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: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by stooge247
 


I actually like the monkey to human theory better because they actually have so much evidence that we evolved from a ape Kind.

But still Apes are Apes and humans are humans with exactly the same gene pool as to day as they had years ago.

Its like saying a kid starts out as a ape and becomes a human after graduation. Because the kid got smarter.




posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


When did I say the Eye or Brain killed Evolutionary Theory?

Notice the question mark???

It's already dead in my eyes, but I never stated that in my OP.


I asked for opinions, well I got them alright. Although most of them had nothing to do with the eye or brain.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
This is an example of BAC's obvious agenda to try and discredit Evolution in favor of religion. BAC's idea of: never provide factual information but constantly attack and keep attacking until everyone goes away, is remarkably similar to the way scientology tries to silence it's detractors.

I'm sure BAC will say he's not a scientologist so before that comes up, I'm not implying that. I'm saying this is an example of what BAC is doing in his posts. Notice how they attack and try and put the reporter on the defense and make the reporter prove everything, yet they never back up ANYTHING they say.

BAC has no evidence to suggest evolution is incorrect.
BAC can't refute any evidence posted here.
BAC can't even refute the definition of evolution yet BAC's stance never changes. Why is that?


Read my OP. Where are these grand claims I make? What is there to back up in my OP? I asked for opinions, or explanations for how the eye and brain formed. You are the only one who provided any real data. Although it was based on computer simulations that really only prove we can write Intelligently Designed code to make it happen (your source even admits they left out the more complex areas of the eye). I can write code to make ANYTHING happen.


1. We've never seen an actual new species arise from an old one. Finches with different size beaks and mutant fruit flies still belong to their respective species. The whole premise of Evolutionary Theory is that new species can arise from existing species. (I'd say this is evidence for my side).

2. Punctuated Equilibrium or Phyletic Gradualism? There is no direct evidence of intermediaries no matter which of these 2 competing theories you apply (Just the fact that there are competing theories in this area shows they can't agree on what occurred). You can't find a tooth or a chunk of skull or a leg bone and piece the rest together yourself and claim it as an intermediary. Darwin said if his theory was correct we should be finding these all over. We don't.

3. As far as insects evolving to protect against insecticides, there is direct evidence that the protection information was always in the population of insects DNA. They didn't evolve anything.

4. I could list all the frauds committed by Evolutionists, Piltdown Man, etc. I won't, we've already discussed that in another thread, but, it does show that if they had real evidence they wouldn't have needed to attempt fraudulent finds.

There's a few points for consideration.

BTW - how dare you even bring up Scientologists and me in the same breath. I asked with a question mark for opinions on the eye and brain, that's all I did. It isn't my fault no one wanted to address my OP. My OP states very clearly I am asking a question. You're the one trying to throw it back in my court asking for evidence, when I never claimed I had any according to the OP which is what this thread should be based on.

Instead of attacking my OP you choose to attack me, of course I'll defend myself. You think all Christians are push overs? We have a saying in Canada "How do you get a Canadian to say sorry?", "Step on his foot". This doesn't apply to me.





[edit on 17-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I asked for opinions, well I got them alright. Although most of them had nothing to do with the eye or brain.


Gee I wonder why
...
Maybe because you presented no problems in evolutionary theory - except of course a couple of mathematical fallacies...

Is the whole point of this thread for others to provide you with evidence of evolution and then you ignore it?



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I asked for opinions, well I got them alright. Although most of them had nothing to do with the eye or brain.


Gee I wonder why
...
Maybe because you presented no problems in evolutionary theory - except of course a couple of mathematical fallacies...

Is the whole point of this thread for others to provide you with evidence of evolution and then you ignore it?


I'm not ignoring anything, like I said very few have provided any information on this thread about the brain or eye. The ones who did, I didn't ignore, I pointed out that most of it was theory with no hard evidence. I've also provided why I think the evidence for Evolutionary Theory is scant at best. In my post above here:www.abovetopsecret.com... . I've made points too, that aren't even addressed. At least I try to address each of your points individually.




[edit on 17-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Evolution use the word "predict", "Theory" and "could" a lot. And they also use the sentence. The odds of that happening is 1: in a X to the power of X. And then they say! with odds like that this must be a fact.

What a are the odds that evolution is not a religion to some ?

I dont believe everything i read. And i dont use Google to say that this is what i know. Because its not what i know but what i read.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

What i am saying is:

A human eye dont just happen randomly it has to be put together by a proses.

Well the process in which the human eye evolves was evolution.


And that proses is controlled by a equation.

Well the process is controlled through environment, genetics, etc.. I suppose, hypothetically, you could express the variables in an equations but it would be incredibly complex.


But we shear the same pool of matter and energy to fit our kind. But we dont shear the same symbols in the equation. Because if we did we would all be the same.


So what are you getting at with this?



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Read my OP. Where are these grand claims I make? What is there to back up in my OP? I asked for opinions, or explanations for how the eye and brain formed.

I'm specifically referring to the posts you've made after your opening statement.


You are the only one who provided any real data. Although it was based on computer simulations that really only prove we can write Intelligently Designed code to make it happen (your source even admits they left out the more complex areas of the eye). I can write code to make ANYTHING happen.

Actually I've posted evidence from additional sources later in the thread as promised. You must have missed it.


1. We've never seen an actual new species arise from an old one. Finches with different size beaks and mutant fruit flies still belong to their respective species. The whole premise of Evolutionary Theory is that new species can arise from existing species. (I'd say this is evidence for my side).


maybe this will help answer some questions

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

www.talkorigins.org...



2. Punctuated Equilibrium or Phyletic Gradualism? There is no direct evidence of intermediaries no matter which of these 2 competing theories you apply (Just the fact that there are competing theories in this area shows they can't agree on what occurred). You can't find a tooth or a chunk of skull or a leg bone and piece the rest together yourself and claim it as an intermediary. Darwin said if his theory was correct we should be finding these all over. We don't.


a bit more info regarding transitionals

Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant.


There's too much info to post here but you can go to
www.talkorigins.org...
to find the following:


-Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
- Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
-Transition from fishes to first amphibians
- Transitions among amphibians
- Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
- Transitions among reptiles
- Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
- Transition from reptiles to first birds


Specifically about Punctuated Equilibria
www.talkorigins.org...


4. I could list all the frauds committed by Evolutionists, Piltdown Man, etc. I won't, we've already discussed that in another thread, but, it does show that if they had real evidence they wouldn't have needed to attempt fraudulent finds.

We both know these items were discussed and for the most part debunked in another thread so posting knowingly false info is a big NO-NO.


There's a few points for consideration.

BTW - how dare you even bring up Scientologists and me in the same breath.

I just gotta be me



I asked with a question mark for opinions on the eye and brain, that's all I did.

Yes that's all you did
And we know what you've done since. Try to dismiss evolution as false.


It isn't my fault no one wanted to address my OP. My OP states very clearly I am asking a question. You're the one trying to throw it back in my court asking for evidence, when I never claimed I had any according to the OP which is what this thread should be based on.

So what you're saying is that your only function here was to ask the question and just read our responses ???


Instead of attacking my OP you choose to attack me, of course I'll defend myself.

I'm not attacking you, I'm asking you to back up what you say since you've asked me to back up what I say. Isn't that fair or do you think that backing up your statements are beneath you?


You think all Christians are push overs?

No. And for the record I've never stated nor implied that. FYI, I'm a christian
Specifically a catholic and I know I'm not a pushover so by default there is no way I could think that ALL christians are push overs



We have a saying in Canada "How do you get a Canadian to say sorry?", "Step on his foot". This doesn't apply to me. :
[edit on 17-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

AYE ?

[edit on 17-3-2009 by jfj123]

[edit on 17-3-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I pointed out that most of it was theory with no hard evidence.


Yes I completely agree that the evidence presented was theory. The problem is that a theory does require evidence so once again, you're misusing the word. If you're going to have a thread like this, you need to understand some key words such as THEORY as used within the context of this thread.

Your above post completely contradicts itself.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by B.A.C.
I pointed out that most of it was theory with no hard evidence.


Yes I completely agree that the evidence presented was theory. The problem is that a theory does require evidence so once again, you're misusing the word. If you're going to have a thread like this, you need to understand some key words such as THEORY as used within the context of this thread.

Your above post completely contradicts itself.


A theory explains facts. It's that explanation I have a problem with.

Clear it up? I understand what a theory is, you're trying to equate it with fact. Yes there is evidence that the theory explains. That doesn't mean the theory is right, you can't observe or test what it is explaining. The hard evidence I am referring to is the observable and testable part of the theory, you can't observe or test MaE, because according to the theory it takes millions of years to occur. This is unfalsifiable, which completely goes against what a theory should be.

Have you read what that site say's about speciation? They have about 10 definitions of species, they say to conclude if a new species has occured depends on one of these definitions. This is the type of stuff I'm talking about. This is crazy. They even admit there is a huge contoversy within the scientific community about what constitutes a species.



There has been considerable criticism of the theoretical validity and practical utility of the BSC. (Cracraft 1989, Donoghue 1985, Levin 1979, Mishler and Donoghue 1985, Sokal and Crovello 1970).


BSC = Biological Species Concept.



What evidence is necessary to show that a change produced in a population of organisms constitutes a speciation event? The answer to this question will depend on which species definition applies to the organisms involved.


Did a new species occur? It should be a direct answer, they are sidestepping this issue completely.

The whole theory is full of stuff like this.



There is no unambiguous criterion for determining that a speciation event has occurred in those cases where the BSC does not apply. This is especially true for obligately asexual organisms. Usually phenetic (e.g. phenotypic and genetic) differences between populations are used to justify a claim of speciation. A few caveats are germane to this. It is not obvious how much change is necessary to claim that a population has speciated.


All these external quotes are form the links you provided.

They can't even agree on how much evidence is necessary to say a new species has occurred.


Let's just agree to disagree, you can believe this moth bitten theory if you want, but I won't believe something thats so blatantly full of holes.

There's more evidence that the Bible is correct than this "theory".

Here's a perfect definition of Evolutionary Theorists:

Ro:1:25: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.



God Bless


[edit on 17-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.

There's more evidence that the Bible is correct than this "theory".

What evidence are you referring to?

Please be specific.

Thanks.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by spy66

What i am saying is:

A human eye dont just happen randomly it has to be put together by a proses.

Well the process in which the human eye evolves was evolution.


And that proses is controlled by a equation.

Well the process is controlled through environment, genetics, etc.. I suppose, hypothetically, you could express the variables in an equations but it would be incredibly complex.


But we shear the same pool of matter and energy to fit our kind. But we dont shear the same symbols in the equation. Because if we did we would all be the same.


So what are you getting at with this?


The eye did evolve there is no doubt about that at all. And no one is disagreeing with that.

The problem with it! is your theory of evolution.

I dont believe in it. Because i dont eat all i read within Google or science. Like some others do. The same goes for religion. But i do believe in God there is no other explanation.

Your copy theory of evolution dont stick as facts at all. But just as a theory.

As you say your self:

"I suppose, hypothetically, you could express the variables in an equations but it would be incredibly complex"



That just tell me how sure you are and how sure your theory of evolution really is. You dont know more then you read from Science or Google. And that is a fact.

The complexity is the whole clue. A theory of evolution is just a shortcut a copy theory of the original but with errors and missing parts all over the place.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by B.A.C.
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?


Frankly, I don't have the time or the text space.


“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.


What Behe means is that if he can't figure out a simpler form for the system then it's "irreducibly complex." Seriously.



“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.


A very lovely quote from the time when Cray computing power was top of the line and the PC had a staggering 64K (not Meg... kilobytes) of memory (maximum) and the only way you could get a 30 megabyte (not gigabyte... megabyte...) disk on a computer was to format it into one 20 megabyte partition and 1 10 megabyte partition and hope the darn thing didn't explode all over the software.

Been there. Worked on that. We've got supercomputers that can handle it now, thanks. So...ah...what does that have to do with the evolution of the eye other than our hardware and software wasn't that evolved 25 years ago?



“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.


Okay. This is a recent discovery. I'm not sure how you think it discounts evolutionary process. Could you explain?



“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.


Errr... Newton lived in 1704 before they even knew the retina existed. And he was a very religious man. How does the statement of a very religious man who knows nothing about modern biology speak to your question?

...and so on and so forth. Next we have a quotation from a rocket scientist who never studied biology and so forth.

Let me also note that you didn't quote the paragraph from Darwin... only one sentence and not the rest of the thing. Following that quote, Darwin then spends THREE PAGES talking about how the eye evolved (text excerpts here) :
talkorigins.org...




The Brain:



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.


Actually, he didn't. He was a polymath and certainly knew the genetics of that era. But it's hardly "orderly", as a good course in genetics will reveal to you.


I hope we can leave our beliefs out of this thread and talk strictly Science.


I'd be delighted to. Could we have some quotes on the development of the brain and the evolution of both eye and brain from biologists and neurologists? Quotes by famous people who died in the 1700's are evidence for what people thought in the 1700's but not for what the state of science reveals now. And quotes from rocket scientists, computer scientists, etc, etc don't really hold a candle to comments from for-real-certified-and-published paleontologists (who are the experts in evolution), developmental biologists, and various neurologists.

As I said, the "explanation" is a very very long one and rather complex. The eye (which you may not know since your sources don't seem to include paleontologists and evolutionary biologists) evolved not once but a number of times. And the basic brain structures are amazingly old.

Although you may not have had to learn the "12 pairs of cranial nerves" for the human brain, I had to suffer through that in a number of in-depth anatomy courses. Imagine my interest when the paleontologists pointed out the same 12 pairs of cranial nerves on an endocast (fossil) of a brain of an Arcanthrosaurus:
www.palaeos.com...

Referring page with image above embedded in discussion of evolution of arcanthrosaurs is here:
www.palaeos.com...

It appears that you found a website with quotes you liked and didn't investigate further. I think your understanding will evolve more if you read and commented on these pages rather than collecting quotes from the website of someone who wasn't very good at fact-checking:

www.pbs.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.scienceagogo.com...


And about that brain....

www.brainmuseum.org...

(this one isn't very good, but does go into some stuff at the end faculty.ed.uiuc.edu... )



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Frankly, I don't have the time or the text space.


Then why post? It was the whole point of the OP.

I've already replied to the quote on Darwin, he doesn't explain how it evolved, he gives some insights on how it may have evolved.

www.talkorigins.org is so full of contradictions and re-definitions it's pathetic.

I've been building IC and working on software, servers and PC's since the early 80's.

As far as computing power is concerned the 1985 Intel 80386 PC was capable of 4 GB RAM and as much HDD storage as the IDE channels would allow (HDD could be made accessible through software). Depending on the OS installed.

The Cray-2 of this era made the 80386 look silly in comparison.

You are right though, nowadays we can approach real time processing that is ALMOST as good as the eye (In terms of resolution). It wouldn't be a regular PC by any means though.

I'm gonna let this thread croak, I'm agreeing to disagree.

God Bless.




[edit on 17-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

The eye did evolve there is no doubt about that at all. And no one is disagreeing with that.

The problem with it! is your theory of evolution.

So you both agree and disagree with evolution????


I dont believe in it.

But you just said you did.


Because i dont eat all i read within Google or science. Like some others do. The same goes for religion. But i do believe in God there is no other explanation.

No other explanation for what?


Your copy theory of evolution dont stick as facts at all. But just as a theory.

And we have yet another person who doesn't know what a theory is....


As you say your self:

"I suppose, hypothetically, you could express the variables in an equations but it would be incredibly complex"



That just tell me how sure you are and how sure your theory of evolution really is. You dont know more then you read from Science or Google. And that is a fact.

Science is the basis for everything including the equations you are so fond of. Without science, we wouldn't have the world we have and that is a fact. The foundations of science must be solid or we wouldn't have everything that science has given us.


The complexity is the whole clue.

It's not a clue at all. Evolution states that complexity occurs over a period of time. What do you think "complexity" tells you and why? Also provide evidence to support your statement.


A theory of evolution is just a shortcut a copy theory of the original but with errors and missing parts all over the place.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

what original are you talking about?



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I believe in the verifiable observable facts of Evolution. I don't agree with the Theory. They are two different things.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by B.A.C.]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Ignore please

I know what you know. And its ok. Lets move on to some facts.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 



I have a question how do you relate to this:


Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

from this source:talkorigins.org...


Some words to focus on:

Do not fossilize well.

We do not know if ,,,,, eye followed exactly that path.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

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


I believe in the verifiable observable facts of Evolution. I don't agree with the Theory. They are two different things.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by B.A.C.]


I could post factual evidence to support evolution all day but you're not interested in it.
I have posted multiple sources regarding ocular evolution but that seemed to be ignored in favor of picking on one single site and playing the semantic game with scientific language.
Now you want the thread to die. Why would you want that? Maybe because you don't like the answers you're getting ? along with evidence you cannot refute?
I'm not saying you're a scientologist but you're acting much the way scientologists act...whatever.

[edit on 17-3-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by jfj123
 


Ignore please

I know what you know. And its ok. Lets move on to some facts.



HUH?????
What was the reason for this post at all?

Well I know what you know that I know what you know. So knowing that you know what I know means I know what you know thus proving you don't know what I know......




top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join