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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Weird but still design thanks for acknowledging it .

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

To be honest, a creature such as the one you came up with would DEFINITELY be an example of design since there is not way for such a creature to exist in biology.

 

[tas8831]

Weird but still design thanks for acknowledging it .

I acknowledged nothing but the musings of the underinformed.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't have a medical degree, so I don't know the exact terminology, but the eyes we are born with have an "elasticity' that allows us to focus. In other words, we can see things far away and we can see things close up. The lens surgically put into my can't do that. I need to wear reading glasses to see close up.

Some of the new lenses are more flexible and do adjust for focus. There is also no reason that these lenses couldn't continue to improve. Sorry that the ones you got are not of optimal quality or size.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So animal first to have brain which does not need to rest would rule over everything else .

Again, you are assuming a few incorrect things:
1. That not sleeping is better for survival than sleeping to the point that any organism that had this trait would outperform any other organisms so much as to dominate every ecosystem.
2. That brains are the only organs that benefit from sleep.
3. That there aren't any organisms that do not fully go to sleep (dolphins are an example, they sleep with half of their brain at a time)

You also don't need to conserve energy because everything which has to sleep will sleep and you can kill and eat it with ease .

Why are you assuming that every organism that does sleep like we do sleeps too deeply to be awakened by the noise of something entering its shelter? Why are you only trying to apply this to predators?

Furthermore, have you even considered food availability? Lots of organisms simply do not have the luxury of a consistent food supply such that they can run around and be active all the time. This is why so many organisms go into hibernation for winter and other forms of stasis; if they don't, they will starve to death.

Being awake and running around more often as a result of never sleeping means more food is required per individual. As a result, ecosystems automatically could not support nearly as many members of such organisms as those which conserve energy through sleep. For example, a human sleeping usually won't burn more than 70 Calories per hour. A person sitting burns around 102 calories per hour. Being awake and burning that much and more energy per hour isn't going to make crops grow faster, now is it? It also won't make prey animals breed faster or more frequently. How much food is available to be had is finite and will not increase with more hours of wakefulness, especially considering the fact that plants need sunlight in order to produce food.

Then you can eat it and feed more energy to your brain that it would "gain" by turning your body offline for 8 hours to conserve energy .

Assuming the average person is a complete couch potato, the average person should go through 2192 Calories per day, including 8 hours of sleep. if they don't sleep, that makes it 2448 Calories per day. That's the difference it makes if all a person does is sit around when they are awake. That's for doing absolutely nothing productive.

Sleep cycles show a design , you can't evolve a sleep cycle because if sleep cycle worked then you keep it , if it did not work well you are dead and can't pass that information to your kids because you are being omnomnomed by belly juices .

-_- you know that if you consider sleep to be detrimental and then say it is a sign of design that this implies that you think evolution should result in organisms better at surviving than a designer making organisms would. Also, in a lot of organisms, sleep is just slowing down activity, they don't go through the same sleep stages we do. REM sleep especially has a strong correlation with intelligence in organisms. It's not like your body is doing nothing when you are asleep; many important processes, including memory processing and healing, are done while you are asleep. Your body needs your muscles, etc., not to be using up energy so that it can be directed towards these processes, which is why insomniacs often suffer from various health problems.

 

[Chinchilla]

Again, you are assuming a few incorrect things:
1. That not sleeping is better for survival than sleeping to the point that any organism that had this trait would outperform any other organisms so much as to dominate every ecosystem.
2. That brains are the only organs that benefit from sleep.
3. That there aren't any organisms that do not fully go to sleep (dolphins are an example, they sleep with half of their brain at a time)




Why are you assuming that every organism that does sleep like we do sleeps too deeply to be awakened by the noise of something entering its shelter? Why are you only trying to apply this to predators?

Furthermore, have you even considered food availability? Lots of organisms simply do not have the luxury of a consistent food supply such that they can run around and be active all the time. This is why so many organisms go into hibernation for winter and other forms of stasis; if they don't, they will starve to death.

Being awake and running around more often as a result of never sleeping means more food is required per individual. As a result, ecosystems automatically could not support nearly as many members of such organisms as those which conserve energy through sleep. For example, a human sleeping usually won't burn more than 70 Calories per hour. A person sitting burns around 102 calories per hour. Being awake and burning that much and more energy per hour isn't going to make crops grow faster, now is it? It also won't make prey animals breed faster or more frequently. How much food is available to be had is finite and will not increase with more hours of wakefulness, especially considering the fact that plants need sunlight in order to produce food.


Assuming the average person is a complete couch potato, the average person should go through 2192 Calories per day, including 8 hours of sleep. if they don't sleep, that makes it 2448 Calories per day. That's the difference it makes if all a person does is sit around when they are awake. That's for doing absolutely nothing productive.


-_- you know that if you consider sleep to be detrimental and then say it is a sign of design that this implies that you think evolution should result in organisms better at surviving than a designer making organisms would. Also, in a lot of organisms, sleep is just slowing down activity, they don't go through the same sleep stages we do. REM sleep especially has a strong correlation with intelligence in organisms. It's not like your body is doing nothing when you are asleep; many important processes, including memory processing and healing, are done while you are asleep. Your body needs your muscles, etc., not to be using up energy so that it can be directed towards these processes, which is why insomniacs often suffer from various health problems.

I'm saying that animal which would not need sleep would always win because it would simply stalk the other which needs sleep untill it's so weak because of sleep deprivation that it's easy to kill and eat . It could hunt for few days straight .

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm saying that animal which would not need sleep would always win because it would simply stalk the other which needs sleep untill it's so weak because of sleep deprivation that it's easy to kill and eat . It could hunt for few days straight .

No it couldn't!

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm saying that animal which would not need sleep would always win because it would simply stalk the other which needs sleep untill it's so weak because of sleep deprivation that it's easy to kill and eat. It could hunt for few days straight .

Lol, you are describing how ancient humans hunted and you don't even realize it. Yeah, we still slept, but thanks to being able to track the animal and having way more endurance than most other organisms do, we would hunt them for days. That strategy has the pitfall of requiring a lot of intelligence to pull it off.

Not sure why you thought only an organism that doesn't sleep could do that.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm saying that animal which would not need sleep would always win because it would simply stalk the other which needs sleep untill it's so weak because of sleep deprivation that it's easy to kill and eat . It could hunt for few days straight .

Congratulations also on trying to dodge the fact that you accidentally implied that you think evolution should be able to produce better organisms than the god you worship, but I won't allow it. Explain to me how you think never requiring sleep would be better when you also believe YHWH made animals require sleep and that this being is all knowing? Are you saying sleep is a mistake?

 

[Chinchilla]

Congratulations also on trying to dodge the fact that you accidentally implied that you think evolution should be able to produce better organisms than the god you worship, but I won't allow it. Explain to me how you think never requiring sleep would be better when you also believe YHWH made animals require sleep and that this being is all knowing? Are you saying sleep is a mistake?

There is no sun nor moon in resurrected earth we don't sleep in glorified bodies hope you know that.
We don't have them right now .

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is no sun nor moon in resurrected earth we don't sleep in glorified bodies hope you know that.
We don't have them right now .

Yet we're not talking about a 'resurrected Earth'. We're talking about the Earth we're on now.

 

[Chinchilla]

Yet we're not talking about a 'resurrected Earth'. We're talking about the Earth we're on now.

It's in fallen state. Entropy sounds not fun .

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's in fallen state. Entropy sounds not fun .

*Looks around* Well, I'll admit that it could use a bit of a fixer-upper, but it seems all right to me. Not fallen at all.

 

[Chinchilla]

*Looks around* Well, I'll admit that it could use a bit of a fixer-upper, but it seems all right to me. Not fallen at all.

Can a sand castle build itself from the sand on beach ?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Can a sand castle build itself from the sand on beach ?

... Are you seriously asking that question?

 

[Chinchilla]

... Are you seriously asking that question?

Yes

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes

Okay, so you're asking if a natural element, sand, can create by itself an obviously man-made structure, i.e. a sand castle? Correct?

 

[Chinchilla]

Okay, so you're asking if a natural element, sand, can create by itself an obviously man-made structure, i.e. a sand castle? Correct?

Why do you assume it's man made ? Because it looks like some intelligence would be required to make it ?

But then you look at cell which is million times more complex and you somehow don't assume that it's God's made .

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why do you assume it's man made ? Because it looks like some intelligence would be required to make it ?

But then you look at cell which is million times more complex and you somehow don't assume that it's God's made .

Because we have multiple evidences that sand castles aren't made naturally.
We have zero evidence that cells weren't made naturally.

 

[Chinchilla]

Because we have multiple evidences that sand castles aren't made naturally.
We have zero evidence that cells weren't made naturally.

If you don't believe that sand castle can make itself how can you believe that cell can make itself ? Or maybe you simply don't want to .

You also have zero evidence that cells weren't made not naturally but you prefer to choose the naturally option that's called faith belief and it's scientism not science , a religion :3

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you don't believe that sand castle can make itself how can you believe that cell can make itself ? Or maybe you simply don't want to .

You also have zero evidence that cells weren't made not naturally but you prefer to choose the naturally option that's called faith belief and it's scientism not science , a religion :3

I don't believe that sand castles make themselves, I know that they don't make themselves. I've seen it and I've done it myself.

And there is evidence that cells come about naturally, which is very different to cells making themselves from nothing. But there's zero evidence that cells were created by a deity. I only choose the natural option because it's the only option with evidence for it.