It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does the "Eye" and "Brain" kill Evolutionary Theory?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
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!!!




posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
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.]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

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



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   

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.]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

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!



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

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]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
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?



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
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]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   

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.."



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

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.]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
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]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
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.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   

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 ?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
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.]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:07 AM
link   
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]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
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]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join