Does the "Eye" and "Brain" kill Evolutionary Theory?, page 4

reply to post by Horza

---

I don't need any proof. I'm not trying to prove anything about Creationism. I'm pointing out how Evolutionary Theory doesn't explain everything.

Where did you see me say I'm trying to prove Creationism? Try to get your reading done and your points straight before you respond. It really makes you look ignorant.

As for the rest of your post, I still haven't see anything about the brain or eye.



[edit on 16-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

reply to post by TruthParadox

---

I don't have to provide evidence it didn't evolve. There is no evidence it DID evolve. That's my whole point. It's all put together with theory instead of facts.

My evidence that it didn't evolve, is Science's lack of evidence it DID evolve.

There's your evidence.

As far as what Scientists doubt Evolutionary Theory, there is a lot of them. There is a link to a list of LEADING Scientists that say it doesn't answer their questions or explain things that they observe. Here: www.abovetopsecret.com... this is only a partial list, there are a lot more obviously.

What does the percentage matter anyway? Does that make any point? What percentage doubted Einstein? It's quality not quantity that matters in Science. If they have doubts shouldn't it be discussed? Or just censored? Is that Academic Freedom? I think not.



[edit on 16-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I don't have to provide evidence it didn't evolve. There is no evidence it DID evolve. That's my whole point. It's all put together with theory instead of facts.

We've explained to you how it would be possible for the eye to evolve.
What problem do you have with it?
It can't just be a lack of evidence which "kills evolutionary theory".
If that were the case, then a lack of evidence would kill creationism.
However, there is a ton of evidence in favor of tToE.


en.wikipedia.org...

Read that, then come back and explain why the eye "kills evolutionary theory"...

Originally posted by B.A.C.
My evidence that it didn't evolve, is Science's lack of evidence it DID evolve.

My evidence that God doesn't exist is a complete lack of evidence that he does.
I'm sure you wouldn't accept that now would you?
But there is evidence for evolution, and the eye does not present a problem to Evolutionary Theory.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
As far as what Scientists doubt Evolutionary Theory, there is a lot of them. There is a link to a list of LEADING Scientists that say it doesn't answer their questions or explain things that they observe. Here: www.abovetopsecret.com... this is only a partial list, there are a lot more obviously.

I hope there are a lot more .
I wonder how many of them were born creationists, and are biased towards not accepting Evolutionary Theory (how many are Americans)?
Not that it really matters either way.
There will always be people in opposition, but the percentage is what matters because it's far less likely to be biased than one list.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
What does the percentage matter anyway? Does that make any point?

It does make a point when you are presenting a list of those who disagree with evolution.
Because when you step away and look at the whole picture, you see that it's a tiny percentage of leading scientists who doubt evolution.
That means that more people find the evidence to be sufficient than those who don't.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
It's quality not quantity that matters in Science. If they have doubts shouldn't it be discussed? Or just censored? Is that Academic Freedom? I think not.

It should be discussed! I'm still waiting for it!
Why does the eye or brain "kill" evolutionary theory?

reply to post by TruthParadox

---

Truth,

Say what you want. It really doesn't bother me. The difference is I NEVER said I had any proof or evidence. You seem to think I did for some reason.

Numbers don't mean anything.

When Darwin came up with his theory, mainstream science thought he was nuts.

Same with Einstein.

Argue all you want, but admit it's hatred that motivates you, not Science. Or else why would you be on the Origins & Creationism forum? You say you're sure you know everything, what could you possibly learn here? Nothing right? This is just sport to you to insult peoples beliefs, no problem, keep it up, what comes around goes around big guy.

I made the thread, it's my rules for the thread (other than ATS rules that is). Don't like it? Make your own thread.


Psalms:59:8: But thou, O LORD, shalt laugh at them; thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

reply to post by TruthParadox

---

Well i guess science also explains perfectly how -1 becomes +1. By saying it has to change two times to become +1.

I just love YouTube science lol.

reply to post by spy66

---

Yes I see your point now. It's about separate dimensions. I never looked at it this way before. Makes sense now.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by B.A.C.
As far as what Scientists doubt Evolutionary Theory, there is a lot of them. There is a link to a list of LEADING Scientists that say it doesn't answer their questions or explain things that they observe. Here: www.abovetopsecret.com... this is only a partial list, there are a lot more obviously.

I hope there are a lot more .
I wonder how many of them were born creationists, and are biased towards not accepting Evolutionary Theory (how many are Americans)?
Not that it really matters either way.
There will always be people in opposition, but the percentage is what matters because it's far less likely to be biased than one list.

The thing is that the claim is essentially BS. Leading scientists? lol

Many are engineers, others are philosophers. Only a proportion are even biologists, and how many would be classed as evolutionary biologists? None?

Bijan Nemati, PhD Physics, Senior Engineer, Jet Propulsion

lol

Rafe Payne, Prof. & Chair, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Biola U

Biola? Figures...

Terry Morrison, PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U.

Haz PhD? Cool.

Chris Grace, Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Biola U

Hmm, psychologist. Biola? lol

Robert J. Marks, Prof. of Signal & Image Processing, U. of Washington

Yea, finchie. He's an engineer. Now at Baylor and one of Dembski's crew.

Pandas thumb haz got more Steve's with PhDs in the field of biology than that list. How sad. Even the clergy list has over 10,000.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by spy66

---

Yes I see your point now. It's about separate dimensions. I never looked at it this way before. Makes sense now.

You are right that's what its all about. But not like in only space, but in all shapes and sizes as well. shape 1 might no be like shape 2 after it has changed. At stage two it becomes something else then it used to be.

-1 one has to go through x changes because it has to be served the energy constantly until it gets to +1. So who know what dimensions are created at each stage of the changes before it reaches +1.

There is a space time between -1 and 0. A lot of things can happen in that space time. And then there is a space time between 0 and +1.

Oh i forgot to mention you have to always include the energy that causes the changes. If not -1 wont change.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

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

---

I don't have to provide evidence it didn't evolve. There is no evidence it DID evolve.

Actually there is and a very small amount of the evidence has been posted here.

It's all put together with theory instead of facts.

Again, it's obvious you need to learn what a scientific theory is. I've posted a definition for you so there's really no excuse.

My evidence that it didn't evolve, is Science's lack of evidence it DID evolve.

But since science has shown evidence that the eye did evolve, you're obviously wrong

reply to post by jfj123

---

Why are you responding to me? I hope I didn't give you the impression that post was meant for you.

Just curious.

reply to post by melatonin

---

You too. Did I pause and give you the impression I was talking to you?

Time for the gang up? You guys are so predictable.

Too funny.

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

---

You too. Did I pause and give you the impression I was talking to you?

Time for the gang up? You guys are so predictable.

Too funny.

You're right.
Next time you make a false claim, everyone will just ignore it.
Would that be more to your liking?

Originally posted by B.A.C.
reply to post by jfj123

---

Why are you responding to me? I hope I didn't give you the impression that post was meant for you.

Just curious.

I responded to you because frankly I felt like it
You obviously are not aware what a theory is or that evidence of ocular evolution has been found. I'm not sure why you couldn't take 30 seconds and google these things for yourself unless of course you're trying to avoid scientific information for some reason?

reply to post by TruthParadox

---

Funny, though, I actually responded to you and expanded on your answer. The best way to treat attention whores is to, well, ignore them.

reply to post by B.A.C.

---

I agree because science can't really prove what God. "Or lets call it nature so they dont get to offended" creates things.

Because what already is can't be traced back to what it originally was before the change. Because once something has passed through equality(been created) there is no way back. There is only present space time.

Its like saying you know how mother nature created a square from a circle without observing it. By saying that it was actually made by a string.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Here is an interesting computer simulation study of an eye of a vertebrate.

The eye of a vertebrate or an octopus looks so complex that it can be difficult to believe it could have evolved by natural selection and it has traditionally been an argument against Darwinism by advocates of creationism.

Nilsson and Pelger simulated a model of the eye to find out how difficult its evolution really is.

The simulation does not cover the complete evolution of an eye. It takes light-sensitive cells as given and ignores the evolution of advanced perceptual skills (which are more a problem in brain, than eye, evolution). It concentrates on the evolution of eye shape and the lens; this is the problem that Darwin's critics have often pointed to, because they think it requires the simultaneous adjustment of many intricately related parts.

Nilsson and Pelger allowed the shape of the model eye to change at random, in steps of no more than 1% change at a time. This fits in with the idea that adaptive evolution proceeds in small gradual stages. The model eye then evolved in the computer, with each new generation formed from the optically superior eyes in the previous generation; changes that made the optics worse were rejected, as selection would reject them in nature.

How long did it take?

The complete evolution of an eye like that of a vertebrate or octupus took about 2000 steps.

Nilsson and Pelger used estimates of heritability and strength of selection to calculate how long the change might take; their answer was about 400,000 generations. Far from being difficult to evolve, the model shows that it is rather easy.

Interesting that the evolution of the eye only took 2000 steps over 400,000 generations.
www.blackwellpublishing.com...

Here is the source which also includes a neat quicktime video.

Here is some additional info

in research reported this week in Current Biology, the evolutionary history of a critical eye protein has revealed a previously unrecognized link between certain components of sophisticated vertebrate eyes - like those found in humans - and those of the primitive light-sensing systems of invertebrates. The findings, from researchers at the University of Oxford, the University of London and Radboud University in The Netherlands, put in place a conceptual framework for understanding how the vertebrate eye, as we know it, has emerged over evolutionary time.

Now here's a REALLY interesting tidbit

Researcher Sebastian Shimeld from Oxford approached this question by examining the evolutionary origin of one crystallin protein family, known as the βγ-crystallins. Focusing on sea squirts, the researchers found that these creatures possess a single crystallin gene, which is expressed in its primitive light-sensing system. The identification of this single crystallin gene strongly suggests that it is the gene from which the more complex vertebrate βγ-crystallins evolved.

Perhaps even more remarkable is the finding that expression of the sea squirt crystallin gene is controlled by genetic elements that also respond to the factors that control lens development in vertebrates. This was demonstrated when regulatory regions of the sea squirt gene were transferred to frog embryos where they drove gene expression in the tadpoles' own visual system, including the lens.

The researchers say this suggests that prior to the evolution of the lens, there was a regulatory link between two tiers of genes, those that would later become responsible for controlling lens development, and those that would help give the lens its special physical properties. This combination of genes appears to have then been selected in an early vertebrate during the evolution of its visual system, giving rise to the lens.

Hopefully this clears up the notion that there is no evidence to support the evolution of the eye.

Ex-Vatican Translator, Mauro Biglino\'s Alternative Creation/Translation Theory
  Posted 12 days ago with 40 member flags

EVOLUTION - Did YOU Know?
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags

"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags

Radical Theory Explains the Origin, Evolution, and Nature of Life, Challenges Conventional Wisdom
  Posted 17 days ago with 3 member flags

Please be more specific about which type of creationist you\'re speaking of...
  Posted 17 days ago with 2 member flags

Proof that the pharoes did not build the pyramids, so who did FIND OUT HERE
  Posted 16 days ago with 2 member flags

The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags

Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: