-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Is evolution a theory?
- Thread starter Wiccan_Child
- Start date
It would seem eyesight is an advantageous adaptation. It's also highly unlikely H. sapiens would even exist, given the fact that approximately 90% of the earth's surface is unsuitable for human life, yet here we are.
And to think you live in a time where we actually understand how life evolved [should you choose to become informed].
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Perhaps you could show us your calculations and the assumptions you used?
How does this change any of the evidence that the paper presents? Whether or not ERV's are junk or funcitonal has nothing to do with the argument. ERV's evidence common ancestry because of the random nature of viral insertion. The chances of two independent retroviral insertions occuring at the same base is very low. The chances of hundreds of thousands of retroviral insertions occuring at the same location in two species is astronomically low. The only explanation is that humans and other apes inherited these insertions from a common ancestor. They can not be due to independent insertion.
Notice that nowhere in this argument do I state that ERV's are evidence for common ancestry because they have no function. Nowhere do I state this. So why did you even bring it up?
Upvote
0
Smidlee
Veteran
How did life evolved? How did blind nature evolved a seeing eye?It would seem eyesight is an advantageous adaptation. It's also highly unlikely H. sapiens would even exist, given the fact that approximately 90% of the earth's surface is unsuitable for life, yet here we are.
And to think you live in a time where we actually understand how life evolved [should you choose to become informed].
Upvote
0
Good questions! Fortunately for you, there are dedicated men and women the world over who have devoted their careers towards answering these questions. Should you ever desire to have a real understanding of ToE, your local library, university or book seller will have plenty to point you in the right direction. Seek, and ye shall find.
Upvote
0
KhaosTheory
Well-Known Member
Dawkins Makes an Eye - YouTube
How could blind nature know how to bend the light into a perfect rainbow??? It's impossible!
Oh wait... this is the 21st century... we understand rainbows now.
Upvote
0
KhaosTheory
Well-Known Member
Ok, even IF that were true which it's not, it still says nothing about the original point of the video... You are trying to change the subject... very common when I debate YECers.
Do you have a problem with his simple explanation about how an eye really isn't that mysterious of a thing?
I don't see why you would because he even backed up his hypothetical with real world examples.
Upvote
0
Smidlee
Veteran
All he doing is story telling and there is evidence pointing his story is wrong. Creatures with simple flat eye spots can indeed tell the direction of the light source as this spots are not like off and on switch. Instead they are like a solar panel or a light sensor that it's output increases as it points more toward the light source.
Recently scientist has learn that the simple version of RNase P works exactly same as the more complex version which goes against the evolution idea that a more complex version must have some kind of advantage. (the same assumption that Dawkins is using with his eyeball story) We have examples of designs where you have simple version and more complex version that does the exact same thing. For example my DVD player and my slim PS3 has a push button off/on while my Blu-ray player and the old Fat-PS3 had a touch sensor off/on. Sony went with the push button on the slim version of PS3 to cut down on the cost.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
KhaosTheory
Well-Known Member
This isn't true... Often natural selection weeds out superfluous traits and makes things more simple.
It doesn't matter whether something is simple or complex... It only matters if it's advantageous or not.
In the real world things do appear to be getting more complex overall but there are plenty of instances where complexity is actually a disadvantage.
Upvote
0
"It is estimated that only one-eighth of the surface of the Earth is suitable for humans to live onthree-quarters is covered by oceans, and half of the land area is either desert (14%),[163] high mountains (27%),[164] or other less suitable terrain. The northernmost permanent settlement in the world is Alert, on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada.[165] (82°28′N) The southernmost is the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, in Antarctica, almost exactly at the South Pole. (90°S)"
Upvote
0
Yes, I was referring to H. sapiens when I made that statement. I will edit my original post to reflect this.Then I would like to point out that it isn't necessarily "unsuitable for life", "unsuitable for human life" would be better. (Just to be a bit more exact
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, as life has adapted to live in just about every environment on earth. My comment was meant to convey the absurdity YEC's make when referring to the earth being "perfect for life" dribble.
Upvote
0
This has nothing at all to do with your claim, that 90% of the planet's surface is unsuitable for life (Oops, now I see Elendur beat me to it)
Upvote
0
Doesn't change their origin nor their ability to evidence common ancestry. Functional ERV's are still viral in origin. It is the random nature of viral insertion which makes them useful as genetic markers, not their lack of function.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
