentral.com]

Link contains in-depth results/conclusions

To assert that evolution entirely fantasy, is incredibly ignorant.

Quote
"Is it not reasonable to assume that the missing link is just that.. still missing? " It will always be missing because there is not a single fossil of a half and half creature of any species anywhere. Not a single fossil of 99% this, 1% that, 98% this, 2% that, 97/3, 96/4. 95/5. Not one single fossil of missing links between any species because they never existed in real life, only in Darwin and Rd Susses imagine. That's why is called theory, not science.

This does actually contain some nice questions. But most of what you are looking at is not evolution per se...it is epigenetics, or more properly, the field of developmental biology.

The regulatory mechanisms of the growing organism are what (usually) get everything to match up. The first folds of tissue or buds express different protein markers at different spots. Later, cell groups that will become blood vessels or tendons "see" these markers and know where to go and when to stop.

And it is errors in this regulatory apparatus that have led to some of the novelty in body plans. Take, for instance, the snake. In the ordinary reptilian precursor, the first of the HOX genes involved said, basically; "start making lower trunk. When you see a HOX-a, build a pelvis and stop." But the Hox-a got delayed via a mutation, and the developing snake got a lot more body before the pelvis. Many more adaptions later, this wiener-dog shaped reptile eventually became the snake we know today.

Since the "first in" cells carry the markers of where everything fits in the body plan, accident are rare. It is a wonderfully flexible system for this exact reason; if some error comes along and tells the organism to bud a third arm, all the following processes will see the appropriate markers and know where to build, like successive contractors seeing where the service head is and adding the fuse panel, seeing where the doors are and adding handles and locks to them, etc.

The HOX genes lie at the bottom of this chain of events, meaning that if they change, and the body plan changes, all the following events simply shift to match the pattern they laid down.

size