Evidence for Design (2)

[elephunky]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Evidence for Design"

 

[Davian]

 

[Smidlee]

"There is no reason why it has to be wired that way."
Even some scientist would disagree since there is huge amount of blood flow in the back of the retina. That what science does is look for the reasons.
"Even more importantly, we see a nested hierarchy for eye designs. Everything with a backbone has a backwards facing retina while molluscs have a forward facing retina. Time and again we keep seeing this nested hierarchy which is exactly what we should see if evolution is true."

From what I've read there are invertebrates with inverted retinas. The nested hierarchy seems to work better if you don't assume evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

subscribing,

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

"There is no reason why it has to be wired that way."
Even some scientist would disagree since there is huge amount of blood flow in the back of the retina. That what science does is look for the reasons.
"Even more importantly, we see a nested hierarchy for eye designs. Everything with a backbone has a backwards facing retina while molluscs have a forward facing retina. Time and again we keep seeing this nested hierarchy which is exactly what we should see if evolution is true."

From what I've read there are invertebrates with inverted retinas. The nested hierarchy seems to work better if you don't assume evolution.

Do these invertebrates with inverted retinas have names?

 

[Loudmouth]

Even some scientist would disagree since there is huge amount of blood flow in the back of the retina. That what science does is look for the reasons.

Why would that require a backwards facing retina? Why couldn't a supposed omnipotent and omniscient deity design a forward facing retina that also had ample blood flow?

From what I've read there are invertebrates with inverted retinas. The nested hierarchy seems to work better if you don't assume evolution.

The cephalopod retina faces forward. All of them. All of the vertebrate retinas face backwards. We see yet another example of lineage specific adaptations, just as we should see if evolution is true.

 

[Split Rock]

. The nested hierarchy seems to work better if you don't assume evolution.

How does one produce a nested hierarchy without common descent?

 

[OllieFranz]

How does one produce a nested hierarchy without common descent?

I assume that you responded here before you thought the point through. nested hierarchies are evidence of common descent, but it is not necessary to connect a nested hierarchy to common descent before you recognize that you can organize them into nested hierarchies. Linneaus lived 100 years before Darwin.

On the other hand, of course, when you add in all the fossils found since Linneaus, it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that the heirarchies are not just our brains seeing patterns in randomness, but that they recapitulate the history of speciation.

 

[createdtoworship]

Why would that require a backwards facing retina? Why couldn't a supposed omnipotent and omniscient deity design a forward facing retina that also had ample blood flow?



The cephalopod retina faces forward. All of them. All of the vertebrate retinas face backwards. We see yet another example of lineage specific adaptations, just as we should see if evolution is true.

God could have created every vehicle with four wheel drive and 12 cylinders but luxury is not necessity.

not sure if that is a relevant comment. We were talking about how some organs are useless in the other thread. Assuming we are talking about different retinas, and how some are superior to others.

 

[createdtoworship]

However, we have found vestigial organs that serve a secondary or rudimentary function compared to the same organ in other species which is what makes them vestigial organs. If my keyboard stopped working I could still pound some nails in with it, or use it as a paperweight. However, that doesn't change the fact that it is broken.

"An organ serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other . . ."--Charles Darwin

yes but you have yet to show a vestigal organ that serves no importance. You speak of them, but have not actually named one.

 

[biggles53]

yes but you have yet to show a vestigal organ that serves no importance. You speak of them, but have not actually named one.

Nipples on men? Sexual organs on dandelions? Eyes on the Mexican cave fish? Human babies born with tails? 'Goose bumps' on humans? Leg bones in whales? How about the genes for teeth in chickens? (last couple might be atavisms, rather than vestigials...)

Knock yourself out....

Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs) | LiveScience

 

[createdtoworship]

Nipples on men? Sexual organs on dandelions? Eyes on the Mexican cave fish? Human babies born with tails? 'Goose bumps' on humans? Leg bones in whales? How about the genes for teeth in chickens? (last couple might be atavisms, rather than vestigials...)

Knock yourself out....

Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs) | LiveScience

nipples on men? Easy.....

"Anyway, both male and female babies are born with the main milk ducts intact--the gland that produces milk is there in the male, but it remains undeveloped unless stimulated by the female hormone, estrogen. "


in an secular article that says "male nipples are hardly vestigial"

The Straight Dope: Why do men have nipples?

as far as the rest of those, i.e. chicken with teeth etc....those are all mutation, not the original intent of the organism. So those would be the only real case of vestigial organs.

which defeats the purpose of your argument, being that

"if vestigial organs exist, God messed up"

 

[createdtoworship]

life doesn't come easy:

239 protien molecules in simple life amoeba

445 amino acids per protein

each slot in protein must be filled with 1 of 20 different amino acids (if one slot imperfect it fails)

probability theory of this arising by chance alone is this so far:

1 chance in 20 to the number in each protein
445

to the number of proteins 239

to the number of proteins 238 to the number of proteins 237, 236, 235 etc.



so the figures of random evolution of life are:

1 chance in 10 to the 137,915
now for the exciting part:

amino acids cannot be sloted into protein w/o enzymes (special enzymes). 2ndly only left handed amino acids can be used, if a right handed one slots in there, it is a fail.

so now the numbers of chance are 1 in 10 to the 15billion.

only problems are not enough time and not enough raw elements:
10 to 18th seconds in the universe (taking a old earththeory)

10 to the 80 the fundamental particles to randomly use

which makes up only 10 to the 76 amino acids if arranged perfectly in the right order.

so not enough time ,

and not enough stuff.

 

[CabVet]

life doesn't come easy:

therefore the only option is

it is designed that way.

Thanks for providing the perfect example to illustrate #4 on the list below:

The Top Five Most Annoying Statistical Fallacies

 

[OllieFranz]

Thanks for providing the perfect example to illustrate #4 on the list below:

The Top Five Most Annoying Statistical Fallacies

Agreed. And it has been discussed in this forum many times in greater depth and in language more easily accessible to the layman. I'd estimate that I have participated in more probability debate threads than twice the number of years I've been a member of CF. And there have been years I did not participate on the C&E thread at all. I dare say that almost any member with a feeling for math and an understanding of statistics, and seeing how this "statistic" continues to crop up, and continues to delude the faithful, would certainly agree with Mark Twain's aphorism concerning the hierarchy of lies.


Oh, and Gradyll -- It is not true that one "wrong" amino acid makes the protein "fail." Because my DNA is different from your DNA, the code for the proteins are different. And yet, if I left my pancreas for research and they used it as a basis for producing insulin, and if you were diabetic, my insulin would still work perfectly fine. Even pig insulin works fine.

And many plants have proteins that look somewhat like estrogen. We call these proteins phyto-estrogens. And they act in the human body just like human estrogen. Though I do think that the story about eating too much soy producing gynomastia ("woman-breast") in men is an urban legend, or at least an exaggeration.

 

[FatBurk]

yes but you have yet to show a vestigal organ that serves no importance. You speak of them, but have not actually named one.

Nipples on the male animal? every fetus, be it animal or human, starts out female.

 

[createdtoworship]

Agreed. And it has been discussed in this forum many times in greater depth and in language more easily accessible to the layman. I'd estimate that I have participated in more probability debate threads than twice the number of years I've been a member of CF. And there have been years I did not participate on the C&E thread at all. I dare say that almost any member with a feeling for math and an understanding of statistics, and seeing how this "statistic" continues to crop up, and continues to delude the faithful, would certainly agree with Mark Twain's aphorism concerning the hierarchy of lies.


Oh, and Gradyll -- It is not true that one "wrong" amino acid makes the protein "fail." Because my DNA is different from your DNA, the code for the proteins are different. And yet, if I left my pancreas for research and they used it as a basis for producing insulin, and if you were diabetic, my insulin would still work perfectly fine. Even pig insulin works fine.

And many plants have proteins that look somewhat like estrogen. We call these proteins phyto-estrogens. And they act in the human body just like human estrogen. Though I do think that the story about eating too much soy producing gynomastia ("woman-breast") in men is an urban legend, or at least an exaggeration.

are you saying that right handed amino acids can form proteins? This is obviously wrong. And the statistical analysis is extremely biased toward the old earth, evolutionary model. Believe me, it was generous.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nipples on the male animal? every fetus, be it animal or human, starts out female.

they do, I thought they started out with both organs and the hormones develop or impede the growth of the opposite sex (that you are not).

but I haven't researched this that much.

 

[createdtoworship]

Thanks for providing the perfect example to illustrate #4 on the list below:

The Top Five Most Annoying Statistical Fallacies

if you have 3 bottles and one contains water with sugar and the other two just water.

it is one chance in three that you would have sweet water.

does that make sense?

there is no statistical assumptions being made here.

 

[createdtoworship]

Agreed. And it has been discussed in this forum many times in greater depth and in language more easily accessible to the layman. I'd estimate that I have participated in more probability debate threads than twice the number of years I've been a member of CF. And there have been years I did not participate on the C&E thread at all. I dare say that almost any member with a feeling for math and an understanding of statistics, and seeing how this "statistic" continues to crop up, and continues to delude the faithful, would certainly agree with Mark Twain's aphorism concerning the hierarchy of lies.


Oh, and Gradyll -- It is not true that one "wrong" amino acid makes the protein "fail." Because my DNA is different from your DNA, the code for the proteins are different. And yet, if I left my pancreas for research and they used it as a basis for producing insulin, and if you were diabetic, my insulin would still work perfectly fine. Even pig insulin works fine.

And many plants have proteins that look somewhat like estrogen. We call these proteins phyto-estrogens. And they act in the human body just like human estrogen. Though I do think that the story about eating too much soy producing gynomastia ("woman-breast") in men is an urban legend, or at least an exaggeration.

I didn't see the second part of your post. You illustrate your point with plant life which does not compare to animal cells. So how is this a proving of your point?