Is it really possible for sense organs such as the eye to evolve?

@kYRANI,

kYRANI wrote:

That said, when I read the Greek version (original) of the words "in his own image" I don't get the same meaning.

The Greek version of Genesis wasn't the original. The original was written in Ancient Hebrew between the 6th and the 4th century BCE, and was translated into Greek between 280 and130 BCE. With respect, if you're trying to impress us with your knowledge of the Bible, you'll need to become more persuasive at showing that you know something.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

The bible and the Torah are two different books and yes books of the Torah were translated into Greek. However the Bible as it stands today was mostly written in Greek and that means that a Greek point of view was taken in translation. It has not been, at least from what I can see, a "faithful" translation in the sense that the original Jewish religion was accepted as the Jewish people understand their religion. I have not read the Torah except in small part but I have, in part a commentary of it by some Rabbis, the Zohar. This also does not support what was translated. If you go to the Koran it also does not talk about God making the human kind in his image. The truth of the matter I believe is that the Greeks didn't just translate, they were more than a little interpretative. They made Jesus's ancestory and beliefs fit in with their own and the Greeks' concept of god was in the most part anthropomorphic. There are huge differences if you care to look. The fall of Adam and Eve is another area where interpretative translation must have been the order of the day. The Zohar doesn't say anything about a snake tempting Eve and she then tempting Adam. The Greeks however saw all monsters as feminine. And the Koran too does not blame Eve, nor does it introduce Satan (Iblis an angel who had disobeyed God) as a snake. So if we are going to talk about originals we have to take into account what religion we are talking about. The Torah was a "source document" but it was not taken without changes that suited. So the Bible of the Christians was originally in Greek.

1 Reply

somehow, whenever a challenge to evolution is poresented, it always seems to degrade into a Biblical manifesto.
I have another challenge to consider. Its ca;;ed "Lets try to falsify each others SCIENTIFIC position".
Ill start.

If Creationism is evidenced in science there should be evidence of a diversity of beasts from deep time to prpesent. That is, we should see evidence of elephants in the Cambrian strata and trilobites later.
Can you point us to some early earth stratigraphy (pre- Mesozoic) where we can see evidence of birds, mammals,etc>

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Seems that all Creationists operate from a point of incredulity and thats about all theyve got, incredulity and an evidence-free worldview.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

The irrony is that nothing is more deserving of incredulity than poofism.

1 Reply

Quote:

Is it really possible for sense organs such as the eye to evolve?

Some questions actually do have simple answers. The answer to this one is "NO". That's pretty simple.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

just like you.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Yet they cannot see how the lack of ANY evidence souldnt be fatal to their own position.

Youd think after all these years that they would "get it".
Guess not

0 Replies

Let's play Jeopardy,
I'm going with What is disingenuous.

0 Replies

I think you people don't want to acknowledge that features like the eyes, which need another complex organ to work together with them to create sight cannot evolve out of natural selection processes. The fossil record that we have does not provide evidence for Darwininan evolution, it just shows that different animals populated the earth at different times, that's all.

3 Replies

Oooo oooo . . . Jeopardy ! ! !

What is, invicible ignorance?

0 Replies

@kYRANI,

kYRANI wrote:

I think you people don't want to acknowledge that. . . .

I'm sure you do. But how is that our problem rather than yours?

0 Replies

@kYRANI,

kYRANI wrote:

The fossil record that we have does not provide evidence for Darwininan evolution, it just shows that different animals populated the earth at different times, that's all.

No, it shows that very specific animals populated the earth at particular times. The specifics of which match predictions made by the theory of evolution. If the pattern of biological forms was inverted, or even random, then it would invalidate the theory; but it doesn't. Find us a horse fossil from the Silurian and your name goes down in history. Nobody's done it yet (and they never will).

0 Replies

@kYRANI,

Quote:

I think you people don't want to acknowledge that features like the eyes, which need another complex organ to work together with them to create sight cannot evolve out of natural selection processes.

There are many organisms in which an eyespot is the only tissue. ( ciliated single cellular forms, euglena,rotiferans ) these single cell and tiny multicell animals have eyespots that arent connected to a neureal ganglion but are free organelles that react by exuding "photin" and other chemicals that can affect lengthening in the protoplasmic mass. ,Then very simple eyes had developed somehwere in the mid Cambrian when earliest brachiopoda and certain molluscs developed eyespots with linear symmetry (could be the birth of "binocs""). All these wre noted only from fossil records and the unicellular critters are still living in ponds and puddles. Planarian -like flatworms were visible in the Burgess shales of the Mid Cambrian . SO yopur knowledge is rather limited and it is incorrect

Quote:

The fossil record that we have does not provide evidence for Darwininan evolution, it just shows that different animals populated the earth at different times, that's all.

As rosborne said,(and perhaps the compelling evidence is missed upon you). The appearance of increasingly complex organisms of individual related genera at contiguously successive times in the fossil record is a damn good shot at evidencing DArwinian evolution. What does Creationism have that even comes close?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

There is one huge problem with evolutionary theory as Darwin proposed it anyway and that is that the whole thing hinges on there being ONLY a material reality. Reality has two aspects a physical aspect and a non-physical aspect and the non-physical aspect is imbued with intelligence and holds the information or data, for want of better words, that describe all that is material. The physicists are skirting around this issue and try to explain it with what I see as bizzare concepts. They are claiming that nothingness exists and it is highly unstable and as a result something comes out of it spontaneously. This is garbage. Nothingness is nothing physical so really this nothingness is really all about the metaphysical or non-physical aspects which they can''t see or measure. Once we appreciate that there is another aspect to reality and that it provides the ability for the material to be made manifest then the whole pricture changes. And it affects not only Darwinian theory it affect the whole scientific world view and materialists don't like it.

4 Replies

@kYRANI,

Darwin himself did not address the origin of life. He deliberately titled his book The Origin of Species. Darwinian evolution descibes how biological diversity came about. Like all natural scientists, Darwin restricted himself to investigating nature in terms of natural phenomena only. It is very appropriate, then, that evolutionary science excludes the non-physical.

0 Replies

@kYRANI,

Quote:

Reality has two aspects a physical aspect and a non-physical aspect and the non-physical aspect is imbued with intelligence and holds the information or data

If its philosophy you wish to debate, Im sure there are several who will accomodate you. I say, "If it leaves no evidence, its speculation"
We know that the heavy elements were created in separate fusion reactions from light elements.
.
You seem to like to pose a specific question, then you abandon it when the discussion gets rolling against you. As wandel said, the only reference DArwin made to "Origins of life" was a statement about a "warm little pond"- and even this was bathed in a "---PERHAPS".

0 Replies

@kYRANI,

kYRANI wrote:

There is one huge problem with evolutionary theory as Darwin proposed it anyway and that is that the whole thing hinges on there being ONLY a material reality.

That's not a problem with evolutionary theory. That's a problem you have with accepting the limits of science (methodological naturalism) as a framework from which to understand the world.

Your argument is only as good as a ship sailing blindly through the fog, fated to eventually crash into the rocks of reality (which no amount of philosophy will ever soften).

0 Replies

@kYRANI,

kYRANI wrote:

There is one huge problem with evolutionary theory

Good. So if we dispose of this problem, you will accept the fact of evolution. Correct?

kYRANI wrote:

Reality has two aspects a physical aspect and a non-physical aspect

Says who? And on what evidence?

kYRANI wrote:

and the non-physical aspect is imbued with intelligence and holds the information or data, for want of better words, that describe all that is material.

Says who? And on what evidence?

kYRANI wrote:

The physicists are skirting around this issue and try to explain it with what I see as bizzare concepts. They are claiming that nothingness exists and it is highly unstable and as a result something comes out of it spontaneously. This is garbage.

It certainly sounds like garbage. On the other hand, I'm a physicist myself, and I am not aware of any peer-reviewed paper claiming that "nothingness exists". If you have a particular publication in a reputable physics journal in mind, please cite it, and I'll take a look at it when I get a chance.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Please don't assume that I'm disagreeing with anything you've said in this post.

Can you give your definition of 'physical' i.e. its defining characteristics? Can you give the defining characteristics of the sensation of the color 'red'?

1 Reply

Is it really possible for sense organs such as the eye to evolve?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know