Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[florida2]

Yes, you gave a link and I'm asking for a quote, some direction to the content in the link which describes HOW the eye was formed. Would you refer me to just a section of the link which describes HOW the eye was created? All I'm seeing is the claim that the eye evolved, not HOW it evolved.

I suggest you read the section about stages of eye evolution.

For further detail I suggest you read the links in the article and do further research, or ask a biologist. Science has got a pretty good idea about eye evolution but hasn't discovered the full picture yet as far as I can tell.

 

[justlookinla]

I suggest you read the section about stages of eye evolution.

The paragraph with the heading "Stages of eye evolution" ends with the sentence "This suggests that when the two lineages diverged in the Precambrian, they had only very primitive light receptors, which developed into more complex eyes independently."

They said nothing in the paragraph, or the conclusion, about HOW eyes were formed.

Would you point me to the part of the article which describes HOW eyes were formed?

For further detail I suggest you read the links in the article and do further research, or ask a biologist. Science has got a pretty good idea about eye evolution but hasn't discovered the full picture yet as far as I can tell.

Are you telling me that you knew the link you gave wouldn't describe how the eye was produced? Why did you give it?

 

[RickG]

Questions like that are ones you can easily research yourself. I gave you a link to an article about eye evolution which you can read and follow the links to scientific papers linked below it.

It would be far more useful to discussions on here if you do some independent reading about a big question like eye evolution, then come on here to ask about any detail etc once you've got a general understanding, rather than expecting everyone to do it for you.

Oh! But I've been told that they don't have time to read through all that stuff. Never mind that they spend all day and half the night posting information erroneous information from non-science sources here concerning the topic.

 

[florida2]

The paragraph with the heading "Stages of eye evolution" ends with the sentence "This suggests that when the two lineages diverged in the Precambrian, they had only very primitive light receptors, which developed into more complex eyes independently."

They said nothing in the paragraph, or the conclusion, about HOW eyes were formed.

Would you point me to the part of the article which describes HOW eyes were formed?



Are you telling me that you knew the link you gave wouldn't describe how the eye was produced? Why did you give it?

No, I posted the link because it's about evolution of the eye.

If you want to know more detail, do some independent research and/or ask a biologist. I gave you the link as a starting point.

 

[RickG]

Would you point me to the part of the article which describes HOW eyes were formed?

Or better still, how does the formation of the eye invalidate evolution?

 

[The Cadet]

the cadet,
my post applies to you as well.
and i will ask again,"why is it when certain scientists, or people, say "darwinism belongs in a museum" that they are denying evolution"?
why do you assume that?
actually, the biggest points of friction, are your OWN ASSUMPTIONS.
you really do need to stop assuming things about me the cadet.

Did you read my post directly above this one?

Koonin, Eldridge, Gould, etc... None of them deny evolution. None of them deny (near-)universal common ancestry*, speciation, natural selection, descent with modification, or any of the key parts of evolution. They have issues with some of the mechanisms and feel that it needs revision.

You have stated outright that you do not believe that the evidence warrants the claim that evolution can produce disparate clades, and you seem to reject that this is possible.

Koonin, Eldridge, and Gould are not evolution deniers. You are. I'm basing this off your own post where I specifically asked what about evolution you disagree with; if I have misinterpreted you, please tell me so that I can correct that.

*Not entirely sure where the science stands on this issue; I know it's still nearly universal, but HGT at the base of the tree of life makes the issue rather confusing.

this is EXACTLY what noble, koonin, smith, and a host of others has done.
it's people like you and the cadet that twists this around to say i am using their arguments to debunk, or deny, evolution, and it's simply not true.

Well, if you don't reject any part of the core of the theory of evolution (I know I just asked you about this and you gave me an answer on it that wasn't this, but I can't find the post, so I'll just take you on your word here), then I have no idea what we're fighting about. I'm sorry I misinterpreted your statements with regards to Koonin and the others; I could have sworn you were arguing that they had somehow debunked evolution.

And on a side note, to anyone wanting to play the conspiracy card, why is Koonin considered a respectable, cutting-edge scientist while seriously criticizing numerous aspects of the modern synthesis, whereas Behe is seen as a joke? I'll give you a hint: It starts with "ID" and ends with "is not science".

 

[justlookinla]

Oh! But I've been told that they don't have time to read through all that stuff. Never mind that they spend all day and half the night posting information erroneous information from non-science sources here concerning the topic.

Look, I asked a simple question. The simple answer would be, 'we don't know how', but instead a dead end link was given. No effort of explanation, just a worthless link.

I spent time reading the link, searched for the answer, and now find that the HOW isn't described in the article.

Would you like to help?

 

[justlookinla]

Or better still, how does the formation of the eye invalidate evolution?

Didn't say it did. My question is about HOW evolution (the mindless, meaningless, purposeless kind) created the eye.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. They don't. Natural processes wouldn't cause such a clean cross formation. You have no evidence that that happened via natural processes and not via God's Will. That cross is intelligently designed to show off God's power of design. Indeed, I'm not even sure that can happen via natural processes on that particular mountain. It has a function and a purpose. It's design.

Why if you are so sure that evolution is the reason behind the design we observe in living things do you have to simplify the ID position or dumb it down rather than address the real issue? It only makes you look rather ignorant of the issue and makes your position look mush more unstable in comparison. Thanks for the help in showing how little evidence there really is for evolution producing this appearance of design in all living things. You swing from two positions and don't support either, one way you claim there is no "appearance of design" at all and the other way, that evolution explains why there should be this "appearance of design". This is what you are telling me which is contradictory, you don't see any design and it is my subjective opinion and then you put up computer algorithms that show how design could be produced by evolution. You are trying to fight with both arguments against ID in living things which then refutes your own argument from contradiction of both.

For a chemical reason. Laminin folds the way it does due to electron bonds, not because it needs to have a certain function. Sorry, I'm pretending to hold your viewpoints, getting back into the role...

Seriously, no kidding, well that was right over my head.

Why not? It's complex, it shows functionality, it has a clearly defined purpose (spreading the word of God) and at least one creationist has unambiguously held it up as evidence of design in nature:

Thanks again.

I guess I don't understand the concept. But then again, I keep on asking for an objective model for determining whether the appearance of design is legitimate or due to pareidolia/apophenia, and you keep on not giving it to me, so it's hardly my fault if I don't get it.[/QUOTE]

That my friend is very obvious, your argumentation is full of holes and misunderstandings and contradictory which makes it self-refuting.

 

[Oncedeceived]

why is it that when a scientist, or anyone else, says darwinism belongs in a museum, they are "denying evolution"?
why do you think that way?
for example, certain scientists say the origin of life research is a failure, we don't even have a plausible scenario for how it could have happened.
when i read stuff like that, i do not automatically think there is a god.
the first thing that pops into my mind is science is missing something, the next thought is life wasn't created anywhere at any time, but has always existed.

not everyone that questions the current state of evolution is a "god believer".
OTOH, i can not completely discount the possibility either, even though i find the concept almost impossible to believe.

How would life always exist when the universe itself has not?

 

[The Cadet]

That my friend is very obvious, your argumentation is full of holes and misunderstandings and contradictory which makes it self-refuting.

So does that mean that God is telling me something when I see a cloud that looks just like the Wikipedia article on pareidolia?

 

[RickG]

Didn't say it did. My question is about HOW evolution (the mindless, meaningless, purposeless kind) created the eye.

I could care less, its a silly argument against evolution based in creation science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ummm, perhaps because the term "Darwinism" has its origins with evolution deniers, not the scientific community. Comparing what Darwin knew with today's knowledge is like comparing the difference between medical knowldege of the 1800's with today's knowledge. I have no problem with anyone who rejects evolution. I do have a problem with those who continuously propagate that rejection through the means of misrepresentation of science and other information, especially after those misrepresentations have been exposed ad-nausium. Those few scientists who reject evolution do not publish research concerning their position in the scientific literature because it is without merit or any supporting evidence. If evolution were an invalid science, there are numerous eager scientists, wanting to make a name for themselves, that would love to be on the forefront in over throwing ToE. There are no valid arguments against ToE, PERIOD.

Who are these evolution deniers of which you speak? Is it evolution or claims that some make using evolution as an explanation for those claims?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So does that mean that God is telling me something when I see a cloud that looks just like the Wikipedia article on pareidolia?

Thanks again. Your on a roll!

 

[Oncedeceived]

I could care less, its a silly argument against evolution based in creation science.

Is truth ever really silly?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Questions like that are ones you can easily research yourself. I gave you a link to an article about eye evolution which you can read and follow the links to scientific papers linked below it.

It would be far more useful to discussions on here if you do some independent reading about a big question like eye evolution, then come on here to ask about any detail etc once you've got a general understanding, rather than expecting everyone to do it for you.

Have you researched it?

 

[RickG]

Is truth ever really silly?

Creation science is based of the misrepresentation of science. And that's the truth.

 

[justlookinla]

I could care less, its a silly argument against evolution based in creation science.

It's addressing the claims of certain sects of evolutionary creationism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I suggest you read the section about stages of eye evolution.

For further detail I suggest you read the links in the article and do further research, or ask a biologist. Science has got a pretty good idea about eye evolution but hasn't discovered the full picture yet as far as I can tell.

They have made assertions about how it might have occurred and there is no evidence whatsoever on whether "it did" evolve that way. When one has no evidence for eye evolution and we find the first evidence for eyes in the Cambrian with fully complex eyes, that is the definition of assertion. Now Rick G has brought forward some information about some type of eye in the life forms prior to these but has neglected to give the pertinent information concerning what type of eyes were found so I will withhold comment until he has provided that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Creation science is based of the misrepresentation of science. And that's the truth.

You have made that assertion but have not brought forth anything that supports that conclusion. You had one guy in the area of Geology that you claimed was dishonest but so far you haven't provided anything else. One person even if he is being dishonest doesn't represent a whole area of science.