Does the "Eye" and "Brain" kill Evolutionary Theory?

LoL even B,A,C knows that the eye was created in steps.

Its just as real as you creating a word with you key board. And God creating man from dirt. And giving man life from his breath. As science claims life comes from space.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66
LoL even B,A,C knows that the eye was created in steps.

Its just as real as you creating a word with you key board. And God creating man from dirt. And giving man life from his breath. As science claims life comes from space.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

It seems obvious, in my opinion, that BAC has an anti-evolution agenda due to BAC's religious beliefs. This seems very thinly veiled in my opinion.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by spy66
LoL even B,A,C knows that the eye was created in steps.

Its just as real as you creating a word with you key board. And God creating man from dirt. And giving man life from his breath. As science claims life comes from space.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

It seems obvious, in my opinion, that BAC has an anti-evolution agenda due to BAC's religious beliefs. This seems very thinly veiled in my opinion.

Not veiled at all. That's why I'm in this section of the forum.

It isn't due to my beliefs though, it's due to my disbelief in Evolutionary Theory. You just figured this out?

Originally posted by jfj123
Here is an interesting computer simulation study of an eye of a vertebrate.

The simulation is Intelligently Designed.

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 [theory](which are more a problem in brain, than eye, evolution)[/theory]. 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. [theory]This fits in with the idea that adaptive evolution proceeds in small gradual stages[/theory]. 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, [theory]as selection would reject them in nature[/theory].

How long did it take?

The complete evolution of an eye like that of a vertebrate or octupus took about 2000 steps. In a simulated intelligently designed environment

Nilsson and Pelger used [theory]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.[/theory]

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 [theory]conceptual framework for understanding how the vertebrate eye, as we know it, has emerged over evolutionary time[/theory].

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 [theory]strongly suggests that it is the gene from which the more complex vertebrate βγ-crystallins evolved[/theory].

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. So?

The researchers say this [theory]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[/theory]. This combination of genes [theory]appears to have then been selected in an early vertebrate during the evolution of its visual system, giving rise to the lens[/theory].

Yup more theories, sorry theories don't clear anything up, this is all a bunch of BS hypotheses. A computer simulation is designed with a purpose. I can show you anything happening in theory with C++.

This type of research wouldn't be tolerated or accepted in other Scientific fields. Real Science I mean

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

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by spy66
LoL even B,A,C knows that the eye was created in steps.

Its just as real as you creating a word with you key board. And God creating man from dirt. And giving man life from his breath. As science claims life comes from space.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

It seems obvious, in my opinion, that BAC has an anti-evolution agenda due to BAC's religious beliefs. This seems very thinly veiled in my opinion.

Not veiled at all. That's why I'm in this section of the forum.

It isn't due to my beliefs though, it's due to my disbelief in Evolutionary Theory. You just figured this out?

It's obvious that you cannot believe in evolution even with all the evidence because it affects your belief system.
Do you have anything to say about my previous post regarding the evolution of the eye? Are those scientists wrong too? If so, explain using scientific principals how they are wrong.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Originally posted by jfj123
Here is an interesting computer simulation study of an eye of a vertebrate.


The simulation is Intelligently Designed.

Your agenda to discredit science in general is amusing and futile. You'll never be able to discredit evolution no matter how much your belief systems makes you want to. It's a shame you're having such a hard time with reality.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Yup more theories, sorry theories don't clear anything up,

I notice you still don't understand what a theory is. If you did, you'd know that it indeed clears some things up.
Would you like me to post the definition of a theory again? or are you having a comprehension problem?

[edit on 16-3-2009 by jfj123]

reply to post by jfj123


I never thought I could discredit it. What makes you think that? I just don't like following theories that are full of holes. Scientists realize the Theory isn't explaining things anymore, they are desperately searching for answers they can't find. Give molecular biology about 5 more years max, then they'll have to revamp the whole theory again.

Gravity
Electromagnetics
Atomic

Evolutionary Theory fails.


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

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

 

I never thought I could discredit it. What makes you think that? I just don't like following theories that are bunk.

Gravity

Electromagnetics

Atomic

Evolutionary Theory

fails.

Prove it's bunk
Go ahead and post your evidence.
I'd love to see it.
Still waiting.....
Oh yeah that's right, you're never going to post any evidence to support your silly idea

reply to post by jfj123


Like I said, I don't need evidence. The whole theory is just that, theory. The theory keeps getting tweaked to support new evidence. The evidence is supposed to support the theory, not the other way around.

Could I say anything about what we know of Gravity? Nope.

Could I say anything about what we know of Electromagnetics? Nope.

You'll see in a few years, when they make their next major discovery and have to tweak the theory again. How many times now? 10? 20?

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

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

 

Like I said, I don't need evidence.

No it's perfectly ok to make completely baseless statements and expect everyone to except them as truth over things that have been scientifically verified over and over. Give me a break.

The whole theory is just that, theory.

Yes, you are absolutely right. It's called the Theory of Evolution. Now since you STILL, for some unknown reason, don't know what a THEORY is, I'll post the definition for you AGAIN.

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.

So when you say the whole thing is a theory, you are legitimizing evolution Irony is fun

The theory keeps getting tweaked to support new evidence.

That's the whole idea. New evidence improves upon the existing theory. What about this don't you get? This is how all science works.


[edit on 16-3-2009 by jfj123]

Originally posted by B.A.C.

You'll see in a few years, when they make their next major discovery and have to tweak the theory again. How many times now?

10? 20?

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

I see the problem now. You simply have no understanding of the scientific method. You have a learning gap in this area which needs to be filled. My suggestion would be some basic college science courses. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm being serious. The fact that you don't understand the basics, I think is causing the whole problem.

Science is a copy of the original. I wouldn't trust a copy that has 100+ different explanations that changes every time something new is discovered.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by B.A.C.

You'll see in a few years, when they make their next major discovery and have to tweak the theory again. How many times now?

10? 20?

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

I see the problem now. You simply have no understanding of the scientific method. You have a learning gap in this area which needs to be filled. My suggestion would be some basic college science courses. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm being serious. The fact that you don't understand the basics, I think is causing the whole problem.

Theories are supposed to be based on OBSERVATIONS and TESTING. We have never observed a new species come from an old one (finches with different size beaks are still finches, mutant fruit flies are still fruit flies), we can't test for evolution. It's that simple. It's all based on facts that they try to fit into the "unknown".

I know exactly what a theory is. I come up with theories all the time when I design software or architecture, except my theories can be shown to be true. There's the difference. When designing software or architecture for computers, theory comes into play all the time, technology was born out of science (real science). Don't even try to tell me I don't know about theories.

Anyway, the scientific method isn't being applied properly with Evolutionary Theory. It's the only theory out there that has to go to court to protect itself. It's the only theory out there that has to redefine words to fit it. It's the only theory out there that changes every 5 years (except abstract theories, like M theory etc,).

Go open a 1950's text book on Electricity, everything still applies, there has been new stuff added, but the old stuff still applies. That's a real theory. Observable and Testable.

Originally posted by spy66
Science is a copy of the original. I wouldn't trust a copy that has 100+ different explanations that changes every time something new is discovered.

Exactly.

It's awful easy to change a theory to fit facts. You have the facts now you just have to write a story to explain those facts. Junk Science.

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Like I said, I don't need evidence. The whole theory is just that, theory. The theory keeps getting tweaked to support new evidence.

How DARE they!
They should learn from religious examples.
Come up with one idea and then stick with it regardless of the evidence!
Screw the evidence! It has no say in the truth!
A theory isn't worth crap if it doesn't get it right the first time!

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Go open a 1950's text book on Electricity, everything still applies, there has been new stuff added, but the old stuff still applies. That's a real theory. Observable and Testable.

Actually things have changed DRAMATICALLY since a 1950's electricity text book.
You're just not getting it.
Yes we have observed evolution in and outside the lab but you don't care to learn it and understand it. Your loss.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by B.A.C.
Like I said, I don't need evidence. The whole theory is just that, theory. The theory keeps getting tweaked to support new evidence.

How DARE they!
They should learn from religious examples.
Come up with one idea and then stick with it regardless of the evidence!
Screw the evidence! It has no say in the truth!
A theory isn't worth crap if it doesn't get it right the first time!

Again you have to bring up religion. I'm honoured to be persecuted by you. Nothing else to bring up I guess? No problem.

The first time? It's been 150 years and 100 tweaks later and it still isn't right

Anyone can write a story to fit facts. That's not science. It's science fiction.

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

reply to post by melatonin


I am not sure if this thread is just about eyes or all about creation and evolution.
My favorite eye fossil is the trilobite. (Phacops Rana) had a lot of early eye
or light sensors. Devonian, 320 million years ago. Plus or minus a few. I love whales with legs.
If I read and interpret your posts correctly, it seems you are an Evolutionist that, thank God, doesn't believe in random selection. I like to think selection and progressive adaptation.
I am born again and believe that evolution and creation are one in the same.
This idea I have not heard or seen discussed.
My thought is, if my idea is correct, then there would be no need to fight over the difference.
I have traced the fossil record back to the tiniest found life forms.
They had to be created or create themselves from inorganic's.
Either way, call the first one God, Buddha, The Great Father or make up your own name. All life would descend from the first one and replicate from that intelligence. Becoming more sophisticated exponentially.
A brain or eye is an easy task in 4 billion years from that kind of intelligence.
You can check the fossil record or read the bible. Both are worshiped by a hell of a lot of good people. I would appreciate your thoughts.

Originally posted by jfj123

I see the problem now. You simply have no understanding of the scientific method. You have a learning gap in this area which needs to be filled. My suggestion would be some basic college science courses. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm being serious. The fact that you don't understand the basics, I think is causing the whole problem.

I have to agree with this 100% ...

BAC,

Because you have taken this "debate" in direction of proclaiming ignorance, then I am going to take it down to the level that you so obviously feel more comfortable with.

Your argument that evolutionary science does not explain the brain and the eye is wrong.

There is nothing you can post to change this, unless you completely change your mind and agree that evolution is a valid and testable scientific theory that explains and predicts the origins of species, including the evolution of the human brain and eye.

Everything that you have posted contrary to this, has had no basis in fact or logic, let alone science.

Therefore, this debate goes to the side of the negative.

I sincerely hope that your future threads will hold more substance than "I don't have to offer any evidence to try and prove my side of the argument because I am right"

Not only is that a pointless and boring debate to be part of but it goes directly against the motto of this site.

Peace

Edit spelling

[edit on 16/3/09 by Horza]