[_ Old Earth _] My Site

[John]

http://www.johnmuise.com/

its still in the works, what can i add to it , hmmm.

 

[Dunzo]

Hello, My name is John as you probably guessed because your so smart...

Off to a good start!Love the irony.

 

[freeway]

looks good john. will check back often to see how it going... 8-)

 

[John]

thanks, i just updated it with one of my recent articles.

 

[Dunzo]

Generally passed off as Irreducible complexity by the evolution theorists because they can’t explain it, numerous have tried but all fail, it’s obvious the eye was designed.

Hahaha WHAT?! First of all, irreducible complexity is a creationist concept to explain that an organism or feature of an organism must be designed because if any one part were removed it would fail to function.
Second, Darwin explained how the eye evolved in the Origin of Species in the 1850's!
I think a little more research is required, John.

 

[freeway]

Oh Johnny.... the dance begins... say hi to dunzo, I'm sure you know him... :-D

 

[John]

Darwin explained how the eye evolved in the Origin of Species in the 1850'

really wow this guy is good, becuase the time i checked no one knew how it evolved, in fact i think darwin himself disblived it

 

[Dunzo]

Darwin explained how the eye evolved in the Origin of Species in the 1850'

really wow this guy is good, becuase the time i checked no one knew how it evolved, in fact i think darwin himself disblived it

No. Let me guess, you've seen other creationists quote Darwin as saying in On the Origin of Species that the evolution of the eye seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree"?
Well it's true, he did write that. But, and this is a very big but, he immediately followed this up with:

if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

Also, checking creationist sites to see if evolutionists know how the eye evolved isn't really going to produce realistic results.

 

[John]

where is darwins proof ? its nothing to make assumptions

 

[Patashu]

OK, evolution of the eye.

Let's propose that at some point an organism gained a mutation that created a photosensitive patch of tissue. This patch, while insensitive and unrefined, can be used to differentiate between light and shade; it can detected the presence of night time, shelter or a predator overhead. By using this simple detector a slight advantage over similar creatures without this very basic eye can be achieved. (Note that this would not be a positive mutation in an environment that does not recieve much light, ie deep sea or in a cavernous system)

Positive mutations to enhance the features of such an eye would be an increase in sensitivity of the tissue, cupping the photosensitive surface inwards so it catches more area and can determine direction of incoming light just like ours does, covering it with a protective transparent layer...these all help to enhance the use of such an eye.

This image goes through it pretty well:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lution.svg

So does the video if you wish to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ
(yes, I know, it's Dawkins but this is the current theory on eye evolution)

 

[John]

OK, evolution of the eye.

Let's propose that at some point an organism gained a mutation that created a photosensitive patch of tissue. This patch, while insensitive and unrefined, can be used to differentiate between light and shade; it can detected the presence of night time, shelter or a predator overhead. By using this simple detector a slight advantage over similar creatures without this very basic eye can be achieved. (Note that this would not be a positive mutation in an environment that does not recieve much light, ie deep sea or in a cavernous system)

Positive mutations to enhance the features of such an eye would be an increase in sensitivity of the tissue, cupping the photosensitive surface inwards so it catches more area and can determine direction of incoming light just like ours does, covering it with a protective transparent layer...these all help to enhance the use of such an eye.

This image goes through it pretty well:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lution.svg

So does the video if you wish to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ
(yes, I know, it's Dawkins but this is the current theory on eye evolution)

so before they had this light sensitive patch what did they do ?
also take into consideration that not one skeleton has been found that did not have eye sockets, indicating the eyes were always there.

i have yet to see a mutation or evolutionary process add information to the genome, just alter existing code.

so were in the fossil record are the transitions from eyeless to eyes ?

Its nice to present a theory but no zero evidential weight a theory is as far as it goes when it comes down to the eyes.

 

[Dunzo]

OK, evolution of the eye.

Let's propose that at some point an organism gained a mutation that created a photosensitive patch of tissue. This patch, while insensitive and unrefined, can be used to differentiate between light and shade; it can detected the presence of night time, shelter or a predator overhead. By using this simple detector a slight advantage over similar creatures without this very basic eye can be achieved. (Note that this would not be a positive mutation in an environment that does not recieve much light, ie deep sea or in a cavernous system)

Positive mutations to enhance the features of such an eye would be an increase in sensitivity of the tissue, cupping the photosensitive surface inwards so it catches more area and can determine direction of incoming light just like ours does, covering it with a protective transparent layer...these all help to enhance the use of such an eye.

This image goes through it pretty well:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lution.svg

So does the video if you wish to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ
(yes, I know, it's Dawkins but this is the current theory on eye evolution)

so before they had this light sensitive patch what did they do ?
also take into consideration that not one skeleton has been found that did not have eye sockets, indicating the eyes were always there.

I believe jwu already covered this. IIRC, he said that skeletons evolved around the eye which had already formed.

i have yet to see a mutation or evolutionary process add information to the genome, just alter existing code.

*sigh* I do recall giving you a list.

so were in the fossil record are the transitions from eyeless to eyes ?

'Fraid I don't know. If someone wants to jump in here that'd be great.

Its nice to present a theory but no zero evidential weight a theory is as far as it goes when it comes down to the eyes.

Learn the defintion of a theory in a scientific context!

 

[John]

I believe jwu already covered this. IIRC, he said that skeletons evolved around the eye which had already formed.

again zero evidence.

*sigh* I do recall giving you a list.

link again sorry, so many topics going at once i must have missed it.

'Fraid I don't know. If someone wants to jump in here that'd be great.

i do believe there arnt any, but if someone wants to show me that would really put a wrench i nmy gears

Learn the definition of a theory in a scientific context!

hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world, Hmm how can one have an educated guess on something never seen or can be tested, you can't there is no education there, all you have is a guess.

 

[Dunzo]

I believe jwu already covered this. IIRC, he said that skeletons evolved around the eye which had already formed.

again zero evidence.

Let's make this clearer. Are we talking about a skeletal eye socket, or the shallow recess of photosensitive cells? Assuming you're talking about the skeletal one, it could have developed from protective tissue or something. I really don't know.

[quote:e76ef]
*sigh* I do recall giving you a list.

link again sorry, so many topics going at once i must have missed it.[/quote:e76ef]
Information can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
Make sure to read some of it so you don't repeat arguments that have already been defeated.

[quote:e76ef]
'Fraid I don't know. If someone wants to jump in here that'd be great.
i do believe there arnt any, but if someone wants to show me that would really put a wrench i nmy gears

Turns out they appeared in the Cambrian Explosion. Fossil record supports this.

[quote:e76ef]
Learn the definition of a theory in a scientific context!

hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world, Hmm how can one have an educated guess on something never seen or can be tested, you can't there is no education there, all you have is a guess.[/quote:e76ef][/quote:e76ef]
A hypothesis is a "guess" based on observation. This can then be tested.
It turns into a theory if it survives repeated testing. Note that a theory is usually VERY WELL SUPPORTED.

 

[John]

Let's make this clearer. Are we talking about a skeletal eye socket, or the shallow recess of photosensitive cells? Assuming you're talking about the skeletal one, it could have developed from protective tissue or something. I really don't know.

skeletal eye socket mostly.

Information can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
Make sure to read some of it so you don't repeat arguments that have already been defeated.

i'll read it but don't be so quick to jump to the "defeated" claim

Turns out they appeared in the Cambrian Explosion. Fossil record supports this.

citation and proof?

A hypothesis is a "guess" based on observation. This can then be tested.
It turns into a theory if it survives repeated testing. Note that a theory is usually VERY WELL SUPPORTED

the evolution of the eye socket can be tested ? what we have time machines now ?

 

[Patashu]

OK, evolution of the eye.

Let's propose that at some point an organism gained a mutation that created a photosensitive patch of tissue. This patch, while insensitive and unrefined, can be used to differentiate between light and shade; it can detected the presence of night time, shelter or a predator overhead. By using this simple detector a slight advantage over similar creatures without this very basic eye can be achieved. (Note that this would not be a positive mutation in an environment that does not recieve much light, ie deep sea or in a cavernous system)

Positive mutations to enhance the features of such an eye would be an increase in sensitivity of the tissue, cupping the photosensitive surface inwards so it catches more area and can determine direction of incoming light just like ours does, covering it with a protective transparent layer...these all help to enhance the use of such an eye.

This image goes through it pretty well:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lution.svg

So does the video if you wish to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ
(yes, I know, it's Dawkins but this is the current theory on eye evolution)

so before they had this light sensitive patch what did they do ?

Not see shade/darkness/a predator above them. Life can exist without sight; there is smell, hearing, heat and touch to work off of.

also take into consideration that not one skeleton has been found that did not have eye sockets, indicating the eyes were always there.

Not one skeleton of what?

i have yet to see a mutation or evolutionary process add information to the genome, just alter existing code.

Define 'information'. What does it measure, what are its units, how is it determined and measured and what does it signify?
Given two genomes, how do I determine which genome has a higher information content, using your definition of information?

so were in the fossil record are the transitions from eyeless to eyes ?

I Am Not A Paleontologist, but I'll snoop around and see what I can find.

Its nice to present a theory but no zero evidential weight a theory is as far as it goes when it comes down to the eyes.

Why do you not consider evidence you have not yet seen? Have you scoured the entire scientific body of knowledge and yet found no examples? Have any science degrees? It's one thing to say you haven't seen the evidence but you can't conclude there is none from this.

 

[John]

there we go, updated once more. this time with my team members.

 

[Bryce]

Cool, nice site m8 lovin the background.
Have a nice day

 

[freeway]

nice addition... and yes.... "FREE HOVIND" :-D

 

[John]

we got 4 head members, with 40 members of the church (all youth) helping us, all together we have 150 people in the group doing work,(106 high school non church or other church)) i have a seminar next week, its gonna rock.