Originally posted by B.A.C.
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
Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by jfj123
No kidding. We can look up Euglena, Planaria, Nautilus, Compund, Simple, or Human, but none of them can satifactorily explain the evolution of the eye. It's all theory and conjecture.
Like I said no one can do what my OP suggests, so I'll let the thread croak.
[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by jfj123
No kidding. We can look up Euglena, Planaria, Nautilus, Compund, Simple, or Human, but none of them can satifactorily explain the evolution of the eye. It's all theory and conjecture.
Like I said no one can do what my OP suggests, so I'll let the thread croak.
[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
By all means, let the thread croak but
You obviously don't know what the word "THEORY" means in the scientific sense. You might want to look it up before dismissing what you find as only just THEORY.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Originally posted by jfj123
Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by jfj123
No kidding. We can look up Euglena, Planaria, Nautilus, Compund, Simple, or Human, but none of them can satifactorily explain the evolution of the eye. It's all theory and conjecture.
Like I said no one can do what my OP suggests, so I'll let the thread croak.
[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
By all means, let the thread croak but
You obviously don't know what the word "THEORY" means in the scientific sense. You might want to look it up before dismissing what you find as only just THEORY.
I know exactly what a theory is. It is "JUST" a theory, sorry to burst your bubble. Many Scientists question it as well. I think it's going to crumble soon.
God Bless
[edit on 16-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.
Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
No, actually read my OP.
You come on my thread without anything scientific to say at all. Now you're gonna show me how the eye and brain are flawed?Nice argument.
I asked you a couple questions. Respond to them if you know so much. Your ignorance is evident just by the fact you are using my beliefs to insult me. Why don't you show me some science? Or some engineering? Or do you just like to read your own posts?
[edit on 16-3-2009 by B.A.C.]
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yes, God did it. You're right.
Any thing to say on the Brain or Eye?
Rate of evolution
The first fossils of eyes appeared during the lower Cambrian period (about 540 million years ago). This period saw a burst of apparently rapid evolution, dubbed the "Cambrian explosion". One of the many hypotheses for "causes" of this diversification holds that the evolution of eyes initiated an arms race that led to a rapid spate of evolution.[6] Earlier than this, organisms may have had use for light sensitivity, but not for fast locomotion and navigation by vision.
Since the fossil record, particularly of the Early Cambrian, is so poor, it is difficult to constrain the rate of eye evolution. Simple modelling, invoking nothing other than small mutations exposed to natural selection, demonstrates that a primitive optical sense organ could evolve into a complex human-like eye in under a few hundred thousand years.[7]*
