Originally posted by PenguinI nipped onto the "Slightly biased attempt to discredit evolution" thread and realised that KJ had already suggested this in that thread.
An interesting proposition KJ, do you have any evidence to support it?
As far as I am aware, no cases have been found of life forms becoming less complex through time, as I think you are suggesting.
Is there any evidence of eyesight being better in the distant past than it is now? Were eyes 'built' the other way round without nerves obscuring the light ...[text shortened]... ng? Can anyone think of any evidence from the real world that would support it?
--- Penguin
I think this is a hypothesis that KJ has just heard / dreamed up and is plugging it wherever he can. Nothing wrong with that per se but maybe we should keep it in the 'slightly...' thread, or make a new thread that explicitely deals with it rather than trying to slide it in through the back door.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinThere are animals alive today that have regressed evolutionarily speaking. Like salamanders in dark caves, they lost their eyes after thousands or millions of years living in those dark caves.
I nipped onto the "Slightly biased attempt to discredit evolution" thread and realised that KJ had already suggested this in that thread.
I think this is a hypothesis that KJ has just heard / dreamed up and is plugging it wherever he can. Nothing wrong with that per se but maybe we should keep it in the 'slightly...' thread, or make a new thread that expl ...[text shortened]... itely deals with it rather than trying to slide it in through the back door.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by KellyJayHow can an argument be false, because you disagree with it?
How can an argument be false, because you disagree with it? You and
a few other here, I enjoy debating I don't mind a little insult from time
to time it can highlight a point, it is the non-stop insults without
addressing points that get to me. There are a few posters here who do
not add to the discussion outside of their attack on those that
disagree ...[text shortened]... times or worse....make me wish I had
thought a little longer about what I did say. 🙂
Kelly
It can be false if it's not logical. What do you mean how can it be false?!
Originally posted by Nemesio"Better evolved" is not a scientific concept. What do you mean?
How about the fact that an octopus' eye is a better evolved eye than a vertebrate's one? Wouldn't
an intelligent designer use the best eye he made for his prize creation, humankind?
While it is unsurprising -- given the advantage that the eye has over the unsighted in terms of
survival -- the idea that it evolved independently is just totally awesome to me.
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's not true. I have looked at a number of such mathematical analyses and they are all flawed. Would you like to offer one up for us?
DNA is a code correct, filled with information? It is put together in
such a way that we can figure out all the correct amount of data
points required to write it properly, just as we can look at a book,
and count the letters, the words, or the paragraphs in it. With that
information we can see the odds of getting that code written as we
can lookin ...[text shortened]... fore we start flipping the
cards over to see if we called out the right sequence or not.
Kelly[/b]
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you suggesting that the eye was better when God first created it and subsequently evolved
As FabianFnas pointed out and as I brought up in another thread
this could be explained by life breaking down too, splitting into
simplier forms over time as well. You seem to only look at it as
building up to more complex systems over time when it could
be breaking down into simplier life forms over time too.
Kelly
to become inferior?
Nemesio
Originally posted by sonhouseThat's not regression. Why waste space and genetic information and nerves and stuff on eyes when there's no light anyway?
There are animals alive today that have regressed evolutionarily speaking. Like salamanders in dark caves, they lost their eyes after thousands or millions of years living in those dark caves.
Originally posted by FabianFnasIf you do not want quoted, do not write.
Please, don't misinterpret my words, KJ. Don't even refer to my words to prove your story. Creation by an intelligent being is downright wrong.
If we have a devolution in human eys, doesn't this prove that your gods hand is not even near the creation of man life or anything? And as I said, 30 thousands of years, not 6000 years as the black book with th ...[text shortened]... a lot more about the anatomy of the eye, human eyes in particular, and evolution in general.
I did not infer your words to anything that has to do with creation, I
refered your words to that which you spoke about. I did not add to
or twist what you said, quite unlike what you just did to me by saying
I refered your words to creation.
not
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI'll bring up the points I'd like your opinion about.
[b]…Have you read these, …
Yes -some are interesting.
…and these do not give you pause over the
evolution of the eye? . . .…
“pause”? do you mean “doubt“? -if so, the answer is no -why should they make me doubt?[/b]
Kelly