[_ Old Earth _] The eyes have it

[reznwerks]

"Darwin's Greatest Challenge Tackled: The Mystery Of Eye Evolution
October 28, 2004 -- When Darwin's skeptics attack his theory of evolution, they often focus on the eye."


"Researchers in the laboratories of Detlev Arendt and Jochen Wittbrodt have discovered that the light-sensitive cells of our eyes, the rods and cones, are of unexpected evolutionary origin -- they come from an ancient population of light-sensitive cells that were initially located in the brain.

"It is not surprising that cells of human eyes come from the brain. We still have light-sensitive cells in our brains today which detect light and influence our daily rhythms of activity," explains Wittbrodt. "Quite possibly, the human eye has originated from light-sensitive cells in the brain. Only later in evolution would such brain cells have relocated into an eye and gained the potential to confer vision."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 215105.htm

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

"Quite possibly, the human eye has originated from light-sensitive cells in the brain. Only later in evolution would such brain cells have relocated into an eye and gained the potential to confer vision."

Isn't Evolution just magical!!

How did "evolutionary processes" magically transform "light sensitive cells"

into the complicated eye.

This wand waving: "Only later in evolution would such brain cells have

relocated into an eye and gained the potential to confer vision." is

interesting and humorous philosphy, but has no place in the science

domain.

If one really gets down to emperical science, no such evolutionary processes

occur...ever. Only in the domain of philiosophy do evolutionary processes

occur.

The ToE hypothesis violates the Second Law of Thermodymaics, and close

cousin, The Law of Conservation of Information (Same as The First Law in

physical processes).

To enable a violation of these laws is to invoke the supernatural.

ToE has invoked the supernatural forces of it's tenants, and then it's

congregation whole heartedly defends it's faith. These members of the faith

are bent on prostelizing their faith, "saving" the common man from his

pitiful ignorance.


Evidence of Toe proponents blind faith is the amount of time and energy

Atheists and ToE proponents spend on Christian forums, attempting to

prostelize "the lost".

Telling indeed.

 

[saltiness]

Isn't Evolution just magical!!

How did "evolutionary processes" magically transform "light sensitive cells"

into the complicated eye.

It didn't. Evolution is not magical.

This wand waving: "Only later in evolution would such brain cells have

relocated into an eye and gained the potential to confer vision." is

interesting and humorous philosphy, but has no place in the science

domain.

If one really gets down to emperical science, no such evolutionary processes

occur...ever. Only in the domain of philiosophy do evolutionary processes

occur.

Evolutionary processes occur over long periods of time to the point that we cannot usually observe them. We observe the effects of Evolution. We cannot directly observe plate tectonics but we can see the effects of it, do you also not believe in this theory?

The ToE hypothesis violates the Second Law of Thermodymaics, and close

cousin, The Law of Conservation of Information (Same as The First Law in

physical processes).

To enable a violation of these laws is to invoke the supernatural.

ToE has invoked the supernatural forces of it's tenants, and then it's

congregation whole heartedly defends it's faith. These members of the faith

are bent on prostelizing their faith, "saving" the common man from his

pitiful ignorance.


Evidence of Toe proponents blind faith is the amount of time and energy

Atheists and ToE proponents spend on Christian forums, attempting to

prostelize "the lost".

Telling indeed.

Evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

On a side note, can I ask why you choose to skip lines in your posts? It makes it more difficult to read.

 

[NOTW]

The only reason these evolutionist/scientist keep spirting out that garbage is because they need to keep their jobs. What a joke!

 

[saltiness]

The only reason these evolutionist/scientist keep spirting out that garbage is because they need to keep their jobs. What a joke!

If a scientist could find evidence for God designing the eye, he would bring it fourth to create a new theory and be paid for it. I wonder why no scientist has done that? Because there is no evidence for it.

 

[reznwerks]

joke

The only reason these evolutionist/scientist keep spirting out that garbage is because they need to keep their jobs. What a joke!

It's not a joke when the evidence is there. Wheres yours?

 

[NOTW]

The only evidence around here is you people talking out of your butts. Just because some guy thinks thats what happened doesnt mean it did. But believe what you wish :roll:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/eye.asp

 

[reznwerks]

carrying the water

The only reason these evolutionist/scientist keep spirting out that garbage is because they need to keep their jobs. What a joke!

How long are you going to keep carrying the pail for that dribble? Do you realize how many people have to be lying for that statement to be true? Do you realize that WHENEVER any error in science is found it is always found by OTHER scientists. I think you have been brainwashed. Your statement is not only wrong but you have got it bass akward. It is the AIG that makes it's members adhere to a statement of faith not scientists.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_ ... _henke.htm

Were your eyes wide open when you walked into that one?

 

[reznwerks]

debunked

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/eye.asp

AIG debunked. You decide.

http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evo ... ie014.html

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/answ ... enesis.htm

 

[NOTW]

You cant debunk actual scientific data with more evolutionist garbage that has absolutely no facts to back it up. Just give it up already, your wrong face it and put your tail between your legs and go home.

It is the AIG that makes it's members adhere to a statement of faith not scientists.

Behe's a scientist and has backed up IC systems with scientific data, would you like a link to his website :roll:

http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mg1darw ... thways.htm

 

[saltiness]

It is the AIG that makes it's members adhere to a statement of faith not scientists.

I don't think anyone will argue with this statement. It's precisely what's wrong with AIG.

The only evidence around here is you people talking out of your butts. Just because some guy thinks thats what happened doesnt mean it did. But believe what you wish

Nobody here is saying this article states a fact including the article.

"Quite possibly, the human eye has originated from light-sensitive cells in the brain. Only later in evolution would such brain cells have relocated into an eye and gained the potential to confer vision."

This scientist is simply hypothesizing based on new evidence. It could be wrong but it makes sense, doesn't it?

 

[sigh1]

I'm interested in hearing the reply of saltiness and reznwerks to Behe's claims. No scientist has yet to my knowledge adequately debunked him.

If you read his book I don't need to explain why evolution can't explain the eye. And remember we're not talking about evolution creating just one type of eye. There are three distinct types of eye in nature. Mammalian, Insect and Invertibrate. Don't quote those classes of eye, I can't remember exactly what they were, only that the makeup of each is quite distinct.

So instead of responding to my arguments, read Behe and respond to the work of a scientist. That seems to be the basket you put your eggs in.

 

[Poke]

"Researchers in the laboratories of Detlev Arendt and Jochen Wittbrodt have discovered that the light-sensitive cells of our eyes, the rods and cones, are of unexpected evolutionary origin -- they come from an ancient population of light-sensitive cells that were initially located in the brain.

I guess that blows the Richard Dawkins theory.

The theory went:
1)Some guy had a mutation that caused a dimple on his eyeless face. The dimple made the suntan response directional.

2)Then the guy had another mutation that causes a clear bit of skin to cover the dimple.

3)Then another mutatation caused the suntan response to do the three primary colors.

Three mutations and you have a working eye, all wired to the brain and everty. But, now that we know the light senstive cells started in the brain, we need a new theory. OK. One day a mutation causes a guy's brain to stick through his skull. Now follow the three steps. The theory works if you're too stupid to have any concept of the complexity of the eye.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Nobody here is saying this article states a fact including the article.

"Quite possibly, the human eye has originated from light-sensitive cells in the brain. Only later in evolution would such brain cells have relocated into an eye and gained the potential to confer vision."

This scientist is simply hypothesizing based on new evidence. It could be wrong but it makes sense, doesn't it?

I think it makes no sense. If you put an old car out in a junkyard, does it

increase in complexity or decrease in complexity?

Any matter left to itself decreases in organization as predicted by The

Second Law of Thermodynamics. Any assertation to the negative is to

invoke the supernatural, forbidden by ToE.

The only way around this obstacle my man, is negative entropy, and a

program to direct that negative entropy.

If both are not present concurrently, no net negative entropy is possible in

any matter.

 

[peace4all]

an oild car would increase in complexity, because the rust, and other organisms that grow off of it due to mixture of diffrent junkyard chemicals, toxins, and what was left in the car. It would be like an above ground coral reef, just for weeds, bacteria, and possibly a raccon :-P

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

an old car would increase in complexity, because the rust, and other organisms that grow off of it due to mixture of diffrent junkyard chemicals, toxins, and what was left in the car. It would be like an above ground coral reef, just for weeds, bacteria, and possibly a raccon
_________________

I assume your joking

 

[Hierophant]

I think it makes no sense. If you put an old car out in a junkyard, does it

increase in complexity or decrease in complexity?

Any matter left to itself decreases in organization as predicted by The

Second Law of Thermodynamics. Any assertation to the negative is to

invoke the supernatural, forbidden by ToE.

The only way around this obstacle my man, is negative entropy, and a

program to direct that negative entropy.

If both are not present concurrently, no net negative entropy is possible in

any matter.

This is a mistaken application of the 2nd Law of Themodynamics.

First off, you're talking about an inanimate object. The biological equivalent would be a corpse. I agree that an inanimate object in and of itself will not gain in complexity. At the same time, if it were a closed system unto itself it would not decrease in complexity either. Therefore, it can be reasoned that the corspe and the car are subsets of larger systems. This also means that you cannot apply the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as you have attempted.

When considering biological systems it can be observed that they add to their complexity throughout their life cycle. Since reproduction is a criteria of all life, it can be demonstrated that all biological life forms add to their own complexity by virtue of this property.

Or are you trying to argue that complex life cannot develop from a single cell? Or even a pair of haploid cells for that matter....

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

This is a mistaken application of the 2nd Law of Themodynamics.

First off, you're talking about an inanimate object. The biological equivalent would be a corpse. I agree that an inanimate object in and of itself will not gain in complexity. At the same time, if it were a closed system unto itself it would not decrease in complexity either. Therefore, it can be reasoned that the corspe and the car are subsets of larger systems. This also means that you cannot apply the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as you have attempted.

When considering biological systems it can be observed that they add to their complexity throughout their life cycle. Since reproduction is a criteria of all life, it can be demonstrated that all biological life forms add to their own complexity by virtue of this property.

Or are you trying to argue that complex life cannot develop from a single cell? Or even a pair of haploid cells for that matter....

I agree that an inanimate object in and of itself will not gain in complexity. At the same time, if it were a closed system unto itself it would not decrease in complexity either.

No such thing as a closed system. From there on your arguement is based

on this false premise.



Or are you trying to argue that complex life cannot develop from a single

cell?

Impossible for a single cell organism to violate the Second Law...so yes,

that's what I'm argueing. Unless your wanting to invoke the supernatural,

which is contrary to ToE.



When considering biological systems it can be observed that they add to

their complexity throughout their life cycle.

Only what's already been preprogrammed into the genetic

package...nothing beyond complexity (negative entropy) wise. Entropy wise,

yes...mutations.


Peace

 

[Hierophant]

I agree that an inanimate object in and of itself will not gain in complexity. At the same time, if it were a closed system unto itself it would not decrease in complexity either.

No such thing as a closed system. From there on your arguement is based
on this false premise.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. If there is no such thing then why did you use it in the first place?

Or are you trying to argue that complex life cannot develop from a single
cell?
Impossible for a single cell organism to violate the Second Law...so yes,
that's what I'm argueing. Unless your wanting to invoke the supernatural,
which is contrary to ToE.

I said "single cell" not "single celled organism".

When considering biological systems it can be observed that they add to
their complexity throughout their life cycle.
Only what's already been preprogrammed into the genetic
package...nothing beyond complexity (negative entropy) wise. Entropy wise,
yes...mutations.

You sound as if you believe all mutations must be random and useless. The world has known about non-random mutations for almost 20 years now.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. If there is no such thing then why did you use it in the first place?

Because it disallows evolution. Without intelligence manipulating the

negative entropy of other matter, complexity is never increased.

Imagine the Titanic movie as the ship hits the iceberg. See those steel

plates ripped open and the ship begin to sink. Realistic, right? Can you

imagine a real happening in which the reverse occurs? A sinking ship whose

steel side heals up as it comes up out of the water and floats? Ridiculous.

Too stupid to think about. But why is it stupid? Because it is so improbable

from your and my experience. Only a movie run backward would show that

kind of unrealistic fantasy. The second law isn't some weird scientific idea. It

fits with everything common happening that we know.

http://www.secondlaw.com/two.html

How much more simplified is the above example compared to what we're

asked to believe by the ToE.

The world has known about non-random mutations for almost 20 years now.

Examples? Genecide via germ warfare? :-?