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: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Ugh, I thought you meant "common ancestor" of us and our 'lil banana eating friend, got you now...


EVEN if creation of life is a PURE chance no matter how impossible that chance is, in the INFINITE universe which is INFINITELY old it could happen


Roger Penrose used very pessimistic approach in his "famous" probability of evolution calculation and it's only fair to say that this is just one out of few mistakes he made in his career...

How about this approach:

Suppose there was a lottery with 10000 numbers where each number had an equal (.0001) chance of being selected. That's a fairly small chance of winning. But suppose you play 7500 of those numbers. What are your chances of winning?




posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 

Well, I don't expect someone who thinks ozone is called O Zone or that men have nipples because women have them is in any position to go casting aspersions on other people's intelligence - or in a position to understand, let alone evaluate, a scientific explanation when one is offered.

It's hardly surprising that you're 'not satisfied' with scientific accounts of how eyes evolved. If something is beyond the limits of your comprehension, how could you possibly be satisfied with it?

The thing is, you see, science doesn't exist to explain things to the likes of you. It exists to increase human knowledge of the universe, so that we who are capable of understanding and making use of that knowledge may do so. Creationists with their pathetic little seven-day God don't count; their views don't make make a blind bit of difference except inasmuch as they have the potential to threaten society with their ignorance and lies.

All the same, it's just a litte tedious to log on to ATS and see yet another stupid thread asking how the eye evolved. Why don't you do a quick scan through already-existing threads on the site, instead of coming in here and boring us to death with the same old fiddle-faddle?



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 03:50 AM
link   
First, let's get our definitions straight:

MACRO-Evolution is what we normally think of as Evolution, i.e., Transitions from one species to another. Life began with single-celled organism, and progressed over long periods of time to the many and varied species we have now.

MICRO-Evolution is change WITHIN a species. The best example of this is the common canine. We know beyond a doubt that all modern dogs descended from a common ancestor because we were actually the agent of the changes from one breed to another. So we already know that this type of Evolution occurs. Of course with Micro-Evolution, the resulting off-spring are still the same species, thus micro has nothing to do with the great debate about Evolution vs. Creation or ID.

Now, about the "eye and brain argument." The human eye does not disprove Macro-evolution, but it surely is one of the greatest bits of evidence against it. Not because "the eye is so complex, only God could have made it" though. It (along with the brain, birds' wings, and even a single cell) argues strongly against Macro-Evolution because the concept of Transitional Forms is incompatible with Natural Selection. Thus, Macro-Evolution argues against itself.

Natural Selection says that as changes and mutations occur, the critter with the best chance of survival will eventually "win out" over the critters without the mutation. Transitional Forms are things like the Missing Link- critters that are still in the process of transitioning from one form to another (still haven't found one, BTW).

The reason these two ideas are incompatible is illustrated easily with just a little common sense. What good is half a wing? Or an eye which is not fully functional? Or a flipper-like leg (or leg-like Flipper)? Let's say a species of fish were to gradually change into some sort of land-dwelling species. Well, that species would have to go through many stages to get from fins to legs. Even Evolutionists agree with that. But what about all those Transitional forms in between the fish and the land-dweller? The whole idea is that the transitional form is superior to the original critter, right? Picture what a fish would look like as its fins gradually changed to legs. Would any of those fin/leg combos be more likely to survive over a fish with fins that work perfectly? The transitional form would be far less likely to survive. So if species evolve over time into new species, they can't have done it through transitional forms. The same holds true for wings. If an animal starts out with arms or paws which work just fine, is it an "improvement" to have a partial wing instead? Nope- the new critter would have much less of a chance for survival.

We know that Natural Selection is true- We can look around us at nature and easily see that more viable animals repopulate better than sickly or mutated ones. And if Natural Selection is true, then it disproves any Transitional Forms by its very nature. So, Macro-Evolution is not only a provably false theory, it doesn't even make rational sense. What happened was that Darwin saw Micro-Evolution and Natural Selection happening, and mistakenly theorized that this was how life developed. It was a brilliant idea for its time, but a clever theory is not necessarily a fact.

Evolution also goes against the law of Entropy which states that ordered systems tend to break down over time. Evolution flies in the face of this proven Law of science by stating that chaotic systems tend to become more ordered and complex over time. This simply is not true.

Just because Evolution isn't true doesn't necessarily mean that a god created everything, or that there even is a creator. But from a scientific standpoint, Evolutionists are being dishonest because they are afraid that if they let go of their pet theory, they will be admitting defeat to the Creationists. But they should come up with a theory based on science, not speculation.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   
reply to post by flitstone42
 


Yup you are right. I agree with MiE, I don't agree with MaE. Like you said MiE is self evident and we see it all around us. As far as this proving there is a Creator, I also believe it doesn't prove this, Science can't do that because a Creator is not falsifiable, my belief is Faith. I'm not preaching to the Evolutionists about God, just trying to point out the flaws in the theory they swear by. I am a Creationist, but I'm not trying to prove a Creator. That takes faith, it isn't related to Science.

I draw the line at insulting/persecuting people because of their belief's, that's just as bad as what they done during the Crusades.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


why bother to attempt to kill an idea in this way B.A.C.?

"ideas are bulletproof."


*edited for clarification*

[edit on 3/13/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


you've obviously never have had issues with wisdom teeth. I don't need scientific studies to show me what an xray of my mouth did. The fact is, i had 3 impacted wisdom teeth, in other words, the teeth were growing perpendicular to my jawline, pressing on the base of the molars next to them.

The origin of the 3rd molar *wisdom teeth* could be pretty similar to the tail bone, as it once provided a use due to early man's diet consisting of foliage and little meat. It wasn't until human's changed their diet to eating grains, rices, and meats that we lost use for the sets of 3rd molars. Another possibility is that early man could have had larger jaws that could have accommodated said 3rd molars and since modern man has a smaller jaw, these little guys give us more trouble than they should.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5thElement
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Ugh, I thought you meant "common ancestor" of us and our 'lil banana eating friend, got you now...


EVEN if creation of life is a PURE chance no matter how impossible that chance is, in the INFINITE universe which is INFINITELY old it could happen


Roger Penrose used very pessimistic approach in his "famous" probability of evolution calculation and it's only fair to say that this is just one out of few mistakes he made in his career...

How about this approach:

Suppose there was a lottery with 10000 numbers where each number had an equal (.0001) chance of being selected. That's a fairly small chance of winning. But suppose you play 7500 of those numbers. What are your chances of winning?


You have a good point. Although there is an assumption there that is neither verifiable or observable, that is that the Universe is infinitely old. Science estimates the Universe to be about 14 billion years old. Again, we have a number to work with. I do admit that the age of the universe, even with these figures science provides is hotly debated.

As for the lottery with 10000 numbers of course I'd have a better chance of winning with 7500 tickets. The numbers for the Origin of Life lottery are more like:
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000 to 1

I wouldn't bet on winning that lottery. The amount of tickets bought for this lottery were part of his equation as well, 1.

Here's a quote from the link you provided:


I never accused Roger Penrose of actually making mistakes. However, I did accuse him of interpreting Goedels Incompleteness Theorem in a particular, Platonist, way.


It is possible, just not very probable IMHO.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus24
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


you've obviously never have had issues with wisdom teeth. I don't need scientific studies to show me what an xray of my mouth did. The fact is, i had 3 impacted wisdom teeth, in other words, the teeth were growing perpendicular to my jawline, pressing on the base of the molars next to them.

The origin of the 3rd molar *wisdom teeth* could be pretty similar to the tail bone, as it once provided a use due to early man's diet consisting of foliage and little meat. It wasn't until human's changed their diet to eating grains, rices, and meats that we lost use for the sets of 3rd molars. Another possibility is that early man could have had larger jaws that could have accommodated said 3rd molars and since modern man has a smaller jaw, these little guys give us more trouble than they should.


Well, I used Medical Science to research Wisdom Teeth here's what they say:


www.cochrane.org...
This review found no evidence to support or refute routine prophylactic removal of asymptomatic impacted wisdom teeth in adults; no studies of adults met the criteria for inclusion. However, it found some reliable evidence that suggests that the prophylactic removal of impacted third molars in adolescents to reduce or prevent late incisor crowding cannot be justified. Such removal neither reduces or prevents late incisor crowding.


Also, the Tail Bone does serve a few very important purposes:


en.wikipedia.org...
it is an important attachment for various muscles, tendons and ligaments — which makes it necessary for physicians and patients to pay special attention to these attachments when considering surgical removal of the coccyx.[1] Additionally, it is also part of the weight-bearing tripod structure which act as a support for a sitting person. When a person sits leaning forward, the ischial tuberosities and inferior rami of the ischium take most of the weight, but as the sitting person leans backward, more weight is transferred to the coccyx.[1]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I see your reasoning behind the post mate and think you write great contributions, I just don't think if your trying to back religion up you should be questioning "Or is this another 'unknown' that we must just place our faith in."

As religion is based entirely around that very line, or are you non religious and not trying to backup anything? If that's the case I apologise.

Edit; poor gram as ev3r


[edit on 13-3-2009 by MrAnonUK]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrAnonUK
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


I see your reasoning behind the post mate and think you write great contributions, I just don't think if your trying to back religion up you should be questioning "Or is this another 'unknown' that we must just place our faith in."

As religion is based entirely around that very line, or are you non religious and not trying to backup anything? If that's the case I apologise.

Edit; poor gram as ev3r


[edit on 13-3-2009 by MrAnonUK]


Nope I'm not trying to convert anyone


I just find that this theory doesn't do a great job of explaining things ie; the eye, brain, etc. Although to hear some people's belief in the theory you'd think IT was a religion, they have no problem with faith.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I hate repeating myself...but if you think you can *believe* in micro evolution and dismiss macro because there isn't evidence for it..well you dont know much about evolution to begin with.Its an argument i hear all the time and its utterly ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
I hate repeating myself...but if you think you can *believe* in micro evolution and dismiss macro because there isn't evidence for it..well you dont know much about evolution to begin with.Its an argument i hear all the time and its utterly ridiculous.


Yea, yea, I know, they are both the same, right? Except we can only observe one of them, because the other supposedly takes too long, or the evidence provided is debated within Science as well.

Believe me that's not my only argument about the theory. Read the OP and respond to that. Let's stay on topic. Respond to the OP and we'll see what I know about it.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


"Also, they may have been put there simply for us to extract Stem Cells from, thereby saving the life of a human embryo."

Is it in bad taste to say that while I had no intention of actually posting on this thread, I felt the need to point out that the above statement is THE MOST ridiculous thing I have ever read on ATS... and very close to one of the most ridiculous thigs I have read - ever?

Just a question.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


When I discuss these types of issues I often say it is my religion (evolution), I feel both religion and the evolutionary theory stem from the same desire. The desire to know where we came from.

Good work though, keep it coming. All adding to our understandings regardless of individuals beliefs. One day it'll be such reasoned discussion that leads us to know once and for all the answers we all seem to seak.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


"Also, they may have been put there simply for us to extract Stem Cells from, thereby saving the life of a human embryo."

Is it in bad taste to say that while I had no intention of actually posting on this thread, I felt the need to point out that the above statement is THE MOST ridiculous thing I have ever read on ATS... and very close to one of the most ridiculous thigs I have read - ever?

Just a question.



Ridiculous? You don't think saving human embryos is important? Why not use Wisdom Teeth if we can? I Guess you'd have to look at it from an ID standpoint.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrAnonUK
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


When I discuss these types of issues I often say it is my religion (evolution), I feel both religion and the evolutionary theory stem from the same desire. The desire to know where we came from.

Good work though, keep it coming. All adding to our understandings regardless of individuals beliefs. One day it'll be such reasoned discussion that leads us to know once and for all the answers we all seem to seak.


Yup for sure. We'll all know when we die, either we'll know, or won't know anything any longer. Depends who's right I guess.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   
“You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks like He rushed it.”

-Bill Hicks



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I just find that this theory doesn't do a great job of explaining things ie; the eye, brain, etc. Although to hear some people's belief in the theory you'd think IT was a religion, they have no problem with faith.


People don't challenge the idea of evolution, or think it at all wrong because it is the backbone of biology, it's so fundamental to the science that it makes sense of everything. For area's of unknowns, people give ToE the benefit of the doubt. A lot of what we do know wouldn't make sense without it.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I just find that this theory doesn't do a great job of explaining things ie; the eye, brain, etc. Although to hear some people's belief in the theory you'd think IT was a religion, they have no problem with faith.


People don't challenge the idea of evolution, or think it at all wrong because it is the backbone of biology, it's so fundamental to the science that it makes sense of everything. For area's of unknowns, people give ToE the benefit of the doubt. A lot of what we do know wouldn't make sense without it.


In Science you are supposed to support the theory with facts, not the other way around. Which is what you are describing.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
In Science you are supposed to support the theory with facts, not the other way around. Which is what you are describing.


No, that's creation, starting with the conclusion; God did it. Evolution was devised by observing nature to reach a conclusion.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join