|
|
Topic started on 12-3-2009 @ 01:16 PM by B.A.C.
|
I'd like Evolutionists to try to explain the development of the Eye and the Brain to me. Or is this another "unknown" that we must just place our
faith in?
The Eye:
“There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.” Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s
Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 179.
“While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually,
to simulate 10 milliseconds (ms) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500
simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in
mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of [1985] Cray
time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.” John K. Stevens, “Reverse Engineering the Brain,” Byte, April 1985, p.
287.
“The retina processes information much more than anyone has ever imagined, sending a dozen different movies to the brain.” Frank Werblin and
Botond Roska, “The Movies in Our Eyes,” Scientific American, Vol. 296, April 2007, p. 73.
“Was the eye contrived without skill in opticks [optics], and the ear without knowledge of sounds?” Isaac Newton, Opticks (England: 1704; reprint,
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931), pp. 369–370.
“Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or
the system of the human eye?”
From a letter written by Dr. Wernher von Braun and read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford on 14 September 1972.
“What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the nervous conductors of the optical signals
from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious
mind can comprehend?” Wernher von Braun, foreword to From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo by Harold Hill (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International,
1976), p. xi.
It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the
product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors. Robert Jastrow, “Evolution: Selection for Perfection,” Science Digest, December
1981, p. 87.
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light,
and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest degree. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.
The Brain:
“And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.” Isaac Asimov,
“In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian, August 1970, p. 10.
Asimov forgot that the brain, and presumably most of its details, is coded by only a fraction of an individual’s DNA. Therefore, it would be more
accurate to say that DNA is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter known in the universe.
The human brain itself serves, in some sense, as a proof of concept [that cool petaFLOPS machines are possible]. Its dense network of neurons
apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1 liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power. That’s a hard
act to follow. Ivars Peterson, “PetaCrunchers: Setting a Course toward Ultrafast Supercomputing,” Science News, Vol. 147, 15 April 1995, p.
235.
“The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and
one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in
the human brain approaches 1015 or a thousand million million. ... a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications
network on Earth.”
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis - pp. 330–331.
I hope we can leave our beliefs out of this thread and talk strictly Science.
Fire away!!! 
|
copyright & usage
|
Click here for more Origins & Creationism Conspiracy topics
Hot Topics
|
Top Topics
|
This Week
|
Subscribe
|
Home
|
reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 01:26 PM by Xtrozero
|
That is easy.......Evolution does not need a math class to do its thing, and evolution has had Billions of years to work on its tools where we humans
have had, what? 10,000 years, with 150 years of industrial age and 40 or so years for electronics/computers.
Also the advances that humans make can be said to be a part of evolution too.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 01:26 PM by Quest
|
The world is filled with eyes. Animals sport everything from simple "light or not" eyes up to one far superior to the human eye in ability to see in
low light or at long distances. There are even bacteria with photosensitive chemicals that they use to move toward or away from light.
The eye is no more complex than many other structures.
Most of all, the amount of creatures with eyes and neurological systems is the best argument FOR evolution showing that the eye developed early given
that most animals have eyes, even vestigial ones.
Over time some have become more complex. We even have a wide degree of variation among the human population today with color blindness, blindness,
need for glasses, and other ocular issues.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 01:26 PM by melatonin
|
only reply you'll get from me...
Originally posted by B.A.C.
The Eye:
“There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems.” Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s
Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 179.
He was wrong and found that out at Dover.
“While today’s digital hardware is extremely impressive, it is clear that the human retina’s real-time performance goes unchallenged. Actually,
to simulate 10 milliseconds (ms) of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500
simultaneous nonlinear differential equations 100 times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in
mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways, it would take a minimum of 100 years of [1985] Cray
time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second.” John K. Stevens, “Reverse Engineering the Brain,” Byte, April 1985, p.
287.
Yes, it's quite complex. Evolution accounts for the development of complexity.
“The retina processes information much more than anyone has ever imagined, sending a dozen different movies to the brain.” Frank Werblin and
Botond Roska, “The Movies in Our Eyes,” Scientific American, Vol. 296, April 2007, p. 73.
Yes, it's quite complex. Evolution accounts for the development of complexity.
“Was the eye contrived without skill in opticks [optics], and the ear without knowledge of sounds?” Isaac Newton, Opticks (England: 1704; reprint,
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1931), pp. 369–370.
lol
Evolution accounts for the development of complexity.
“Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or
the system of the human eye?”
From a letter written by Dr. Wernher von Braun and read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford on 14 September 1972.
Strawman. Evolution is chance and necessity.
“What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the nervous conductors of the optical signals
from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious
mind can comprehend?” Wernher von Braun, foreword to From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo by Harold Hill (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International,
1976), p. xi.
Strawman. Evolution is chance and necessity.
It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the
product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors. Robert Jastrow, “Evolution: Selection for Perfection,” Science Digest, December
1981, p. 87.
Strawman. Evolution is chance and necessity.
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light,
and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest degree. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.
Quote mine.
The Brain:
“And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.” Isaac Asimov,
“In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian, August 1970, p. 10.
Asimov forgot that the brain, and presumably most of its details, is coded by only a fraction of an individual’s DNA. Therefore, it would be more
accurate to say that DNA is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter known in the universe.
Yes, it's quite complex. Evolution accounts for the development of complexity.
The human brain itself serves, in some sense, as a proof of concept [that cool petaFLOPS machines are possible]. Its dense network of neurons
apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1 liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power. That’s a hard
act to follow. Ivars Peterson, “PetaCrunchers: Setting a Course toward Ultrafast Supercomputing,” Science News, Vol. 147, 15 April 1995, p.
235.
Yes, it's quite complex. Evolution accounts for the development of complexity.
“The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and
one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in
the human brain approaches 1015 or a thousand million million. ... a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications
network on Earth.”
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis - pp. 330–331.
Yes, it's quite complex. Evolution accounts for the development of complexity.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 01:34 PM by B.A.C.
|
reply to post by melatonin
So your saying all the quotes from Scientists that are Evolutionists are Strawman arguments? Notice I didn't quote any Creationists.
Time doesn't account for the complexity, so it hasn't been explained by Evolutionary Theory. According to Mathematics there wasn't enough time.
PS - Also provide some evidence that Evolutionary Theory accounts for these complexities. I didn't see you provide any.
[edit on 12-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 02:04 PM by 5thElement
|
Originally posted by B.A.C.
According to Mathematics there wasn't enough time.
Lol, NO.
There was plenty of time...
Here is my question, and I'm not gonna ask again (and NONE of the heavy supporters of ID EVER answered it):
What is out there which opposes (disproves, makes illogical) INFINITE causality chain to exist ?
If Universe was around for the infinite amount of time, even if everything was just a pure chance, there was still plenty of time 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 02:39 PM by B.A.C.
|
Originally posted by 5thElement
Originally posted by B.A.C.
According to Mathematics there wasn't enough time.
Lol, NO.
There was plenty of time...
Here is my question, and I'm not gonna ask again (and NONE of the heavy supporters of ID EVER answered it):
What is out there which opposes (disproves, makes illogical) INFINITE causality chain to exist ?
If Universe was around for the infinite amount of time, even if everything was just a pure chance, there was still plenty of time
There is nothing that disproves infinite causality chain. Simple.
Evolutionary Theory says the "common ancestor" arose 3.8 billion years ago. This is "finite", not "infinite". This is a number we can use for
calculations. The Human Brain has approx. 1,000,000,000,000,000 connections or 10 to the power of 15. Simply not enough time for Evolution to account
for this.
Remember, we are talking about Evolutionary Theory.
[edit on 12-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 03:49 PM by sezsue
|
Originally posted by melatonin
(My interpretation of your comments, melatonin, 
only reply you'll get from me...
Because I don't really want to think about the implications of the questions you are asking, and the information you posted, B.A.C.
He was wrong and found that out at Dover.
The only answer I'm really sure about.
Yes, it's quite complex. Evolution accounts for the development of complexity.
Because I said so
Yes, it's quite complex. Evolution accounts for the development of complexity.
Because I said so
lol
Evolution accounts for the development of complexity.
Because I said so
Strawman. Evolution is chance and necessity.
Because I said so, a little differently
Strawman. Evolution is chance and necessity.
Because I said so, a little differently
Strawman. Evolution is chance and necessity.
Because I said so, a little differently
Quote mine.
I found it first, used it in another thread and now you are quoting it back at me?
Yes, it's quite complex. Evolution accounts for the development of complexity.
Because I said so, part 2
Yes, it's quite complex. Evolution accounts for the development of complexity.
Because I said so, part 2
Yes, it's quite complex. Evolution accounts for the development of complexity.
Because I said so, part 2
That's not really much of a rebuttal. You basically just said, "I believe in evolution, that's why."
Which is actually LESS believable than someone saying, "The eye and brain are so complex that there MUST have been a Creator, there is no way that
level of sophistication could have happened by chance."
All in good fun, melatonin, all in good fun!
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 04:11 PM by melatonin
|
Originally posted by sezsue
Originally posted by melatonin
(My interpretation of your comments, melatonin,
only reply you'll get from me...
Because I don't really want to think about the implications of the questions you are asking, and the information you posted, B.A.C.
Nope, it's like talking to a brick wall. I get a more productive discussion from my parrot.
Because I said so
Strawman. Evolution is chance and necessity.
Because I said so, a little differently
Perhaps you don't understand evolution. It's a fairly easy concept. It explains complexity in biology, and involves non-random mechanisms acting on
random variations.
There's a few books been written on it in the last 150 years. I suggest maybe finding one.
All in good fun, melatonin, all in good fun!
Lucky you were around, eh? Creationists are a bit like buses, people wait for one and then loads come along one after the other. Although, it's
sometimes hard to figure out if it's the same one's going round the block...
[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 04:24 PM by B.A.C.
|
reply to post by melatonin
We drive the Creationist bus, you drive the Evolutionist bus. They both lead to different Bus Stations, that's all
You seem to equate a persons belief with their view of Science. Do you think we didn't study Evolution as well? Or do you think you's are the only
ones who could possible understand it?
The problem is that I do understand Evolutionary Theory, that's why I'm raising these very reasonable questions, well actually I'm just quoting
SCIENTISTS that have raised these questions. The one's who ride the Evolution Bus.
If scientists can raise these very same questions within science, why can't I?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 04:30 PM by Chadwickus
|
reply to post by B.A.C.
Can you explain the need to keep wisdom teeth then?
Damned if I can think of a purpose for them, besides deforming our jaw if they don't get removed.
[edit on 12-3-2009 by Chadwickus]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 04:40 PM by lellomackin
|
Originally posted by B.A.C.
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light,
and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest degree. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.
Would you like to read the rest of that quote for me? Where he goes on to say that while it SEEMS absurd it is, in fact, NOT.
Here allow me to finish it for you.
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its
possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if
any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a
perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.."
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 04:47 PM by B.A.C.
|
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by B.A.C.
Can you explain the need to keep wisdom teeth then?
Damned if I can think of a purpose for them, besides deforming our jaw if they don't get removed.
[edit on 12-3-2009 by Chadwickus]
Well if you are missing a tooth or teeth, Wisdom teeth can help to fill the gap in.
There is no proof that the removal of Wisdom teeth prevents crowding of the teeth or deformation of the jaw.
Also, they may have been put there simply for us to extract Stem Cells from, thereby saving the life of a human embryo.
[edit on 13-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 04:49 PM by melatonin
|
reply to post by lellomackin
Yes, it's called a quotemine, and is a dishonest approach used by creationist morons. I would predict that there is at least one more there.
The Jastrow quote seems questionable - it claims random processes alone couldn't produce x, which would be a strawman claim, as it is not the claim
of evolution - it also involves the non-random processes of selection.
Then note the title of the article - 'Evolution: Selection for Perfection'
lol
ABE: just to clarify for those not certain what a quotemine is:
Quote mining is use of the fallacy of quoting out of context, repeatedly employing misquotation in an attempt to skew or contort the meaning and
purpose of the original author regarding a controversial topic. The quote miner's purpose can be to make the author or speaker look incompetent or
mistaken or to use an author or speaker's own words to undermine their argument. The term quote mining originated in the creation-evolution
controversy and is most common in that context, but there are some examples of it spreading to other fields.
The term quote mining is pejorative. "Quote miners" are often accused of contextomy, misquotation, and illegitimate use of ellipsis in an attempt to
represent the views of the person being quoted inaccurately. Quote mining is a distinct form of misquotation because none of the words are changed or
transcribed improperly, but it can have a similar effect. For example, if a person being quoted disagrees with some position, a quote miner will
present quotes that suggest that instead, this person is supportive of this position. Material that ostensibly bolsters this position is often taken
out of context. Exposition that is at odds with the argument being made in the same text is excluded or otherwise obscured.
en.wikipedia.org...
It's quite dishonest.
[edit on 12-3-2009 by melatonin]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 04:51 PM by B.A.C.
|
Originally posted by lellomackin
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its
possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if
any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a
perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.."
Yes thanks for finishing the quote where he goes on to talk about variations of inheritable traits that he thought were the result of climate, diet,
and exercise.
Genetics proved him wrong.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 04:58 PM by B.A.C.
|
reply to post by melatonin
If you think any of the quotes I used are questionable look them up. All of these quotes were taken straight from their sources, mostly Scientific
Journals or papers.
I guess you'll question anyone who doesn't run with your belief, including Scientists, yet you'll use their Science if it furthers your argument.
That's what I call a Evolutionist Moron.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 13-3-2009 @ 12:32 AM by 5thElement
|
Originally posted by B.A.C.
There is nothing that disproves infinite causality chain. Simple.
If that is the case, than it is perfectly reasonable to assume that it could be true and there is no first or ultimate cause, which means that
universe always existed and it will continue to exists forever, Creator (A.K.A. God) is out of equation there...
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Evolutionary Theory says the "common ancestor" arose 3.8 billion years ago. This is "finite", not "infinite". This is a number we can use for
calculations. The Human Brain has approx. 1,000,000,000,000,000 connections or 10 to the power of 15. Simply not enough time for Evolution to account
for this.
Lol, 10 to the power of 15 is impressive number, but it is product of the simple replication, some things can replicate in much greater numbers than
that.
Number of synapses in our brain is important, but real power comes from how they are used...
So do you believe that development of the BRAIN before "common ancestor" cannot be accounted as important, do you believe that all those mammals
before us did not contribute ?
Where this "math" which claims that there was no time comes from? What are your actual sources ?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-3-2009 @ 01:20 AM by B.A.C.
|
reply to post by 5thElement
Within Evolutionary Theory "Common Ancestor" refers to species, animals and us, there was no brain before the common ancestor. We all
(species) supposedly arose from this common ancestor.
The first brain or reasonable equivalent would have been formed approx 600 million years ago with the first animals.
This is an article about a famous mathematician (close friend of Stephen Hawking) who calculated the odds of life occuring and developing to this
point by chance: www.faizani.com...
It is 10*10*123 to 1 
I can't find the one for the Brain, when I do I will post it, this should do for now.
[edit on 13-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-3-2009 @ 02:07 AM by Astyanax
|
reply to post by B.A.C.
[SNIP]
I mean, why else do creationists keep on asking the same questions, over and over and tediously over again, yet never seem to pay attention to the
answers or understand them? The evolution of eyes has been explained ad nauseum, several times on this site alone. Yet creationists keep on
asking how an eye could evolve.
Do yourself a favour, my friend, and find the Darwin quote melatonin posted in The Origin of Species. Then read the sentence that comes after
it.
[SNIP]
Mod Edit: Removed insults.
Civility and Decorum are Required
[edit on 13-3-2009 by Gemwolf]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 13-3-2009 @ 02:32 AM by B.A.C.
|
reply to post by Astyanax
Your comments are completely off topic. Do yourself a favor chummy and evolve.
I've never been shown a believable explanation for the eye. Just because you follow the theory like a sheeple doesn't mean I do. How about you find
an explanation that takes time into account and show it to me, rather than making your stupid comments?
[SNIP]
[edit on 13-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
Mod Edit: Civility and Decorum are Required
[edit on 13-3-2009 by Gemwolf]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
<< 1 2 3 4 >>
|
|
|
