Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent design??There may be proof....
Number_ 19
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 17 (44277)
06-26-2003 5:28 AM


The theory of evolution relies completely on the fact that certain "things" were just laying around and then over a period of time formed togeather.But one thing evolution can't explain is the eye ball.There is no way that parts of the eye were seperated for a period of time and then just came togeather.This fact may hint at an intelligent designer.....What do you think?
Edit:I just realized I clicked on the wrong discussion board and you can shut this thread down if need be.After all I am a newbie.
------------------
The above statement was 99.9% likely to be entirely false.
[This message has been edited by Number_ 19, 06-26-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 06-26-2003 5:42 AM Number_ 19 has replied
 Message 5 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2003 8:16 AM Number_ 19 has replied
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 06-26-2003 1:11 PM Number_ 19 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 17 (44284)
06-26-2003 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Number_ 19
06-26-2003 5:28 AM


19,
The theory of evolution relies completely on the fact that certain "things" were just laying around and then over a period of time formed togeather.
That's abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution starts at the point of mutable heritability, ie after abiogenesis. In fact, the first organism could have been created & evolution still be true. Origins & evolution are separate.
But one thing evolution can't explain is the eye ball.There is no way that parts of the eye were seperated for a period of time and then just came togeather.This fact may hint at an intelligent designer.....What do you think?
It has already been explained. For an excellent account see Richard Dawkins "Climbing Mount Improbable", eye evolution, from a flat photosensitive sheet to lensed eye has also been simulated on computer.
Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye
quote:
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Number_ 19, posted 06-26-2003 5:28 AM Number_ 19 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Number_ 19, posted 06-26-2003 6:39 AM mark24 has not replied
 Message 6 by Peter, posted 06-26-2003 8:21 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Number_ 19
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 17 (44295)
06-26-2003 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by mark24
06-26-2003 5:42 AM


That's interesting,I always thought that evolution was a constant from even before life began.This post totally crushed that thought.If only it were as easy to convince other people to believe that as I did.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 06-26-2003 5:42 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by compmage, posted 06-26-2003 7:03 AM Number_ 19 has not replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 4 of 17 (44299)
06-26-2003 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Number_ 19
06-26-2003 6:39 AM


Number_19 writes:
That's interesting,I always thought that evolution was a constant from even before life began.
Evolution, as in 'things change', covers everything. The word is used many times, in many differenct theories, simply to indicate that things changed. The Theory of Evolution only deals with life, however, many people seem to think that whenever you mention evolution (change) if falls under the heading of the ToE and many then insist that the ToE must explain these things. This is not the case.
------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Number_ 19, posted 06-26-2003 6:39 AM Number_ 19 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by MrHambre, posted 07-02-2003 10:46 AM compmage has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 5 of 17 (44317)
06-26-2003 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Number_ 19
06-26-2003 5:28 AM


Number_19 writes:
quote:
But one thing evolution can't explain is the eye ball.
Question: Have you read Origin of Species?
Seems that Darwin could explain the evolution of the eye and that was 150 years ago.
I find it very interesting that many creationists specifically use the example of the eye as something that evolution cannot explain since the father of modern theories of evolution actually used the eye as an example of something that evolved....
------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Number_ 19, posted 06-26-2003 5:28 AM Number_ 19 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Number_ 19, posted 06-26-2003 8:25 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 6 of 17 (44318)
06-26-2003 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by mark24
06-26-2003 5:42 AM


quote:
The theory of evolution relies completely on the fact that certain "things" were just laying around and then over
a period of time formed togeather.
That's abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution starts at the point of mutable heritability, ie after
abiogenesis. In fact, the first organism could have been created & evolution still be true. Origins &
evolution are separate.
That's not even abiogenesis ... it's just a complete lack
of understanding of the concepts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 06-26-2003 5:42 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Number_ 19
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 17 (44321)
06-26-2003 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rrhain
06-26-2003 8:16 AM


I was talking about the different names for the different phases of evolution.I didn't think there was another name for it before it started mutating.And I am neither an evolutionist a creationist (In fact I'm leaning more towards being a cartoonist! )I am in a stage of my life where I am so lost I am searching for any answer,I'm just posting different arguements from the differnt viewpoints on the issue.
[This message has been edited by Number_ 19, 06-26-2003]
[This message has been edited by Number_ 19, 06-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2003 8:16 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Peter, posted 07-02-2003 3:19 AM Number_ 19 has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 8 of 17 (44346)
06-26-2003 12:14 PM


Thread moved here from the The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum.

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 9 of 17 (44353)
06-26-2003 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Number_ 19
06-26-2003 5:28 AM


hi 19,
I don't even think that the eye is that well 'designed'.
It can be 'disarmed' very easily by even atiny bit of dust.
Two weeks ago I was taking my contact lenses' out and I managed to cause a small corneal abrasion on the surface of my eye, the next day it was absolute agony LOL , I was off work for a week.
I am sure I read somewhere about the eye perhaps evolving from light sensitive cells, I am not sure but it may have been Dawkins that wrote about this theory.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Number_ 19, posted 06-26-2003 5:28 AM Number_ 19 has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 10 of 17 (44818)
07-02-2003 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Number_ 19
06-26-2003 8:25 AM


...then might I suggest doing some research on the subject
before continuing ... you will find it rewarding.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Number_ 19, posted 06-26-2003 8:25 AM Number_ 19 has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 11 of 17 (44840)
07-02-2003 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by compmage
06-26-2003 7:03 AM


quote:
Number_19 writes:
That's interesting,I always thought that evolution was a constant from even before life began.
compmage writes:
Evolution, as in 'things change', covers everything. The word is used many times, in many differenct theories, simply to indicate that things changed. The Theory of Evolution only deals with life, however, many people seem to think that whenever you mention evolution (change) if falls under the heading of the ToE and many then insist that the ToE must explain these things. This is not the case.
The concept of evolution via natural selection is certainly most important in terms of explaining the diversity of biotic forms, but don't sell it short. The differential reproductive success of forms is an algorithm that can be applied to contexts other than biological populations.
If you expose equal amounts of sulphur and iron to oxygen, a greater amount of iron oxide will be created than sulphur oxide, since iron oxidizes at a faster rate than sulphur. This is by no means evolution, but the atomic properties of certain elements can give them a form of selective advantage.
The exclusive optical left-handedness of amino acids used in living systems is strong evidence of an ancient selective struggle between right and left chirality in these organic compounds.
On various levels of scientific study, selection strategies have been invoked to explain phenomena that were previously assumed to be either stumbling blocks for Darwinism or evidence of intelligent design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by compmage, posted 06-26-2003 7:03 AM compmage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by compmage, posted 07-02-2003 2:54 PM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 13 by Peter, posted 07-03-2003 9:23 AM MrHambre has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5153 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 12 of 17 (44860)
07-02-2003 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by MrHambre
07-02-2003 10:46 AM


MrHambre writes:
The concept of evolution via natural selection is certainly most important in terms of explaining the diversity of biotic forms, but don't sell it short.
I don't and didn't intend too.
I was merely trying to point out that when people use the word 'evolution' they aren't always talking about the ToE.
------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by MrHambre, posted 07-02-2003 10:46 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 13 of 17 (44943)
07-03-2003 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by MrHambre
07-02-2003 10:46 AM


quote:
The exclusive optical left-handedness of amino acids used in living systems is strong evidence of an ancient selective struggle between right and left chirality in these organic compounds.
I'm not disagreeing (entirely), but isn't the way you have phrased
the above cyclic?
Presumably you mean that there is most likely a 'selection-base'
explanation for the predominance of one chirality over the
other.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by MrHambre, posted 07-02-2003 10:46 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by MrHambre, posted 07-03-2003 11:26 AM Peter has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 14 of 17 (44971)
07-03-2003 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Peter
07-03-2003 9:23 AM


quote:
Presumably you mean that there is most likely a 'selection-base' explanation for the predominance of one chirality over the other.
That's correct. One variant form is favored by nature, so there must be some selective advantage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Peter, posted 07-03-2003 9:23 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Peter, posted 07-04-2003 4:52 AM MrHambre has not replied
 Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 07-04-2003 12:37 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 15 of 17 (45037)
07-04-2003 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by MrHambre
07-03-2003 11:26 AM


That's OK ... I was just concerned that you seemed to be saying
that the current state was evidence for the selective
struggle rather than that a selective struggle would explain
it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by MrHambre, posted 07-03-2003 11:26 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024