-
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.
the fact that organisms can see with eyes proves intelligent design
- Thread starter lukeman
- Start date
Sure.
It stands for G-Protein Coupled Receptor. It is a type of receptor used in cell signaling pathways. They are characterized as having 7 highly conserved trans-membrane domains that allow the receptor to sit in the cell's membrane.
I would link the wikipedia article for them but I have don't have enough posts. However a search for GPCR in google reveals the article as the first hit. That should have way more information then I care to know about them.
Upvote
0
Sphinx777
Well-Known Member
Senses are the physiological methods of perception. The senses and their operation, classification, and theory are overlapping topics studied by a variety of fields, most notably neuroscience, cognitive psychology (or cognitive science), and philosophy of perception. The nervous system has a specific sensory system, or organ, dedicated to each sense.
There is no firm agreement among neurologists as to the number of senses because of differing definitions of what constitutes a sense. One definition states that an exteroceptive sense is a faculty by which outside stimuli are perceived. The traditional five senses are sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste: a classification attributed to Aristotle. Humans are considered to have at least five additional senses that include: nociception (pain), equilibrioception (balance), proprioception & kinaesthesia (joint motion and acceleration), sense of time, thermoception (temperature differences), with possibly an additional weak magnetoception (direction), and six more if interoceptive senses (see other internal senses below) are also considered.
One commonly recognized categorisation for human senses is as follows: chemoreception; photoreception; mechanoreception; and thermoception. This categorisation has been criticized as too restrictive, however, as it does not include categories for accepted senses such as the sense of time and sense of pain.
Different senses also exist in other animals, for example electroreception.
A broadly acceptable definition of a sense would be "A system that consists of a group of sensory cell types that responds to a specific physical phenomenon, and that corresponds to a particular group of regions within the brain where the signals are received and interpreted." Disputes about the number of senses typically arise around the classification of the various cell types and their mapping to regions of the brain.
There is no firm agreement among neurologists as to the number of senses because of differing definitions of what constitutes a sense. One definition states that an exteroceptive sense is a faculty by which outside stimuli are perceived. The traditional five senses are sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste: a classification attributed to Aristotle. Humans are considered to have at least five additional senses that include: nociception (pain), equilibrioception (balance), proprioception & kinaesthesia (joint motion and acceleration), sense of time, thermoception (temperature differences), with possibly an additional weak magnetoception (direction), and six more if interoceptive senses (see other internal senses below) are also considered.
One commonly recognized categorisation for human senses is as follows: chemoreception; photoreception; mechanoreception; and thermoception. This categorisation has been criticized as too restrictive, however, as it does not include categories for accepted senses such as the sense of time and sense of pain.
Different senses also exist in other animals, for example electroreception.
A broadly acceptable definition of a sense would be "A system that consists of a group of sensory cell types that responds to a specific physical phenomenon, and that corresponds to a particular group of regions within the brain where the signals are received and interpreted." Disputes about the number of senses typically arise around the classification of the various cell types and their mapping to regions of the brain.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
MODERATOR HELMET
Please remember, this is a Christians-only forum.
Non-Christians may not post here.
Thank you.
Please remember, this is a Christians-only forum.
Non-Christians may not post here.
Thank you.
Upvote
0
As other posters have pointed out, the human eye is a poor design - it is designed backwards, with an added "fix-it" attempt of using muller cells to try to mitigate the damage. Other eyes (such as the squid eye) don't make this mistake - showing that it doesn't have to be like that.
The eye and many other features in the human body (including vesitigial features) and in other animals shows that if anyone is going to say that life was designed, then what they are saying is that the designer is a very poor designer. This kind of indictment of God not only violates Mk 3:29, but also hurts Chrisitianity by making it look like Christians are ignorant of biology.
With the many intermediate forms available, the evolution of eyes is not only easy to imagine, it's also easy to see how it actually happened. That's forturnate, because it gets God off the hook for the appalling designs we see in so many animals. We can get into examples if anyone wants.
Papias
The eye and many other features in the human body (including vesitigial features) and in other animals shows that if anyone is going to say that life was designed, then what they are saying is that the designer is a very poor designer. This kind of indictment of God not only violates Mk 3:29, but also hurts Chrisitianity by making it look like Christians are ignorant of biology.
With the many intermediate forms available, the evolution of eyes is not only easy to imagine, it's also easy to see how it actually happened. That's forturnate, because it gets God off the hook for the appalling designs we see in so many animals. We can get into examples if anyone wants.
Papias
Upvote
0
laconicstudent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 25, 2009
- 11,671
- 720
- Faith
- Christian Seeker
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Ah, thats true. I've always wondered what the Creationist explanation for why God supposedly created our eyes with nerve ganglia anterior to the photoreceptors.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Bushido216
Well-Known Member
- Aug 30, 2003
- 6,383
- 210
- 39
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
pgp_protector
Noted strange person
- Dec 17, 2003
- 51,891
- 17,793
- 57
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
- Mar 23, 2004
- 249,106
- 114,203
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Constitution
this is quite profound. thank you.
i will be meditating on this thought. i find it quite delightful and ingenius. our Abba is a delight. thank you for posting it.
i will be meditating on this thought. i find it quite delightful and ingenius. our Abba is a delight. thank you for posting it.
Upvote
0
Bushido216
Well-Known Member
- Aug 30, 2003
- 6,383
- 210
- 39
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Democrat
But you can't just resolve an issue with "maybe there's some reason we don't know about". It's hand-waving and ad hoc. It's been demonstrated that the construction of the eye is clearly flawed. How does this resolve with a designer?
Come up with some positive evidence or admit you're wrong.
Upvote
0
Lukeman wrote:
It sounds like Lukeman is just investigating, and thinking about, how the evidence plays out. He realized how cool eyes are, and how they are very functional compared to, say, no eyes. His statement above shows that he's thinking about things and not being dogmatic. That's a good thing. Plus, how would most people know about the poor design of the eye? He just simply didn't know, just as people in general don't know that there are many, many more examples of incompetent design in the animal kingdom. Probably among plants too, but I'm no botanist.
Even in the human body, there are all kinds of other poor designs. For us males, the plumbing through the prostate causes urinary problems that could have been avoided simply by going around it instead of through it, and there are many other examples too, such as the idiotic "design" of the fully aquatic sea turtle to have to lay eggs on land, or the need for a whale to breathe air (why not design them with gills?). Other good examples are the many vesigial organs in the human body and other animal bodies, such as the plantaris muscle. We could go on all day with examples, but the messiness of our genome has to mentioned - it's extremely wasteful and thrown together as if there were no forethought, such as the many pseudogenes.
Without an understanding (and acceptance) of evolution, a Christian would be left with the conclusion that our glorious God is either an incompetent (or worse, malicious) designer.
Luckily, we don't have to conclude that. It can take a while to realize what a blessing evolution is to Christian thought. We need to give Lukeman the room to make that realization.
Papias
PS - The joke about "what kind of idiot would purposefully run a waste treatment line through the middle of a recreation area?!?!" is yet another example.
It sounds like Lukeman is just investigating, and thinking about, how the evidence plays out. He realized how cool eyes are, and how they are very functional compared to, say, no eyes. His statement above shows that he's thinking about things and not being dogmatic. That's a good thing. Plus, how would most people know about the poor design of the eye? He just simply didn't know, just as people in general don't know that there are many, many more examples of incompetent design in the animal kingdom. Probably among plants too, but I'm no botanist.
Even in the human body, there are all kinds of other poor designs. For us males, the plumbing through the prostate causes urinary problems that could have been avoided simply by going around it instead of through it, and there are many other examples too, such as the idiotic "design" of the fully aquatic sea turtle to have to lay eggs on land, or the need for a whale to breathe air (why not design them with gills?). Other good examples are the many vesigial organs in the human body and other animal bodies, such as the plantaris muscle. We could go on all day with examples, but the messiness of our genome has to mentioned - it's extremely wasteful and thrown together as if there were no forethought, such as the many pseudogenes.
Without an understanding (and acceptance) of evolution, a Christian would be left with the conclusion that our glorious God is either an incompetent (or worse, malicious) designer.
Luckily, we don't have to conclude that. It can take a while to realize what a blessing evolution is to Christian thought. We need to give Lukeman the room to make that realization.
Papias
PS - The joke about "what kind of idiot would purposefully run a waste treatment line through the middle of a recreation area?!?!" is yet another example.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
