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.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Why don't you show me some science?
Originally posted by spy66
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.
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.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
My evidence that it didn't evolve, is Science's lack of evidence it DID evolve.
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.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
What does the percentage matter anyway? Does that make any point?
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.
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.
Bijan Nemati, PhD Physics, Senior Engineer, Jet Propulsion
Rafe Payne, Prof. & Chair, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Biola U
Terry Morrison, PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U.
Chris Grace, Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Biola U
Robert J. Marks, Prof. of Signal & Image Processing, U. of Washington
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
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.
Originally posted by B.A.C.
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?
Originally posted by B.A.C.
You say you're sure you know everything, what could you possibly learn here?
Originally posted by B.A.C.
Nothing right? This is just sport to you to insult peoples beliefs, no problem, keep it up, what comes around goes around big guy.
Originally posted by spy66
Here is how you how to look at the equation:
-1 to become +1.
Canges are from: -1
dimension -1, to dimension 0, to dimension +1 = 3 So we know it has to change at least 3 times. -1+0+1 = 3 changes.
But with our common used equation you get this:
-1+ 2changes = +1
We have just added -1+2 = +1
But from counting the stages you saw that it needed to change at least 3 times. We have left out the dimension 0 witch could be perfect vacuum!
Everything that passes from - to + has to go through Zero.
But since Zero is perfect vacuum there is no matter, pressure, temprature or gravity. So -1 cant even be the same matter as +1.
What dose science have to say about that?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.