Go back
Evolution of the human eye.

Evolution of the human eye.

Science

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
Its your made up story, whatever you say is the way it is.
Kelly
sonhouse's question is what is called a "thought experiment". Thought experiments are quite useful, in fact Einstein used them to develop his theory of relativity. So please try a little bit harder to answer his question. 😕

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
Maybe the neandertal level was where the apes started? You connect
the dots to fit the story you want to push you can make anything fit,
that is the reason I dislike people telling me the chain of life took
this path from simple to complex. We really only know what we found,
why and what that means has always come from between the ears of
someone.
Kelly
You never read the article on phylogenetics I linked you to. 😕

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
DNA is the code for life is it not?
The belief about evolution is that over time radom changes occured.
The good and bad changes over time caused life to evolve.
The belief is that random changes will improve life over time.
I'd like you to show this can happen in a complex computer program
by adding to it key strokes randomly over time in the program's code.
Kelly
…The belief about evolution is that over time random changes occurred. .…

Why do you always make that vague statement again and again; “random changes”?
What kind of changes? why be so vague rather than specific?
It isn’t any kind of “random changes”; it is specifically random mutations.
Any other kind of “random changes” are totally irrelevant to the evolution process.
For example, a lightning strike may cause a “random change”; -but what has that got to do with evolution?

+ evolution isn’t simply just about random mutations; it is that combined with the effects of natural selection which is NOT random. Thus the evolution process is not totally random -only partly so.

…The good and bad changes over time caused life to evolve. ....…

NO -just the good mutations lead to evolution when they are continually selected by natural selection. The bad mutations are simply eliminated by natural selection thus they do not lead to any evolution.

…The belief is that random changes will improve life over time….

No; it is the non-random natural selection selectively acting on the good mutations to spread them to the rest of the population that lead to a species becoming better adapted to its environment. Simply producing just any kind of “random changes” and without natural selection would, generally, not “improve life over time” -why should it? -and this is NOT what evolution says.

…I'd like you to show this can happen in a complex computer program
by adding to it key strokes randomly over time in the program's code. .….


The analogy is totally wrong -the theory of evolution doesn’t say that life adapts by pure randomness but rather the theory of evolution says that life adapts by natural selection (which is NOT random) on random mutations -specifically, life adapts by natural selection (which is NOT random) on the random mutations that are good mutations -the bad ones being simply eliminated by natural selection.
Nobody who understands this would claim that you could simulate evolution by nothing more than putting purely random inputs into a computer.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do no know, again, I was giving you suggestions on why that spot
could be there. If it is there by design, a designer who could get that
much 'right' about vision as there is correct, would know the ROI on not
having that spot there, or not.
So, are you saying that you believe something without having any
justification for believing it?

That sounds like a bad system to me. It seems, given your system,
that you're an awfully bad candidate to give any advice on scientific
matters.

Nemesio

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
DNA is the code for life is it not?
The belief about evolution is that over time radom changes occured.
The good and bad changes over time caused life to evolve.
The belief is that random changes will improve life over time.
I'd like you to show this can happen in a complex computer program
by adding to it key strokes randomly over time in the program's code.
Do you want to start another thread? I'll join in. This thread is about
the human eye which is definitively inferior to an octopus' eye. Any
speculations as to why this might be the case are pure conjecture without
any support.

Nemesio

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by PBE6
You said it couldn't happen at all, without help. To be explicit, when I asked you if life could ever arise from non-life, you said "no, not on its own." If that's the case, how could any sort of design help bring something non-living to life?
Well, the part where I said, it couldn't happen on its own without help
sort of implies with the right help it could now doesn't it?
Kelly

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by PBE6
I don't think it's possible that a "designed system" can exist without being designed, it's kinda right there in there in the name. 🙄 However, it is possible that a system that appears to have been designed was not in fact designed.
Okay, you have examples of that?
Kelly

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by PBE6
sonhouse's question is what is called a "thought experiment". Thought experiments are quite useful, in fact Einstein used them to develop his theory of relativity. So please try a little bit harder to answer his question. 😕
What do you want, he makes up the rules as he goes, he setup the
conditions as he plays, it doesn't matter what anyone else says if
he writes a story it is his story.
Kelly

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by PBE6
You never read the article on phylogenetics I linked you to. 😕
Not sure, I read some of the things posted here and some I do not,
if to carry on our conversation helps in my reading your link, please
post it again. I will read it.
Kelly

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nemesio
Do you want to start another thread? I'll join in. This thread is about
the human eye which is definitively inferior to an octopus' eye. Any
speculations as to why this might be the case are pure conjecture without
any support.

Nemesio
You are again comparing human eyes whose lives are outside of the
water and exposed to sources of light in a way the octopus eye is not,
so saying one is better than another is apples and oranges as far as
I'm concern.
Kelly

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
What do you want, he makes up the rules as he goes, he setup the
conditions as he plays, it doesn't matter what anyone else says if
he writes a story it is his story.
Kelly
Cloning already exists, that's a fact. When they clone humans by human hand, will the clone have a soul? This is not a made up story, this is going to happen for sure, next year or next decade but already enough is known about the process to make a human clone. So would that clone have a soul?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
Cloning already exists, that's a fact. When they clone humans by human hand, will the clone have a soul? This is not a made up story, this is going to happen for sure, next year or next decade but already enough is known about the process to make a human clone. So would that clone have a soul?
When it happens we will talk.
Kelly

Vote Up
Vote Down

The soul is a religious phenomenon, doesn't have anything to do with science.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
When it happens we will talk.
Kelly
Why not talk about it before it happens? -there is nothing stopping you.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, you have examples of that?
Kelly
Other than the ecosystem example I provided earlier, yes:

1. Old Faithful
2. Stalagmites, especially the "Witch's Finger" in Carlsbad Caverns
3. The Grand Canyon
4. The Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland