Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Quote:

Why would the existence of similar eyes in diverse classes imply that one evolved from the other?

It doesnt. Annelid eyes arise from separate areas than do molluscan eyes. However, all seem to be programmed by the same genes.

Quote:

Why would I preach to the choir here?

Oh I see, rules of science are for others to employ , not RL. By not giving a "common sense" test to Biblical storylines, you therefore miss the whole point of any inquiry, cause you just mean that sort of activity for others .

Quote:

farmerman wrote:
evolution was "messing around" with various solutions and theres never only one solution to a problem.

I thought evolution was directionless?

what part of "messing around with various solutions dont you understand

Quote:

Isn't this a rather circular argument? Using taxonomy to prove evolution?

E -- 'well, these have obviously evolved from one another , because they are in the same phylum'

Q -- 'why are they in the same phylum?'

E -- 'because they have evolved from one another'

Again, a complete ignorant and purposeful misrepresentation of how conclusions based upon evidence are developed.
When the representatives of such phyla differ by tiny bits through successive strata, then the conclusions are less muddled than " separate special Creations going on here" or your favorite
"Time for the more advanced version to pop out and be counted by later fossilization.

All in all, I am certain that my evidence based worldview is way more stable and plausible than yours.

REMEMBER NOVAS SPECIAL ON ID IS TONITE AT 8PM EST---everybody watch to see how the Creationists/IDers really act in public and private.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
If you preach that we should question everything, why dont you include questioning a bit of the the Bibles version of science
Why would I preach to the choir here?

Oh I see, rules of science are for others to employ , not RL. By not giving a "common sense" test to Biblical storylines, you therefore miss the whole point of any inquiry, cause you just mean that sort of activity for others .

You miss my point.

You're assuming that I simply read the Bible and never question. Nothing could be further from the truth.

When I read something in the Bible, lots of questions come up. Is this particular event an account of something 'supernatural'? Is this something scientifically explainable but not yet understood by science? Is this account poorly translated from Hebrew to English or Greek to English, and so giving an inaccurate impression of what did (or did not) occur?

Lots of questions.

So , when you sneer about 'the Bible's version of science' it really is a phrase that doesn't mean much.

Is the particular event in question meant to be verified scientifically, or is it supernatural?

Are we even understanding WHAT happened , (much less HOW) ?

Add to that the tendency of many professed scientific types to overreach . Many give science a bad name by expecting a 'scientific' answer to something that really is not in the scientific realm.

For instance, most events of everyday life cannot be 'proved' scientifically.

You cannot 'scientifically' prove what you ate for dinner on June 12. So even though that is a purely natural event, the scientific method is not really designed to investigate such.

0 Replies

RL,

I never understood why anyone would actually look for science in the Bible. I can understand looking to the Bible for spiritual guidance. In my opinion, it devalues the Bible to treat it as a science textbook.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

RL,

I never understood why anyone would actually look for science in the Bible. I can understand looking to the Bible for spiritual guidance. In my opinion, it devalues the Bible to treat it as a science textbook.

Agreed! :wink:

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

RL,

I never understood why anyone would actually look for science in the Bible. I can understand looking to the Bible for spiritual guidance. In my opinion, it devalues the Bible to treat it as a science textbook.

hi wandeljw,

I don't think I am 'looking for science' in the Bible, or 'treating the Bible like a science textbook'. Of course, I speak only for myself.

Most of the Bible is either spiritual guidance or historical narrative. Neither are really well suited to investigation using the scientific method.

Even fairly recent historical events, (such as what you said to your friend last week when you met for lunch) are not really 'scientifically provable'.

I also think science gets a bad name when folks try to claim 'scientific proof' of things that are inferred from mostly circumstantial evidence.

Hope you are doing well.

0 Replies

Quote:

You're assuming that I simply read the Bible and never question. Nothing could be further from the truth

Well, how about some concrete examples? Ive gotten so used to your dogmatic views that there was really a universal flood, which is counter to any scientific reason and evidence. How else would you think I would conclude. There arent any reputable geology texts that preach the evidence of a worldwide flood. Let me know if you find one Laughing

0 Replies

Quote:

You cannot 'scientifically' prove what you ate for dinner on June 12. So even though that is a purely natural event, the scientific method is not really designed to investigate such.

Who said anything about proving . Its evidence of occurence wed seek. Maybe I couldnt evidence what I ate for supper on Jun 12 but, maybe someone else can by going through my calendar and reconstructing June 12. So that is a silly analogy

More in tune with your thought is the insistance of events having occured which did not, and this DID NOT, is asserted with an extremely high level of scientific certainty(about as close to 100% as statistics allow)Evidence of a worldwide flood would have left a huge record of a single time contiguous event, bracketed by the same rules of stratigraphy and hydraulics (not to mention the fossil "hash" that xingu and parados mentioned.
Every flood deposit known has a "fingerprint" in the strat column. Its a high energy , low sorting coefficient (all sizes and shapes jumbled together along with all sorts of detritus ). NOWHERE does this occur and , if it did, we should be able to find specific "lag deposits" of placer heavy minerals that would occur in flood deposits (placers LOOOVE flood deposits). So obviously youre not questioning your "literature" source well enough, you expect that science will catch up to your dogma. Please dont hold your breath cause it looks like its never gonna happen.

0 Replies

I leave for a little while and this is what I return to... Typical.

real life wrote:

Every skin cell in your body is 'light sensitive'.

Actually, every cell in your body would be affected by exposure to all frequencies of the EM in some way.

It doesn't mean that all of your skin cells have the potential to eventually evolve into an eye.

That's right... the point being?

Quote:

The mere fact that some critters have a 'more advanced' eye than others (as evidenced by the fossil record) is little reason to suppose that one evolved from the other.

If we can construct a scenario that shows the evolution of an eye from light sensitive cells to things as complex as insect eyes and our eyes, and that scenario withstands testing, then it is the best scenario to explain how eyes developed. So far, Real Lie, you have provided no evidence to suggest that the evolutionary model of how the eye developed is wrong except speculative conjecture based on your own wishfulfilment.

Quote:

In fact many evolutionists have given up trying to prove this, and instead have gone to the hypothesis of multiple independent scenarios of eye evolution.

Which would still require successive mutations from sensitive light pigmentation cells. You also forget that insect eyes and vertebrate eyes, which you may consider to be so vastly different that they developed independently, share related genes. That is, the genes that code for both types of eyes are both related and could have evolved one from another or from an early ancestor.

Quote:

So , citing the fossil record for some continuous chain of evidence is really smoke and mirrors in this instance if you think that the eye evolved dozens of times separately anyhow.

That's okay, we can always look at genetic research into eye development, like
this one and this one. Put it all together and what have you got? A solid argument for evolution of the eye.

0 Replies

As far as biological senses are concerned, human ones are not that good! God really screwed up on that one! After all, man was created in god's image. LOL

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Every skin cell in your body is 'light sensitive'.

Actually, every cell in your body would be affected by exposure to all frequencies of the EM in some way.

It doesn't mean that all of your skin cells have the potential to eventually evolve into an eye.

That's right... the point being?

Why would not every 'light sensitive' cell have the potential to evolve into an eye?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
real life wrote:
Every skin cell in your body is 'light sensitive'.

Actually, every cell in your body would be affected by exposure to all frequencies of the EM in some way.

It doesn't mean that all of your skin cells have the potential to eventually evolve into an eye.

That's right... the point being?

Why would not every 'light sensitive' cell have the potential to evolve into an eye?

CELLS do not evolve.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
real life wrote:
Every skin cell in your body is 'light sensitive'.

Actually, every cell in your body would be affected by exposure to all frequencies of the EM in some way.

It doesn't mean that all of your skin cells have the potential to eventually evolve into an eye.

That's right... the point being?

Why would not every 'light sensitive' cell have the potential to evolve into an eye?

CELLS do not evolve.

Oh no, I really wish you hadn't said that.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
real life wrote:
Every skin cell in your body is 'light sensitive'.

Actually, every cell in your body would be affected by exposure to all frequencies of the EM in some way.

It doesn't mean that all of your skin cells have the potential to eventually evolve into an eye.

That's right... the point being?

Why would not every 'light sensitive' cell have the potential to evolve into an eye?

CELLS do not evolve.

Oh no, I really wish you hadn't said that.

Sorry, I hate arguing semantics too.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Sorry, I hate arguing semantics too.

Most of us know what you meant of course, which is why I left the context above the quote, in anticipation of when RL rips your comment from its context and claims that you are saying primordial cells don't evolve (I can practically hear him sharpening his knives already) Smile

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
real life wrote:
Every skin cell in your body is 'light sensitive'.

Actually, every cell in your body would be affected by exposure to all frequencies of the EM in some way.

It doesn't mean that all of your skin cells have the potential to eventually evolve into an eye.

That's right... the point being?

Why would not every 'light sensitive' cell have the potential to evolve into an eye?

CELLS do not evolve.

Oh no, I really wish you hadn't said that.

Sorry, I hate arguing semantics too.

Then why did you?

Although my post may be poorly worded, you surely must understand the point I was making.

Why did you jump at the chance to post a semantic argument?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

maporsche wrote:
Sorry, I hate arguing semantics too.

Most of us know what you meant of course, which is why I left the context above the quote, in anticipation of when RL rips your comment from its context and claims that you are saying primordial cells don't evolve (I can practically hear him sharpening his knives already)

Yeah...

give him and inch, he'll take an hour
give him a teaspoon, he'll take a megawatt

T
K
O

0 Replies

Perfect analogy.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Then why did you?

Although my post may be poorly worded, you surely must understand the point I was making.

Why did you jump at the chance to post a semantic argument?

Of course I understood you.

I was merely employing one of your famous tactics for avoiding the question.

I will not let myself stoop to your level again. I apologize.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:

Then why did you?

Although my post may be poorly worded, you surely must understand the point I was making.

Why did you jump at the chance to post a semantic argument?

Of course I understood you.

OK, then answer the question.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
real life wrote:
Every skin cell in your body is 'light sensitive'.

Actually, every cell in your body would be affected by exposure to all frequencies of the EM in some way.

It doesn't mean that all of your skin cells have the potential to eventually evolve into an eye.

That's right... the point being?

Why would not every 'light sensitive' cell have the potential to evolve into an eye?

OK.. semantics aside..

Every creature that has a light sensitive cell has the potential for its progeny over many generations (thousands, millions or hundreds of millions) to eventually have that light sensitive area evolve into an eye.

In order for it to happen, there must be 2 things that occur. There must a mutation and the mutation must be beneficial enough to support it being further propagated. These 2 things would occur time and again until the result is finally an eye. How many mutations are required is not known. How many generations are required is also not known. It could be a direct route in one case or a circuitous route in another case.

The potential to evolve into an eye does not mean it is probable it will nor does it mean it must do so given enough time. However given enough time it beomes very probable that at least one of the progeny will have an eye evolve and will pass it on.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know