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: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard

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.


Yes, God did it. You're right.

Any thing to say on the Brain or Eye?


[edit on 14-3-2009 by B.A.C.]




posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yet you say I'm wrong, why? Just to disagree?

Because you disagree with sound science because it doesn't jive with what you want to believe.


You said you make assumptions about the theory based on facts, or give it the benefit of the doubt.

I would if when I don't know the facts because I know they are there- and when I go to look into it they are their.


A theory is supposed to explain facts, not the other way around.

It is. You'd know that if you didn't ignore them.


Any thing to say on the Brain or Eye?

Ok, they evolved.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Welfhard

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yet you say I'm wrong, why? Just to disagree?

Because you disagree with sound science because it doesn't jive with what you want to believe.


You said you make assumptions about the theory based on facts, or give it the benefit of the doubt.

I would if when I don't know the facts because I know they are there- and when I go to look into it they are their.


A theory is supposed to explain facts, not the other way around.

It is. You'd know that if you didn't ignore them.


Any thing to say on the Brain or Eye?

Ok, they evolved.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by Welfhard]


You seem to be mixed up. It's not what I want to believe, it's what I do believe.

Did you miss the part in my OP when I said we should talk Science and not beliefs? Is that all you got? My beliefs to use against me? Then I'm happy.

How about you use some Science to prove your point? Oh, right, because you can't in this case, gotcha.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   

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.


Where is your math?
If this were a math class, you would get an F.
Show your process.
If it's 'simply' not enough time, then it should be 'simple' to explain using the calculations you referred to.


A baby consists of trillions of atoms.
That's a big number.
9 months 'simply' isn't enough time for that.
Babies must not exist.



posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

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


Yeah...
It's a good thing it didn't happen by 'chance'.

Seriously though, these numbers can be deceptive when you have no clue how they work.
What are the odds that I'm in this exact location out of the whole Universe?

I'm sure it would be a more staggering number than "10*10*123".

Why?
Because when you take such a vast universe, with next to infinite possibilities, and you pick one scenario out, that scenario is going to look extremely unlikely.

It's like flipping an object that has 1092839018239081209839018239013 sides, getting a number, and then saying:
"See, the odds of it landing on side 'x' is:
1/1092839018239081209839018239013 - next to impossible. God must have done it!"
Very deceptive...
The odds would be the same given any outcome.

So first, you mistake evolution with 'chance', and then you fail to understand that those numbers are meaningless in such a vast universe with limitless possibilities.

Cause/reaction is all that matters, and it's what we're striving to understand.

By the way, isn't this like your 5th anti-evolution thread in the past week or so?
Do you really dislike it that much?


[edit on 14-3-2009 by TruthParadox]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Flipping Eggs has nothing to do with these numbers. It's the same as the deck of cards argument has nothing to do with these numbers. Are you really saying that you know more about probability than this mathematician? Let's be serious....

Yes, I don't agree with Evolutionary Theory, you just figured that out? I've only made 2 threads that have anything to do with Evolutionary Theory, where do you see the others? One was only to point out that Theory doesn't equal Fact, and this is the other.

Stay on topic please. Eye and Brain.

Why would the eye evolve in the first place? How did the organism even know sight existed?



[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Flipping Eggs has nothing to do with these numbers. It's the same as the deck of cards argument has nothing to do with these numbers. Are you really saying that you know more about probability than this mathematician? Let's be serious....


Yes, I am saying that I know more about probability than that mathematician.
That much is obvious.
Because any mathematician who has the slightest idea of how our Universe works would not try to come up with any number depicting probability.
It's absurd - putting a number on something when you don't even understand the cause.
I could do the same with any number of natural occurrences and make it seem impossible.
So yes, the mathematician you speak of was either ignorant, deceptive, or knew that one should not take that number very seriously.

Again, probability is irrelevant when you understand the cause.
What is the probability that water boils at the temperature that it does?
With an infinite amount of numbers, the probability is 1 to oo, next to impossible...
But the argument means nothing once you understand that it's a system of cause/reaction - just as evolution or any other natural occurrence in our Universe.

Also, that's a very weak argument:
Do you think you know more than this professional?

I could ask you the same thing:
Do you think you know more than the leading scientists who agree that the theory of evolution is the best theory we have to explain our current existence?



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Yes, I don't agree with Evolutionary Theory, you just figured that out? I've only made 2 threads that have anything to do with Evolutionary Theory, where do you see the others? One was only to point out that Theory doesn't equal Fact, and this is the other.


I know that you don't agree with Evolutionary Theory... I just find it a little funny how much you disagree with it
.
No hard feelings...



Originally posted by B.A.C.
Why would the eye evolve in the first place? How did the organism even know sight existed?


Well, it's not as though there was nothing and then there was a complex eye...
Evolution works in baby steps.
The first eye would have been very simple...
But even if the eye only allows you to see a few inches in front of you (such as hamsters), it drastically increases your likelihood of survival - not that the first eye would have been nearly that complex...


The "first" eye would probably not be considered an eye...
Perhaps it was an organ which could sense when it was light or dark, and it later evolved to be far more complex.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by B.A.C.
 


Actually there are examples of both that show these 2 items in different evolutionary stages.

So the answer is NO, the eye and brain do not kill the evolutionary theory.

A few simple google searches will help anyone find this info.



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Yea you're right the eye probably, could have, maybe formed like that. Except we don't see that, we find fully formed eyes even in the very small organisms. Also, the eyes that are used just for light detection (parietal) or Vitamin D are usually 3rd eyes on the back of the head.

Anyway, we can talk about this until were blue in the face, but neither will get anywhere. No one has done what my OP suggested, so I'll just let the thread croak.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
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.]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   

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.]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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.]


And we all know what your theory is ... or is it more of a conspiracy ... mmm ... I think that is a discussion for another thread ...

So clearly, the non-creationists posting here have made their opinions on the evolution of the eye and the brain very clear.

So how about you ... let me ask you a question.

If an all powerful god created the eye, like magic, exactly as it is now ... why the mistakes??

Surely and all powerful being such as the Christian god couldn't possibly make any mistakes!

So how do you, within your theory of creation, explain the glaringly obvious design flaws in the "design" of eye?

Mistakes that a first year engineer wouldn't make, let alone a god!



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Horza

Originally posted by B.A.C.

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.]


And we all know what your theory is ... or is it more of a conspiracy ... mmm ... I think that is a discussion for another thread ...

So clearly, the non-creationists posting here have made their opinions on the evolution of the eye and the brain very clear.

So how about you ... let me ask you a question.

If an all powerful god created the eye, like magic, exactly as it is now ... why the mistakes??

Surely and all powerful being such as the Christian god couldn't possibly make any mistakes!

So how do you, within your theory of creation, explain the glaringly obvious design flaws in the "design" of eye?

Mistakes that a first year engineer wouldn't make, let alone a god!


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.]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   

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.]

Since you have no idea what a theory is, let me post a definition for you

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.

This bears repeating
" It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations"
www.notjustatheory.com...



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   
I dont believe science until i see science create a eye out of non living matter and putting it to perfect use. That is prof that science know what they talk about.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Here is some info regarding the possible
evolutionary process of the eye

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.

www.pbs.org...

There is a lot more, less hypothetical info out there if anyone cared to look but here's a start. I'll post more later.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
If we have evolution we have a beginning.

If we have a beginning we must have time.

And that can be proven by a math equation.

A math equation can prove that a extremely intelligent source is in charge of the whole equation.



1. A equation with out a beginning: 1 , 1 = causes

2, A equation with a beginning: 1+1 = 2 creation.

Now step by step.

1. Matter and causes is separated by equality: 1 , 1 = causes

2. Equality wants to create a dimension of 2. (idea)

3. Equality looks to the Right and chooses a cause: (-)

4. Equality takes (-) and put it between 1 and 1 on the Left side.

5. The equation becomes like this: 1+1 = 2

Now the power of equality is that nothing can ever pass through with out a cause. And nothing can go back the same way it came out.

Now that's intelligence.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

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.]


What science have you offered????

Some bad quote mines ... some meaningless numbers ... where is the SCIENCE??

Or do you mean this kind of "science":


Originally posted by B.A.C.

Yes, God did it. You're right.

Any thing to say on the Brain or Eye?



Ok ... sure ... I will do your homework for you:

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]*


Source

You offer NO proof that humans appeared on the earth fully formed ... there is nothing ... not a scrap ... and yet you post on the Origins and Creationism forums asking purely for science based arguments without offering any yourself and then, then you get defensive and righteous if someone starts talking about religion when this debate is so so so so so so obviously about your Christian god.

I don't know if this is malicious hypocrisy or arrogant ignorance.

There is so much information about the evolution of the eye and the brain ... like jfj123 posted earlier, a few simple google searches can find you this info.

But it's late, so I am gonna humor you.

You said that the theory of evolution does not do a great job of explaining things like the eye and brain.

If you look at the top right of the wiki article above you will see a basic diagram that shows some possible steps for the evolution of the eye.

That seems pretty logical and straight forward to me ... but I am willing to be proven wrong.

Ok, now you show me some science where it argues that the progression of any of one these step to the next could not possibly have happened ... and we will take it from there.

Edited out bad link


[edit on 16/3/09 by Horza]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I think the thread should not be allowed to croak just yet. The science is finally being discussed B.A.C. so now you can come up with a few answers. However, the bulk of the thread has unfortunately descended into trading insults with each other and this is about the Science surely.
I am trying to hold a balanced view and may end up with serrated marks on my ass because I am sitting on the fence here but I really had to look up an invaluable Biology textbook written by Roberts. The vertebrate eye depends on the following:
1. 'The visual pigment consists of a light-absorbing pigment called retinal (a derivative of vitamin A) bonded to a membrane protein called an opsin...
2. When rhodopsin absorbs light, its retinal component changes shape, triggering a signal transduction pathway that ultimately results in a receptor potential...
3. The altered opsin molecule then activates a relay molecule in the signal-transduction pathway, a G protein called transducin which is also in the disc membrane...
4. In turn transducin activates an effector enzyme that chemically alters the second messenger in the rod cell, a nucleotide called cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP)...
5. The light induced change in retinal, which initiates the light-transducing signal pathway in rod cells is referred to as 'bleaching' of rhodopsin. '
6. The rhodopsin has to be recycled and regenerated.

from Biology, 4th Edition (1996); N.A. Campbell. p1033-1035, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company Inc. California 94025, USA (please forgive me if my referencing is inadequate).

In short, with the complex processes above, it would be necessary to avoid over-simplification e.g. by suggesting that photoreception was somehow linked to evasion responses. The mechanism would have to evolve and be selected for by an alternative mechanism AND, have intact the above processes to allow light to be detected in a cyclic manner.
Associating signal transduction with movement is quite difficult to describe using a gradualistic Darwinian framework.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join