Evolution? How?

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Pauligirl wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Yes I read it. What makes any cells stand out enough to interperet the light differently?

Well, your entire body is covered with light-sensitive cells. Your skin can detect heat radiation, can it not? What is this radiation? Infra-red light. It is easy ( for me, anyway) to see how a small mutation could lead infra-red sensitive cells to become more sensitive to shorter wavelengths of light. Also, photons of certain wavelengths are absorbed by certain pigments/chemicals, affecting the chemistry of the cell in a manner that the brain may detect.
P

In a general sense, all types of light/radiation whether it is visible light, infra-red, ultraviolet, xrays, gamma or any other may have some effect on any cells of your body, whether exterior (skin) or interior (organs). All cells are "sensitive" to these types of waves in the sense that, yes , they do react in some manner when exposed to them.

This is very far indeed from proving the 'some exterior cells of a primitive animal were so effected by visible light that the cell sent signals to the animal's brain which proved to be so beneficial to the organism to such an extent that this organism and it's subsequent descendants were better able to survive and thrive in their environment than any others of their species.''

In other words, just because the skin of your arm can tan or feel heat doesn't mean that it can generate an eye, step by step, in the skin of your descendants over a long period of time. If it could, and indeed some posters have asserted that evolution has produced just this sort of result dozens of times.....how come we don't see many creatures with quarter and half evolved eyes growing in various parts of their bodies, like say in the back of the head where it would be a real advantage, or in the hand so you could see around a corner just by reaching around it?

Near the beginning of life on Earth, in a world of totally blind creatures, a patch of cells that would enable you to tell the illumination level somewhat might be helpful. Probably decently developed eyes were already present in the first creatures which came up on dry land. I'm only guessing. The story of the evolution of eyes could be different, for all I know. I just know that a trait cannot develop unless there is an evelutionary path to it such that every step of the path is more advantageous than the previous step. Plants seem to gain some benefit just from a minor ability to detect light. Some flowers find it helpful, apparently, to be able to turn and face the sun, close at night, etc.

Since we're guessing I'll grant that your guess is a possibility. Also possible is that the ability to perceive light without distinguishing the source or cause of the light could be a DISadvantage just as easily as it could be an advantage.

If light is "seen" by a creature and it reacts by moving toward the light without knowing what is in that direction, it could move itself into the path of predators. Thus "a little knowledge" could just as easily prove a disadvantage rather than an advantage.

Once again, your finding subtle problems with my reasoning is absurd, since you then turn around and believe in magic because some ancient writings describe it.

I don't consider it reasoning since you told me you were guessing. But I granted your guess was possible, didn't I?

However, I think my guess that light sensitive cells without true sight could prove disastrous is just as valid as your guess that they might somehow benefit.

If you think not, why not?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Why not?

You should be able to believe in that. If you truly believe in God, then you should be able to do so too.

The only reason Darwin ever came up with the idea of evolution, because, like Isaac Newton, Darwin believed that God didn't tinker with things. He saw evidence that these animals were related, that they seemed to obviously come from the same ancestors and that God doesn't wade in every now and then to alter animals.

So he came up with evolution, it being a law that God designed, so he didn't have to wade in every now and then to tinker with the biology of animals. He, of course, like a good scientist should, tried his best not to mention God in his thesis. Then his daughter died and then he rejected the notion of God altogether, but I digress.

So, yes, Intelligent Design is possible, but it's not good science because it includes the introduction of an entity that cannot be proved by science. If you cannot prove it or even disprove it, then you cannot include it.

Sir Isaac Newton wrote a massive volume on Biblical prophecy. I don't think he was quite the Deist that you might be supposing he was.

xingu wrote:

Quote:

What evidence do you have that the planet was covered with this organic soup for a period of a billion years?

What evidence do you have that it wasn't? After all, didn't I present evidence that organic material is found in space, or did you forget?

An odd response indeed from one who claims his position is all science, evidence, facts and so forth.

We can show that Bazillions of tons of methanogenic "soup" occured in pre Cambrian seas because of the presence of the specific Carbon isotopes and their layering in rocks . Until about 3.8 BY BP carbon ratios favored C13 instead of C12. Since ISua at 3.8 BY Carbon has been predominantley C12 which is favored by life. Of course its circumstantial , but ITS EVIDENCE (Something which, if we would wish to be nasty, we could insist that all you postings and pronouncements are entirely evidence free for even a remotest consideration of your supposed origin hypothesis)

We also can determine from zircon ages and stratigraphy about when, the actual amount of Oxygen on the planet became available from early plants or chemical reduction. The sediments of the Vendian show free oxygen because the banded iron deposits were deposited as Hematite not Magnetite (which is more magmatic).

Quote:

What does their presence in space have to do with their supposed ability to assemble themselves into living organisms on Earth?

Why do you think I attached websites with my messages? Read them and learn something. They can explain it better then I can.

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Pauligirl wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Yes I read it. What makes any cells stand out enough to interperet the light differently?

Well, your entire body is covered with light-sensitive cells. Your skin can detect heat radiation, can it not? What is this radiation? Infra-red light. It is easy ( for me, anyway) to see how a small mutation could lead infra-red sensitive cells to become more sensitive to shorter wavelengths of light. Also, photons of certain wavelengths are absorbed by certain pigments/chemicals, affecting the chemistry of the cell in a manner that the brain may detect.
P

In a general sense, all types of light/radiation whether it is visible light, infra-red, ultraviolet, xrays, gamma or any other may have some effect on any cells of your body, whether exterior (skin) or interior (organs). All cells are "sensitive" to these types of waves in the sense that, yes , they do react in some manner when exposed to them.

This is very far indeed from proving the 'some exterior cells of a primitive animal were so effected by visible light that the cell sent signals to the animal's brain which proved to be so beneficial to the organism to such an extent that this organism and it's subsequent descendants were better able to survive and thrive in their environment than any others of their species.''

In other words, just because the skin of your arm can tan or feel heat doesn't mean that it can generate an eye, step by step, in the skin of your descendants over a long period of time. If it could, and indeed some posters have asserted that evolution has produced just this sort of result dozens of times.....how come we don't see many creatures with quarter and half evolved eyes growing in various parts of their bodies, like say in the back of the head where it would be a real advantage, or in the hand so you could see around a corner just by reaching around it?

Near the beginning of life on Earth, in a world of totally blind creatures, a patch of cells that would enable you to tell the illumination level somewhat might be helpful. Probably decently developed eyes were already present in the first creatures which came up on dry land. I'm only guessing. The story of the evolution of eyes could be different, for all I know. I just know that a trait cannot develop unless there is an evelutionary path to it such that every step of the path is more advantageous than the previous step. Plants seem to gain some benefit just from a minor ability to detect light. Some flowers find it helpful, apparently, to be able to turn and face the sun, close at night, etc.

Since we're guessing I'll grant that your guess is a possibility. Also possible is that the ability to perceive light without distinguishing the source or cause of the light could be a DISadvantage just as easily as it could be an advantage.

If light is "seen" by a creature and it reacts by moving toward the light without knowing what is in that direction, it could move itself into the path of predators. Thus "a little knowledge" could just as easily prove a disadvantage rather than an advantage.

Once again, your finding subtle problems with my reasoning is absurd, since you then turn around and believe in magic because some ancient writings describe it.

I don't consider it reasoning since you told me you were guessing. But I granted your guess was possible, didn't I?

However, I think my guess that light sensitive cells without true sight could prove disastrous is just as valid as your guess that they might somehow benefit.

If you think not, why not?

I am saying that for you to take a scientific theory, and criticize it for potential weaknesses in its structure of deductions, is preposterous, since you then turn around and abandon any semblence of logic by simply acccepting that an ancient text that postulates the supernatural is so, without anything remotely resembling deduction.

If a person gives an eyewitness account of something, isn't that considered pretty decent evidence? When Peter, John and Matthew write about the things they witnessed, I'd think twice before being quite so dismissive.

Since neither evolution nor creation has been directly observed and both are by necessity addressed by scientists largely on the basis on circumstantial evidence and the inferences drawn from it, I don't think that evolution holds quite the scientific 'high ground' that you may suppose it does.

I don't think that evolution holds quite the scientific 'high ground' that you may suppose it does.

real life wrote:

If a person gives an eyewitness account of something, isn't that considered pretty decent evidence? When Peter, John and Matthew write about the things they witnessed, I'd think twice before being quite so dismissive.

I can pull numerous sources that show eyewitnesses claiming to see UFO's, Elvis, and Mary in a jar of mayonaise. Go ahead and think twice about their testimonies if you wish.

Quote:

Since neither evolution nor creation has been directly observed and both are by necessity addressed by scientists largely on the basis on circumstantial evidence and the inferences drawn from it, I don't think that evolution holds quite the scientific 'high ground' that you may suppose it does.

The main difference between evolution and creation is that evolution still has a chance of being proven. It's easy to claim the "high ground" when the theory you subscribe to is by nature neither provable nor deniable.

Real

Quote:

I don't think that evolution holds quite the scientific 'high ground' that you may suppose it does.

It holds a hellava lot higher ground then your Creationism. You have no science to support that.

The only thing that supports your beliefs are lies, quotes out of context and misinformation. Creationism has never been supported by the truth and honesty one can find in science.

Just the facts, man, just the facts. No conjectures are acceptable.

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Pauligirl wrote:

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Yes I read it. What makes any cells stand out enough to interperet the light differently?

Well, your entire body is covered with light-sensitive cells. Your skin can detect heat radiation, can it not? What is this radiation? Infra-red light. It is easy ( for me, anyway) to see how a small mutation could lead infra-red sensitive cells to become more sensitive to shorter wavelengths of light. Also, photons of certain wavelengths are absorbed by certain pigments/chemicals, affecting the chemistry of the cell in a manner that the brain may detect.
P

In a general sense, all types of light/radiation whether it is visible light, infra-red, ultraviolet, xrays, gamma or any other may have some effect on any cells of your body, whether exterior (skin) or interior (organs). All cells are "sensitive" to these types of waves in the sense that, yes , they do react in some manner when exposed to them.

This is very far indeed from proving the 'some exterior cells of a primitive animal were so effected by visible light that the cell sent signals to the animal's brain which proved to be so beneficial to the organism to such an extent that this organism and it's subsequent descendants were better able to survive and thrive in their environment than any others of their species.''

In other words, just because the skin of your arm can tan or feel heat doesn't mean that it can generate an eye, step by step, in the skin of your descendants over a long period of time. If it could, and indeed some posters have asserted that evolution has produced just this sort of result dozens of times.....how come we don't see many creatures with quarter and half evolved eyes growing in various parts of their bodies, like say in the back of the head where it would be a real advantage, or in the hand so you could see around a corner just by reaching around it?

Near the beginning of life on Earth, in a world of totally blind creatures, a patch of cells that would enable you to tell the illumination level somewhat might be helpful. Probably decently developed eyes were already present in the first creatures which came up on dry land. I'm only guessing. The story of the evolution of eyes could be different, for all I know. I just know that a trait cannot develop unless there is an evelutionary path to it such that every step of the path is more advantageous than the previous step. Plants seem to gain some benefit just from a minor ability to detect light. Some flowers find it helpful, apparently, to be able to turn and face the sun, close at night, etc.

Since we're guessing I'll grant that your guess is a possibility. Also possible is that the ability to perceive light without distinguishing the source or cause of the light could be a DISadvantage just as easily as it could be an advantage.

If light is "seen" by a creature and it reacts by moving toward the light without knowing what is in that direction, it could move itself into the path of predators. Thus "a little knowledge" could just as easily prove a disadvantage rather than an advantage.

Once again, your finding subtle problems with my reasoning is absurd, since you then turn around and believe in magic because some ancient writings describe it.

I don't consider it reasoning since you told me you were guessing. But I granted your guess was possible, didn't I?

However, I think my guess that light sensitive cells without true sight could prove disastrous is just as valid as your guess that they might somehow benefit.

If you think not, why not?

I am saying that for you to take a scientific theory, and criticize it for potential weaknesses in its structure of deductions, is preposterous, since you then turn around and abandon any semblence of logic by simply acccepting that an ancient text that postulates the supernatural is so, without anything remotely resembling deduction.

If a person gives an eyewitness account of something, isn't that considered pretty decent evidence? When Peter, John and Matthew write about the things they witnessed, I'd think twice before being quite so dismissive.

Obviously, scientific evidence and historical evidence are not the same and they have different standards by which they are judged. But we use historical evidences in our courts of law and they are deemed fairly reliable, aren't they?

Since neither evolution nor creation has been directly observed and both are by necessity addressed by scientists largely on the basis on circumstantial evidence and the inferences drawn from it, I don't think that evolution holds quite the scientific 'high ground' that you may suppose it does.

xingu wrote:

Real

Quote:

I don't think that evolution holds quite the scientific 'high ground' that you may suppose it does.

It holds a hellava lot higher ground then your Creationism. You have no science to support that.

The only thing that supports your beliefs are lies, quotes out of context and misinformation. Creationism has never been supported by the truth and honesty one can find in science.

Tell us a little about Piltdown Man, Xingu.

Hi ?er,

Takes too long? Oh then I guess it's not provable after all.

Both evolution and creation rely on circumstantial evidence and the inferences drawn from same. Why is that so hard for you to admit?

Evolution supposedly occurs all the time. Should be lots of opportunities to observe it. Has anyone observed one creature becoming another?

Takes too long? Oh then I guess it's not provable after all.

Both evolution and creation rely on circumstantial evidence and the inferences drawn from same. Why is that so hard for you to admit?

Pauligirl,
All you have "proven" is that both evolutionists and creationists can made mistakes. Some, on both sides, even fabricate their claims.

Keep in mind that that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within the scientific community. In contrast, creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them.