Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
so if i will add a part of glass to a robot- it will response to the light? ok. lets assume its possible. how it will evolve into somehintg more complex like a video camera? step by step?
"Goddidit"how do they explain that Sudbury is almost eroded away, Chicxulub is half covered by the Yucatan peninsula and Berringer is "fresh".
Human artifacts don't evolve, except when we make copies of living systems.
But as you know, a population of organisms can evolve to adapt to new conditions, or to become better fitted to the existing environment. So if it's beneficial for an organism to better orient to light, a dark spot would be an advantage. A simple mutation does that.
likewise, a slightly sunken spot or more nerves under the spot would again be beneficial.
And so on. There's no point in the process where simple mutations couldn't produce the gradual changes that would result in a complex eye. And each of those changes would be favorable, which means they would tend to accumulate in the next generation.
show me in the lab that a creature wihout a vision system evolve a vision system and it will by a good proof for evolution.
even the starting point (an eyespot) need several parts to function. so even the first step is impossible by evolution. think about a minimal light detector made by human. do you think we can make such a detector by one or two parts?
Impact craters are one of those things they usually dance around or come up with crazy, ad hoc stuff to explain. Leaving aside for a moment how catastrophic Chicxulub alone was, but toss in Vredefort and Sudbury during a 2,000 to 1.5 year time frame (depending on when they claim the impacts happened) and the worldwide destruction would be unimaginable - how do they explain that Sudbury is almost eroded away, Chicxulub is half covered by the Yucatan peninsula and Berringer is "fresh".
And yet we cannot show this actually occurred.
Yep still an assumptive argument.
ICR claims there can be no intermediate forms between land animals and whales. Finding a transitional between those two groups would of course invalidate creationism as the ICR believes in it.
Put the glass in a depression and you have rudimentary direction.
Restrict the opening to the glass and you have rudimentary focusing (like a pinhole camera).
Add a flexible and transparent covering over the opening and you have a protected retina.
Add a muscle to the flexible and transparaent covering and you have a lensed, camera style eye.
All steps are one piece at a time, and each step offers an improvement over the old eye.
Do you really think you're asking a question that has not been asked (and answered) already?
Evolution of vertebrate eyes:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/21/evolution-of-vertebrate-eyes/
Evolution of metazoan eyes:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/15/the-eye-as-a-contingent-divers/
Actually, proving any transitional form between kinds is real would invalidate creationism, but you would have to have DNA proof that the three forms are actually related
and are really transitioning.
Actually, proving any transitional form between kinds is real would invalidate creationism, but you would have to have DNA proof that the three forms are actually related, and are really transitioning.
Problem is they all work differently, so you would have to change neural paths and how the brain uses them each time you change the eye.
There are multiple assumptions here.
That we have. Turns out, whale DNA shows them to be most closely related to ungulates as the fossil record also indicates. And we know it works, since we can test it on organisms if known descent.
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Young Earth creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
It would be nice if people would actually read the links that are posted.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/15/the-eye-as-a-contingent-divers/
First section: DNA. Like human and ape DNA, similarity in DNA does not prove ancestry,
but made many animals like the duck-bill platypus or the spiny anteater, that fit no neat classification.
First section: DNA. Like human and ape DNA, similarity in DNA does not prove ancestry, but similarity in form and function.
And known descent or assumed descent?
I know many, including some creationists, believe in intermediary forms.
I have no problem believing that God was not limited to reptiles, birds, fishes, etc., but made many animals like the duck-bill platypus or the spiny anteater, that fit no neat classification.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?