Evolution of the human eye.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Do you really think that KellyJay is collaborating in this 'game'? I think not. He is uneducateble, because he repeats what his priest tells, nothing more. He is of complete lack of own thoughts. (He thinks that human beings lived side-by-sides with dinosaurs. Why? Because someone with authority told him so.)

There are no priests in my denomination and these topics that we
discuss here are not covered in the sermons I do hear, and they
are not topics of discussion I have or am apart of in any of my
churches meetings or in any fellowship I attend or am apart of. Your
prejudce is showing, as well as your lack of understanding about my
life.
Kelly

Originally posted by PBE6
Timing definitely is important, especially if you're considering whether or not the fact that you can set your watch by an event in a given system is evidence of its design or not. In the case of Old Faithful, it is [b]not evidence of design.

But I was referring to the part about viruses. You asked for a complex system that replicates itself, although you wouldn't accept any living organisms as you consider them designed. A virus is not alive.[/b]

I had to go look up this information, but as near as I can tell we
are not sure how viruses started. I saw three different possible
beginning hypotheses depending on which is true the ability to use
viruses in this discussion becomes mute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virology

"The latest report by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (2005) lists 5450 viruses, organized in over 2,000 species, 287 genera, 73 families and 3 orders.

The taxa in virology are not necessarily monophyletic. In fact, the evolutionary relationships of the various virus groups remain unclear, and three hypotheses regarding their origin exist:

Viruses arose from non-living matter, separately from and in parallel to other life forms, possibly in the form of self-reproducing RNA ribozymes similar to viroids.
Viruses arose from earlier, more competent cellular life forms that became parasites to host cells and subsequently lost most of their functionality; examples of such tiny parasitic prokaryotes are Mycoplasma and Nanoarchaea.
Viruses arose as parts of the genome of cells, most likely transposons or plasmids, that acquired the ability to "break free" from the host cell and infect other cells.
It is of course possible that different alternatives apply to different virus groups."

It is quite possible that if virues arose as parts of living cells that
broke free you cannot use them as an example of systems arising
from non-living matter. It would be akind to saying life arose by
itself without help from non-living matter, to prove life arose from
non-living matter without help in debate.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Viruses arose from non-living matter, separately from and in parallel to other life forms, possibly in the form of self-reproducing RNA ribozymes similar to viroids.
Viruses arose from earlier, more competent cellular life forms that became parasites to host cells and subsequently lost most of their functionality; examples of such tiny parasitic prokaryo ...[text shortened]... ds, that acquired the ability to "break free" from the host cell and infect other cells."

Ah, by evolution then?

So *now* we can agre that evolution has a major role in bioloby?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I had to go look up this information, but as near as I can tell we
are not sure how viruses started. I saw three different possible
beginning hypotheses depending on which is true the ability to use
viruses in this discussion becomes mute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virology

"The latest report by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses ...[text shortened]... on-living matter, to prove life arose from
non-living matter without help in debate.
Kelly

No working hypothesis exists for the origin of god so I think discussion on he/she/it is moot but that doesn't stop the sheep flocking does it? Baah Baah

Originally posted by KellyJay
I had to go look up this information, but as near as I can tell we
are not sure how viruses started. I saw three different possible
beginning hypotheses depending on which is true the ability to use
viruses in this discussion becomes mute.

...

It is quite possible that if virues arose as parts of living cells that
broke free you cannot use them as ...[text shortened]... om non-living matter, to prove life arose from
non-living matter without help in debate.
Kelly

Of the three hypotheses presented, some, all, or none of which may be correct, you deduced that viruses must have arisen from living matter. Very interesting...

But more to the point, if you believe that no living being can arise from non-living matter on its own (which implies that a living being must help, since the only alternative is non-living matter helping which is contrary to your belief), what form does the help take precisely? What is so special about this help? What makes something "alive" that cannot be supplied by non-living matter? How do you define being "alive"?

Originally posted by Nemesio
The reason it's intelligent to give a whale an eye with a blind spot instead
of an eye like an octopus is ...

Kelly?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Kelly?

Nemesio

Originally posted by PBE6
Of the three hypotheses presented, some, all, or none of which may be correct, you deduced that viruses must have arisen from living matter. Very interesting...

But more to the point, if you believe that no living being can arise from non-living matter on its own (which implies that a living being must help, since the only alternative is non-living matter h ...[text shortened]... hing "alive" that cannot be supplied by non-living matter? How do you define being "alive"?

I can cast coins upon a desk, they will end up where they end up the
universe has in place things that will affect where the coins end up.
Nothing special about how they end up on the desk, there will be
nothing special about the placement of the coins. If I take those
coins and place them in patterns where they all face the same
direction and they are all heads up, in some pattern to my choosing,
that speaks highly of design, not that the coins are on the desk, but
the way they are on the desk. If you see in a system, subsystems,
and within them subsystems, and so on, and each of those systems are
performing functions for the "System" for me that speaks design. It
is never that we have the proper material on hand, but that its on hand
in the right order, doing the right thing for only as long as is required,
and so on. Even evolutionist that deny God had a hand it life are still
left with using design terms to describe life, they just have to claim
that life's designer didn't have any intent in life's making.

Not sure why you'd like to discuss the soul or the spirit with respect to
life, man cannot measure either so it is beyond the power of man to
understand either, they are accepted or rejected, they cannot be proven.
I would submit; however, that something does leave a living body
when it dies, because people die and their material make up is still
intact many times, if life were just an arrangement of chemicals why
would death come when the chemicals are still put together in the
proper fashion?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I can cast coins upon a desk, they will end up where they end up the
universe has in place things that will affect where the coins end up.
Nothing special about how they end up on the desk, there will be
nothing special about the placement of the coins. If I take those
coins and place them in patterns where they all face the same
direction and they are
would death come when the chemicals are still put together in the
proper fashion?
Kelly

…man cannot measure either so it is beyond the power of man to
understand either, they are accepted or rejected, they cannot be proven. ..…

PBE6 implied nothing about the relationship between mind and matter in his last post -that wasn’t anything to do with his question.

….I would submit; however, that something does leave a living body
when it dies, because people die and their material make up is still
intact many times,.…

Firstly, this is changing the subject: when he asked:
“…What makes something "alive" that cannot be supplied by non-living matter? …”
He wasn’t necessarily referring to “conscious” life -what about plants and worms etc?
What makes something "alive" such as a plant or a worm that cannot be supplied by non-living matter? -this is what neither he nor I understand your opinion on (because you haven't stated it).

Secondly, when somebody dies, the “material make up” is NOT ever totally “intact” else they wouldn’t be dead! For somebody to die, their material brain must be irreversibly damaged or made non-functional in same way and this is usually occurs as a result of disastrous irreversible chemical changes that occur in the brain as a result of oxygen starvation of neurons.

….if life were just an arrangement of chemicals why
would death come when the chemicals are still put together in the
proper fashion? ..…

But when something “dies”, the chemicals are NOT “still put together in the
proper fashion” that it required for it to be still be “alive” else it would be still “alive” -do you deny this?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Nemesio

have you no answer to his question?

-or are you just trying to piss him off by not answering?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I can cast coins upon a desk, they will end up where they end up the
universe has in place things that will affect where the coins end up.
Nothing special about how they end up on the desk, there will be
nothing special about the placement of the coins. If I take those
coins and place them in patterns where they all face the same
direction and they are
would death come when the chemicals are still put together in the
proper fashion?
Kelly

I don't recall coins on a table ever meeting the definition of a living system, a complex system, or a system containing subsystems. If you don't want to talk about Old Faithful, let's not talk about coins. However, I do have two questions about your followup statement:

1. What makes you think the material make-up of a living being is the same prior to death as it is after death?

2. Are you saying that something non-physical is required for life? That the physical form of an entity is not sufficient to dictate the status of that entity as either "alive" or "non-living"? How do you know this?


EDIT: Andrew Hamilton has made some excellent comments above, as well as Nemesio some pages back. If you're looking to convince anyone of your position, it behooves you to respond to them as well.

Originally posted by PBE6
I don't recall coins on a table ever meeting the definition of a living system, a complex system, or a system containing subsystems. If you don't want to talk about Old Faithful, let's not talk about coins. However, I do have two questions about your followup statement:

1. What makes you think the material make-up of a living being is the same prior to dea ...[text shortened]... looking to convince anyone of your position, it behooves you to respond to them as well.

He says something leaves the body when it dies. Could it be the dark matter that accumulated inside? Gone in an invisible vaporous discharge after being attracted to living matter?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Nemesio

Very passive/aggressive.

The reason it's intelligent to give a whale an eye with a blind spot instead
of an eye like an octopus is ...

Originally posted by Nemesio
Very passive/aggressive.

The reason it's intelligent to give a whale an eye with a blind spot instead
of an eye like an octopus is ...

We are done with that as far as I'm concern. I'm not going to repeat
myself, you have not attempted to grasp my answers, instead you have
cried I did not frame them in such a way that was acceptable to you,
and you got insulting. If you wish to have a discussion, you should
at least attempt to grasp what it is I'm saying, and lay off the insults.
Kelly

Originally posted by PBE6
I don't recall coins on a table ever meeting the definition of a living system, a complex system, or a system containing subsystems. If you don't want to talk about Old Faithful, let's not talk about coins. However, I do have two questions about your followup statement:

1. What makes you think the material make-up of a living being is the same prior to dea ...[text shortened]... looking to convince anyone of your position, it behooves you to respond to them as well.

Let me worry about my responses to Andrew and Nemesio.

The coins do not meet the requirements for a living system, they show
that just having all the parts aren’t enough, in a designed system the parts
must be put together in such away to make things happen in just the
right degree, at just the right time, for just the right period, and so on.
In the case of coins their arrangement shows design, with systems,
within systems, within systems each function doing a precise job
towards keeping the whole system functioning is much harder than
seeing coins lined up on a desk top.

The universe does act like a clock with timing, our planet’s daily
rotation, its yearly trek around the sun, the speed of light and so on.
Old faithful, is a miner miracle as far as I’m concern in its timing
when you think about the necessary things that must be lined up to
achieve the consistency of it over time. Living systems, that is a major
miracle when you just look at whole of the human life, and all the
systems within it working towards keeping us alive.

Going back to the spirit and souls, I don’t debate them here since they
are basically beyond human ability see, measure and so on. It is
enough to just get material parts in order then to also add into the
equation the spark of life.
Kelly