"Poorly" designed eye can be used to test quantum mechanics

[Ophiolite]

Why are animals sleeping ? The one which could evolve the first to not need sleep would rule over rest of them because it could hunt these who sleep and eat them o__O

I would prefer, before discussing this, that you would first acquaint yourself with the material I have directed you towards. We could then resolve your misunderstanding on that point before moving onto the next one.

You may not be aware, but by failing to acknowledge the error in your thinking and changing the subject you give the impression of someone who is trying sneakily to avoid facing reality. I'm sure this is not your intention, but you can remove all doubt by following my suggestion. I look forward to clarifying any remaining confusion you may have over the evolution of the eye. Then we can turn towards sleeping.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

-_- you mean the originals that clouded up so that you couldn't see right? Those artificial ones, as long as they were made and inserted properly, would last longer than anyone's lifetime, but this is never the case for the lenses we are born with. They all inevitably wear out and lose their ability to focus properly with time, so much so that anyone above the age of 70 claiming not to need glasses is almost certainly delusional or a liar.

Plus, should these artificial ones become cloudy, they don't need to be replaced, they can just be cleared up.

We were designed to wear out at about 70 or 80.

Psalm 90:10
"The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away."

 

[Sanoy]

sidenote for fun research: the microscope (world's best optical one) is making a come-back (so to speak) and a few have been made (apparently).
It was forbidden for what, almost a century or longer ? (I don't remember),
because it was too good. The amazing detail in cells, etc, that could be seen exposed a lot of the deceptive medicine motives and goals at the time it was forbidden , and if it becomes available again to doctors and to scientists, it will undo most of the last 100 years profit progress (money mongering). Personally, I think and believe it much more likely that Jesus will return first to set things straight, because the world has an overall direction of not being able to do that (not being able to do what is good and right and true).

I'm not familiar with this. What microscope do you mean, and why was it banned?

 

[Ophiolite]

Lot's of "if's" here.

"...if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

That's right. Now do you want to note when that was written and by whom and in what context? Do you want to recognise that the "ifs" have been addressed in the century and a half since? In short, do you want stop muddying the water by items out of context? No, of course you don't. That would involve you in accepting that your arguments are weak and your posting integrity heading in the same direction.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That's right. Now do you want to note when that was written and by whom and in what context? Do you want to recognise that the "ifs" have been addressed in the century and a half since? In short, do you want stop muddying the water by items out of context? No, of course you don't. That would involve you in accepting that your arguments are weak and your posting integrity heading in the same direction.

The first 'if' is troublesome. How many different critters were lined up to show such 'gradations'?

 

[Ophiolite]

The first 'if' is troublesome. How many different critters were lined up to show such 'gradations'?

I've provided an initial link that contians numerous references. When you demonstrate you are serious about educating yourself on these matters I'll put in much more effort to guide you. Until then it's up to you to do some of the work.

 

[Chinchilla]

I would prefer, before discussing this, that you would first acquaint yourself with the material I have directed you towards. We could then resolve your misunderstanding on that point before moving onto the next one.

You may not be aware, but by failing to acknowledge the error in your thinking and changing the subject you give the impression of someone who is trying sneakily to avoid facing reality. I'm sure this is not your intention, but you can remove all doubt by following my suggestion. I look forward to clarifying any remaining confusion you may have over the evolution of the eye. Then we can turn towards sleeping.

Why do you presuppose that what's written there is true ?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

This is incorrect. It has always been incorrect. Each time a creationist makes this claim it is incorrect. Each time a creationist doesn't make this claim it is incorrect. It has the outstanding feature of always being incorrect.

If you wish to educate yourself in the matter read more here, then dig into the associated references. If you do not wish to educate yourself, wait two months then make the same claim again. It will still be incorrect.

I like this from your link. Note the apologetic quotes around the word 'design', included no doubt because no other term would be appropriate.

"At a cellular level, there appear to be two main "designs" of eyes, one possessed by the protostomes (molluscs, annelid worms and arthropods), the other by the deuterostomes (chordates and echinoderms)."

I also missed the process of the development of primitive "eyespots". They just seemed to jump into existence out of thin air, as do most of the facets of evolution.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I'm not familiar with this. What microscope do you mean, and why was it banned?

The same reason that health and science professionals who don't care for money at all, just an honest days wage that is, are silenced.
Imagine you could look into the world of germs and disprove most of today's germ theory that multi-billion dollar corporations depend on.
They rely on that people cannot see the truth of what they claim, to make their billions of dollars. Once people get "inside" info, like the whistle-blowers in any industry, the lies are exposed - brought out into the light for all to see the motives and the means being used - like most recently raising the price for 'needed' epi-pens astronomically just because they were the only supplier (a new owner of the company - widely exposed in the news across the country) ....
Well, while you and I might have to settle for hearing the truth, as they are so rare, others are able to see it, through a rife or rife-design microscope.
They were banned (probably confiscated and destroyed or put under lock and key) for a long time because it would have exposed what the corporations were doing as false advertising and fake science (made up test results, "tweeked" ? at least, to produce the needed results to charge huge amounts of money (extortion? , maybe) from people who thought they had no other choice) ....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Why do you presuppose that what's written there is true ?

As noted in my previous post, what is a lie is being promoted as true, and any means necessary will be used,
and people who do not trust Yahweh and do not trust in Jesus' Faithfulness
are readily deceived.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

We were designed to wear out at about 70 or 80.

Awww... don't worry.... there's cars and truck today that can go up to 120... for a long long time...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Awww... don't worry.... there's cars and truck today that can go up to 120... for a long long time...
[/QUOTE]

Years or mph?

 

[SkyWriting]

This is incorrect. It has always been incorrect. Each time a creationist makes this claim it is incorrect. Each time a creationist doesn't make this claim it is incorrect. It has the outstanding feature of always being incorrect.

If you wish to educate yourself in the matter read more here, then dig into the associated references. If you do not wish to educate yourself, wait two months then make the same claim again. It will still be incorrect.

The eye has no interest in improving itself. Yet it did
without random mistakes.
Your complaint fails.

 

[SkyWriting]

Years or mph?[/QUOTE]

Horses?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Years or mph?

Horses?[/QUOTE]

They can last a long time (or distance).

My 1996 Mercury Grand Marquis: retired at 465,000 miles.
Current 2005 MGM: 380,000 miles. Still purrs like a kitten.

 

[dreadnought]

-_- you mean the originals that clouded up so that you couldn't see right? Those artificial ones, as long as they were made and inserted properly, would last longer than anyone's lifetime, but this is never the case for the lenses we are born with. They all inevitably wear out and lose their ability to focus properly with time, so much so that anyone above the age of 70 claiming not to need glasses is almost certainly delusional or a liar.

Plus, should these artificial ones become cloudy, they don't need to be replaced, they can just be cleared up.

I can't focus with these lenses: I see pretty well from a distance but need glasses to see close up. My eyes irritate more easily. There a "crescent moon" sort of thing on the periphery of each eye, and I think that's why my eyes seem to play tricks on me sometimes. I have more floaters than before the surgery.

 

[Speedwell]

without random mistakes.

So your position is that the eye developed with no variations which were rejected by natural selection. How do you know that? What evidence do you have for it?

 

[Ophiolite]

Why do you presuppose that what's written there is true ?

I don't presuppose it to be true. Clearly your difficulty in understanding science extends beyond the evolution of the eye.

I have previously studied a number of discussions and research papers in relation to the evolution of the eye. I have found these to present the most convincing explanation for the existence of eyes and certainly, because of the quality and quantity of evidence, much more plausible and convincing than the Creationist explanation. In order to provide you with an opportunity to examine the evidence for yourself I've given you a convenient entry to the topic via the wikipedia article.

Now, instead of grasping that opportunity and seeking to educate yourself, first you try to change the subject, then you - guess what - try to change the subject again. I'm not interested in that kind of dishonest behaviour, or in continuing a conversation with someone who practices it. Go study the material, come back and ask questions, or make relevant points and I shall be happy to re-engage with you. Otherwise you are welcome to indulge yourself by ignoring information that makes you feel uncomfortable. I hope you make the former choice and we proceed.

 

[Ophiolite]

I like this from your link. Note the apologetic quotes around the word 'design', included no doubt because no other term would be appropriate.

The only apology present there is the implicit one that reads "I'm sorry we have to put quotation marks around design, but this is because intransigent Creationists insist that words only have one meaning, even although they privately realise this is not the case."

I also missed the process of the development of primitive "eyespots". They just seemed to jump into existence out of thin air, as do most of the facets of evolution.

Keep studying. You may actually get there.

 

[Chinchilla]

I don't presuppose it to be true. Clearly your difficulty in understanding science extends beyond the evolution of the eye.

I have previously studied a number of discussions and research papers in relation to the evolution of the eye. I have found these to present the most convincing explanation for the existence of eyes and certainly, because of the quality and quantity of evidence, much more plausible and convincing than the Creationist explanation. In order to provide you with an opportunity to examine the evidence for yourself I've given you a convenient entry to the topic via the wikipedia article.

Now, instead of grasping that opportunity and seeking to educate yourself, first you try to change the subject, then you - guess what - try to change the subject again. I'm not interested in that kind of dishonest behaviour, or in continuing a conversation with someone who practices it. Go study the material, come back and ask questions, or make relevant points and I shall be happy to re-engage with you. Otherwise you are welcome to indulge yourself by ignoring information that makes you feel uncomfortable. I hope you make the former choice and we proceed.

Sure , what evolved first the DNA in eye or proteinst to produce such DNA ?