[_ Old Earth _] Natural Selection

[John]

Evolutionary scientists argue that natural selection provides the answer to why accidental chance mutations would result in the progressive evolution of life. The theory of natural selection requires progressive development at every successive step. However, random evolution and mutations cannot themselves possess intelligent understanding and planning. Unthinking evolutionary processes could never produce a half formed eye as a transition in order to ultimately form a fully funtioning eye. How could the complete eye have been produced by evolution through natural seletion by step-by-step random mutations in gradual stages? Obviously, until the eye was fully formed and functional it was of no value whatsoever.
It seems that evolutionists, whether consciously or unconsciously, have regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the enviroment, or nature, as having the ability to think.
In other words, despite their denial of intelligent design, the theory of evolution actually requires an inteligent, purposeful mind directing the process at every one of supposed millions of imaginary intermediate stages as if these incremental changes were following a plan to produce a new lifeform.

 

[jwu]

Obviously, until the eye was fully formed and functional it was of no value whatsoever.

An eye does not need to be fully formed to be functional.
A simple light sensitive patch can detect changes in light intensity, such as being covered by a shadow. That's not much, but clearly better than being completely blind.

If this patch recedes into a pouch, then one can also roughly detect the direction from which the light comes. That's even better than just being able to sense changes in light intensity.

If the opening of that pouch then narrows, the information about the direction of the light becomes more precise, more focused.

Finally a lens in front of the opening, even if it is just a drop of water, can further help focusing the light.

 

[John]

Obviously, until the eye was fully formed and functional it was of no value whatsoever.

An eye does not need to be fully formed to be functional.
A simple light sensitive patch can detect changes in light intensity, such as being covered by a shadow. That's not much, but clearly better than being completely blind.

If this patch recedes into a pouch, then one can also roughly detect the direction from which the light comes. That's even better than just being able to sense changes in light intensity.

If the opening of that pouch then narrows, the information about the direction of the light becomes more precise, more focused.

Finally a lens in front of the opening, even if it is just a drop of water, can further help focusing the light.

then before the eye, the need for eye sockects are not needed, do we have any skulls of mamals or anything without sockects ?

 

[jwu]

do we have any skulls of mamals or anything without sockects ?

Eyes far predate mammals. In fact, eyes even seem to predate skeletons. Therefore it seems that skeletons developed around the already extant eyes, not vice versa.

The nautilus is an interesting example - it has a "pinhole camera" eye without a lens

 

[John]

The nautilus is an interesting example - it has a "pinhole camera" eye without a lens

"
but its still an eye no?

Eyes far predate mammals. In fact, eyes even seem to predate skeletons. Therefore it seems that skeletons developed around the already extant eyes, not vice versa.

I laughed when i read this, i can picture it, an animal with working eyes bulgeing out of its skull for millions of years until the protective (and 100% nessiary) sockects evolved to accomidate them.
sorry that theory = fail.

i googled it, it seems every skelton unearthed had eyes. were are the thranstionals for the eye/eye socket ?

 

[jwu]

but its still an eye no?

i googled it, it seems every skelton unearthed had eyes. were are the thranstionals for the eye/eye socket ?

One without a lens, and thus clearly a transitional.

 

[John]

but its still an eye no?

i googled it, it seems every skelton unearthed had eyes. were are the thranstionals for the eye/eye socket ?

One without a lens, and thus clearly a transitional.

i would like to see a citation or article on this.

 

[jwu]

I found these articles on this topic, but only the abstract is available or subscription is required:
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/a ... /109/1/253
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/41/1/F03

The wikipedia article seems to be the best online available source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
The nautilus eye is step c on the diagram.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Evolutionary scientists argue that natural selection provides the answer to why accidental chance mutations would result in the progressive evolution of life. The theory of natural selection requires progressive development at every successive step. However, random evolution and mutations cannot themselves possess intelligent understanding and planning. Unthinking evolutionary processes could never produce a half formed eye as a transition in order to ultimately form a fully functioning eye. How could the complete eye have been produced by evolution through natural selection by step-by-step random mutations in gradual stages? Obviously, until the eye was fully formed and functional it was of no value whatsoever.
It seems that evolutionists, whether consciously or unconsciously, have regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the environment, or nature, as having the ability to think.
In other words, despite their denial of intelligent design, the theory of evolution actually requires an intelligent, purposeful mind directing the process at every one of supposed millions of imaginary intermediate stages as if these incremental changes were following a plan to produce a new life form.

This is based on one of Dembski' arguments of irreducible complex (i think that’s what he called it).

There is much science on the evolution of the eye. Many of the paths did not lead to what we see. There are many styles of eyes.

If I am not mistaken, the irreducible complex idea has been abandoned by the ID institute because it was not fruitful. In fact I think Dembski was pretty much embarrassed when he brought out (what he thought) was his Ace in the hole during the trial. The immune system.

Papers were produced on the evolution of the immune system, and apparently Dembski had failed to read any of them (very embarrassing as a "scientist").

Go research the evolution of the idea. I think you will find it highly interesting.

I still fail to see why the resistance to evolution. Evolution is a much more beautiful story than literal Genesis and I would think that Christians would find it to complement God.

 

[John]

Evolutionary scientists argue that natural selection provides the answer to why accidental chance mutations would result in the progressive evolution of life. The theory of natural selection requires progressive development at every successive step. However, random evolution and mutations cannot themselves possess intelligent understanding and planning. Unthinking evolutionary processes could never produce a half formed eye as a transition in order to ultimately form a fully functioning eye. How could the complete eye have been produced by evolution through natural selection by step-by-step random mutations in gradual stages? Obviously, until the eye was fully formed and functional it was of no value whatsoever.
It seems that evolutionists, whether consciously or unconsciously, have regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the environment, or nature, as having the ability to think.
In other words, despite their denial of intelligent design, the theory of evolution actually requires an intelligent, purposeful mind directing the process at every one of supposed millions of imaginary intermediate stages as if these incremental changes were following a plan to produce a new life form.

This is based on one of Dembski' arguments of irreducible complex (i think that’s what he called it).

There is much science on the evolution of the eye. Many of the paths did not lead to what we see. There are many styles of eyes.

If I am not mistaken, the irreducible complex idea has been abandoned by the ID institute because it was not fruitful. In fact I think Dembski was pretty much embarrassed when he brought out (what he thought) was his Ace in the hole during the trial. The immune system.

Papers were produced on the evolution of the immune system, and apparently Dembski had failed to read any of them (very embarrassing as a "scientist").

Go research the evolution of the idea. I think you will find it highly interesting.

I still fail to see why the resistance to evolution. Evolution is a much more beautiful story than literal Genesis and I would think that Christians would find it to complement God.

Don't pass Go, Don't collect 200$

 

[Heidi]

Evolutionary scientists argue that natural selection provides the answer to why accidental chance mutations would result in the progressive evolution of life. The theory of natural selection requires progressive development at every successive step. However, random evolution and mutations cannot themselves possess intelligent understanding and planning. Unthinking evolutionary processes could never produce a half formed eye as a transition in order to ultimately form a fully funtioning eye. How could the complete eye have been produced by evolution through natural seletion by step-by-step random mutations in gradual stages? Obviously, until the eye was fully formed and functional it was of no value whatsoever.
It seems that evolutionists, whether consciously or unconsciously, have regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the enviroment, or nature, as having the ability to think.
In other words, despite their denial of intelligent design, the theory of evolution actually requires an inteligent, purposeful mind directing the process at every one of supposed millions of imaginary intermediate stages as if these incremental changes were following a plan to produce a new lifeform.

Right. They can't at the same time claim that millions of mutations happened over and over again to produce a higher intelligent being, then say that they're random at the same time. : But evolutionists don't mind contradicting themselves because they're not interested in truth but in contradictions. So there's no point in conversing with people who don't mind telling lies.

 

[John]

I found these articles on this topic, but only the abstract is available or subscription is required:
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/a ... /109/1/253
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/41/1/F03

The wikipedia article seems to be the best online available source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
The nautilus eye is step c on the diagram.

So the eye had to evolve, then the eye socket ? that makes no sense, because no you have a eye whether working or not it makes no difference that is 100% unprotected, what would happen if an animal with these bugling eyes ran into pickers ? it would become useless and by following the evolutionary pattern (and its dubbed unguided : ) the eye would cease to exist, the fact that there are no fossil remains of any animal without eye sockets insists that the eye would have to have been created, is this not logical?

I like this quote.


Since the fossil record, particularly of the Early Cambrian, is so poor, it is difficult to constrain the rate of eye evolution.
Yes kids we know it happened, but can't prove it, but don't you dare say it was god.

Simple modelling, invoking nothing other than small mutations exposed to natural selection, demonstrates that a primitive optical sense organ could evolve into a complex human-like eye within under a million years.

In other words, just try to imagine how it happened :

 

[jwu]

that makes no sense, because no you have a eye whether working or not it makes no difference that is 100% unprotected, what would happen if an animal with these bugling eyes ran into pickers ? it would become useless and by following the evolutionary pattern (and its dubbed unguided : ) the eye would cease to exist, the fact that there are no fossil remains of any animal without eye sockets insists that the eye would have to have been created, is this not logical?

Why would the eye cease to exist? That'd only be the case if all of them always lost the eyes before they gained a reproductive advantage through them.

A skeleton around them doesn't help either if you run straight into a picker with the "open" side by the way. And of course, there are live examples of species whose eyes do not sit enclosed by a skeleton. E.g. in case of the aforementioned nautilus the eye is surrounded by soft tissue. Octopuses have excellent eyes as well, yet they don't have any bones in their body. And flatfishes also have exposed eyes:

Fascinating critters...

Yes kids we know it happened, but can't prove it, but don't you dare say it was god.

Note that it is talking about the rate of eye evolution. That's just one aspect. The fossil record of the cambrian is fragmented, but there still is a bunch of fossils which contain information about this.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Evolutionary scientists argue that natural selection provides the answer to why accidental chance mutations would result in the progressive evolution of life. The theory of natural selection requires progressive development at every successive step. However, random evolution and mutations cannot themselves possess intelligent understanding and planning. Unthinking evolutionary processes could never produce a half formed eye as a transition in order to ultimately form a fully functioning eye. How could the complete eye have been produced by evolution through natural selection by step-by-step random mutations in gradual stages? Obviously, until the eye was fully formed and functional it was of no value whatsoever.
It seems that evolutionists, whether consciously or unconsciously, have regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the environment, or nature, as having the ability to think.
In other words, despite their denial of intelligent design, the theory of evolution actually requires an intelligent, purposeful mind directing the process at every one of supposed millions of imaginary intermediate stages as if these incremental changes were following a plan to produce a new life form.

This is based on one of Dembski' arguments of irreducible complex (i think that’s what he called it).

There is much science on the evolution of the eye. Many of the paths did not lead to what we see. There are many styles of eyes.

If I am not mistaken, the irreducible complex idea has been abandoned by the ID institute because it was not fruitful. In fact I think Dembski was pretty much embarrassed when he brought out (what he thought) was his Ace in the hole during the trial. The immune system.

Papers were produced on the evolution of the immune system, and apparently Dembski had failed to read any of them (very embarrassing as a "scientist").

Go research the evolution of the idea. I think you will find it highly interesting.

I still fail to see why the resistance to evolution. Evolution is a much more beautiful story than literal Genesis and I would think that Christians would find it to complement God.

Don't pass Go, Don't collect 200$

Would you care to explain your differences rather than just posting a cliche'?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

*edited for accidental double posting*

 

[John]

that makes no sense, because no you have a eye whether working or not it makes no difference that is 100% unprotected, what would happen if an animal with these bugling eyes ran into pickers ? it would become useless and by following the evolutionary pattern (and its dubbed unguided : ) the eye would cease to exist, the fact that there are no fossil remains of any animal without eye sockets insists that the eye would have to have been created, is this not logical?

Why would the eye cease to exist? That'd only be the case if all of them always lost the eyes before they gained a reproductive advantage through them.

A skeleton around them doesn't help either if you run straight into a picker with the "open" side by the way. And of course, there are live examples of species whose eyes do not sit enclosed by a skeleton. E.g. in case of the aforementioned nautilus the eye is surrounded by soft tissue. Octopuses have excellent eyes as well, yet they don't have any bones in their body. And flatfishes also have exposed eyes:

Fascinating critters...

[quote:2cdf7]Yes kids we know it happened, but can't prove it, but don't you dare say it was god.

Note that it is talking about the rate of eye evolution. That's just one aspect. The fossil record of the cambrian is fragmented, but there still is a bunch of fossils which contain information about this.[/quote:2cdf7]

I was referring that if the eyes bulged outward they are more prone to injury then ones with sockets , underwater animals don't count since its less likely that they will get damaged by their environment.

No bones in their body? well thats gonna be hard to preserve as a fossil now aight it. ? :wink:
But my claim came from animals who have full skeletons. show me a skeleton that has no eye sockets.

 

[John]

Would you care to explain your differences rather than just posting a cliche'?

Your pointing out the whole " we can't prove it so god did it excuse" ? well until further evidence is found support how it came about with out god, then yes i will use the "god did it " excuse.
if i don't see a scientific example of how it happened the "only" other model is special creation.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Would you care to explain your differences rather than just posting a cliche'?

Your pointing out the whole " we can't prove it so god did it excuse" ? well until further evidence is found support how it came about with out god, then yes i will use the "god did it " excuse.
if i don't see a scientific example of how it happened the "only" other model is special creation.

I never said that you couldn't say god started abiogensis. Thats fine by me.

And no, I do not see your reasoning to say that everything you don't understand, God did it. Thats intelectual laziness. And we know what the Bible says about laziness.

And you are yet to show any problems that warrant a divine solution. My point was you should avoid that avenue. Dembski tried it and failed.

Now you can take that as me meaning no where is God needed, and I do personally feel that, but I am not saying it is not valid to think that there is a point that God is needed. Again refer to abiogenesis.

 

[jwu]

No bones in their body? well thats gonna be hard to preserve as a fossil now aight it. ? :wink:

Hence the octopus fossil record is quite bad ;) But we see them alive today, and hence know that bones are not required to make eyes work nicely.

if i don't see a scientific example of how it happened the "only" other model is special creation.

Isn't special creation just an excuse to stop working on it? It explains everything and nothing at the same time. Had people in the 18th century worked like that, then we wouldn't have figured out electricity by now but we'd still think that God is mad at some trees and smites them with lightning.

show me a skeleton that has no eye sockets.

I've already shown you a species of animals that is alive today whose eyes do not sit in eye sockets (albeit the flatfish does have vestigal eyesockets).

No real eyesockets, just big holes which were filled with lots of soft tissue. Somewhere in them were the eyes.

 

[John]

Isn't special creation just an excuse to stop working on it? It explains everything and nothing at the same time. Had people in the 18th century worked like that, then we wouldn't have figured out electricity by now but we'd still think that God is mad at some trees and smites them with lightning.

yeah but i am no scientist and am not making any discovery's in the future, so all i have is "god did it" till i am proven wrong.

I've already shown you a species of animals that is alive today whose eyes do not sit in eye sockets

So ? so how does say that they evolved ?

No real eyesockets, just big holes which were filled with lots of soft tissue. Somewhere in them were the eyes.

its still a type of socket, since no human has seen a dino in recent times we have no clue where there eyes sat in there head. whether they bugled out or sank in, its still irrealivant.