Confused about evolution

Originally posted by KellyJay
In other words your conclusions are facts; you look at what you see
and what you think about those facts must be true, because it binds
them altogether for you in your mind?
Kelly

NO, lets try again. Observations are facts. Theories are not facts. Theories are tested in two ways: do they account for observations, can they be used to make predictions which can subsequently be tested. In the case of the theory of evolution both tests are true. I do not believe in evolution, it does not require faith, I use it in the course of my daily work, it has utility.

My conclusions are not facts, but they are supported by facts.

What more do you need? I am not going to say "If evolution is true then there is no need for god in the universe" Only creationists argue from that point of view (Idiots!).

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is a great leap don't you think, a light sensitive patch just occurs
and gives an advantage? Not only did this patch just appear, the
changes that caused the patch were also permanently encoded into
the DNA and passed down to everyone. Not to mention how would that
advantage be useful; unless there was something that was able to
understand light ...[text shortened]... software that makes that camera useful, it does nothing
for the computer or the user.
Kelly

The "gee whizz" that is sooo unlikely it can't be true falls down when you consider the immensity of geological time. Eyes have eveolved; FACT. What is so surprising when you consider that all plant life exists by being sensitive to light (how do you think photo synthesis works)

Bear in mind that even the smallest advantage will be selected for in time. Read Hardy Weinberg

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The fact that it occurred or that it was encoded in DNA is not a great leap. All kinds of bizaare things occur as a result of genetic change.

You make an interesting point when you bring up the fact that a light sensitive patch would be useless without accompanying behavioral response to the sensation of light being present.

It seems to me th ...[text shortened]... ikely candidate for pre-sight sensation which would lead to an attraction or avoidance response.

http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html

its really is on point too

got this from http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Main_Page

courtesy of gentlegil

KellyJay -

You realize all you’re doing is developing a grand fantasy on the
origin of the eye don't you

That depends on what a "fantasy" is. You seem to imply that what I am suggesting is somehow ridiculous or unreasonable. If that is the case, then what I suggest is no fantasy. I am speculating; however my speculations are not unsupported by observation. For example, the various intermediate forms of the eye I suggested exist in nature.

this is evolution a fact of science?

That depends on what a 'fact' is. I do not describe the TOE as a fact because there is disagreement over whether it's a fact or not.

You realize so far there is nothing written so far here suggests
these things were remotely possible.

No, I don't realize that. Are you saying this model is not even remotely possible? How do you know that?

So far except the lone hope of those that believe the process is real and is responsible for all of our functionally complex systems within us, there is not logical reason for believing this at all.

Yes there is. However I have gone back and forth with you a number of times over this issue, and don't want to spend time on you right now. I was answering Conrau and I have done so.

By the way, if you insist on talking about 'functional complexity', you should define the term, because I don't know what you mean by it. If you keep using it without clearly defining it you're being deceitful and manipulative.

Another behavioral response governed by another structure in what
a single cell, a multi-cell creature?

A worm.

You know if your creature with
the new and improved light sensitive patch; instead got a hold of a
heat sensitive patch it could still die by getting to hot. Even if were
to move toward heat source if there was not some understanding
evolved, some mechanism that would alert this, blind, death, dumb
creature that its new feeling has a cause associated with it, it is all
meaningless. All you are doing is attempting to move the light
sensitive patch into an unknown behavioral mechanism and calling
it problem more than likely solved.

I didn't say it was more than likely solved. I gave a possibility that seemed the most likely to me at this time. There is plenty of room for research on how the first eyes may have evolved. Why are you mischaracterizing what I said?

Your example of a creature who becomes attracted to heat and which lives near fire is correct. Interestingly, I don't know of any such creatures. Apparently they didn't manage to pass on this trait to their offspring.

I understand there are some bizarre things as a result of genetic
change and how many of them are good?

That doesn't really matter. I don't know. As long as some of them are beneficial, natural selection will cause them to accumulate. Kelly, do you understand the concept of natural selection?

I understand you want to say that a camera could use the keyboard
software to work, but it does not work that way.

Well, no. I was taking your poor analogy and trying to fit it to what I was talking about. You're trying to apply aspects of the analogy that are not appropriate because the analogy is fairly poor.

I suggested that worms might be attracted to certain things, and that if a light sensitive patch were to evolve, the worm might be attracted to light (or repelled, whatever it is flatworms do). If you insist on the camera and computer analogy, then it would be more like the camera when it was exposed to light would cause typed letters to appear on the screen. A different input would be channelled into causing the same output. I don't know how possible this is with computers and it's irrelevant because the computer is part of an analogy, not the system we are talking about.

Originally posted by frogstomp
A good place to start is phototaxis since all plants have it.
even bacteria does , light is EMR. There's no reason whatsoever that life wouldn't adapt to it's presence.

Bacteria have phototaxis? Well there you go Kelly. Even single celled organisms move in response to light.

When I asked 'is evolution a scientific fact?' I was not trying to impugn the validity of evolution. I wanted to know whether it is fact or theory. Put is this way, i have heard many poeple critisize creation theories but what you failto realise is that originally creation was the only subject of science. It may eventually become know that evolution is demonstrably false (in explaining our own existence). Evolution does happen. I though have doubts that it is completely accountable for life on Earth.
The eye, as one very 'enlightened person' conjectured evolved from a light sensitive patch. This does not make sense. The eye is so complex that even a small distortion in its lense would render it useless. A light sensitive eye patch in your anal is not necassarily going to disappear from a species (these are called neutral mutations, such as blonde hair, blue eyes). The eye to be functional would have to located close to the brain (what are chances of that), have nerves, be an exact length. The chances of this defy probablility.
I do not dispute evolution just question its importance!

Originally posted by Conrau K
When I asked 'is evolution a scientific fact?' I was not trying to impugn the validity of evolution. I wanted to know whether it is fact or theory. Put is this way, i have heard many poeple critisize creation theories but what you failto realise is that originally creation was the only subject of science. It may eventually become know that evolution is de ...[text shortened]... he chances of this defy probablility.
I do not dispute evolution just question its importance!

If a set of simple steps can be found such that each step gives an advantage to a creature with it then the eye could have evolved. Such a path has been found.

So why is it the eye can't have evolved again?

Originally posted by Daemon Sin
Evolution isn't a 'way out' at all. No one knows the exact answer to where we came from...Just because you don't believe in Evolution, it doesn't give you the right to degrade it by calling it a 'way out' and insinuating that it's the wrong choice....

It'd be nice if that worked both ways.... just because someone doesn't believe that God exists, does that then give THEM the right to degrade people who do believe by referring to their faith as a "crutch", and to claim that they're nothing but a bunch of brainwashed, mind-numbed robots?

There are enough comments from RHP evolutionists in these forums to demonstrate that they believe it's perfectly ok to put down people who disagree with them and who believe in God, and I mean put them down in a big way. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining...I'm a big boy, and I can take it)

So Re: evolutionists, do they, or do they not believe that people who believe in God are making the wrong choice? It's obvious, isn't it? But do they have the right to say that it's the wrong choice? They obviously think that they do.

So that right extends to all parties, on both sides.

Originally posted by TheBloop
It'd be nice if that worked both ways.... just because someone doesn't believe that God exists, does that then give THEM the right to degrade people who do believe by referring to their faith as a "crutch", and to claim that they're nothing but a bunch of brainwashed, mind-numbed robots?

There are enough comments from RHP evolutionists in these fo ...[text shortened]... ? They obviously think that they do.

So that right extends to all parties, on both sides.

Believing in God does not and should not mean discounting evolution. You'll notice that most (I can't speak for all, idiots are everywhere) evolutionists don't insult people's belief in God but rather their refusal to listen to reason in regard to scientific evidence of evolution.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Bacteria have phototaxis? Well there you go Kelly. Even single celled organisms move in response to light.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10547687&dopt=Abstract

hows that's for infomation?

NCBI HomePage
US government-funded national resource for molecular biology information.
Access to many public databases and other references, including the draft human ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of HealthPart of the National Institutes of Health, the National Library of Medicine offers access to health information for consumer, patient, and physicians ...
www.nlm.nih.gov
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Official website of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH is one of the
world's foremost medical research centers. An agency of the US Department of ...
www.nih.gov/

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
If a set of simple steps can be found such that each step gives an advantage to a creature with it then the eye could have evolved. Such a path has been found.

So why is it the eye can't have evolved again?

Having simpler eyes and other complex eyes does not mean that
one came from another, it only means that there are simpler eyes
in comparison to others that are more complex. I'd also point out
that making up some steps that 'could have happen' does not mean
that they did, one would be required to prove the point, or it is just
a guess or however else you'd like to label it.
Kelly

Originally posted by frogstomp
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10547687&dopt=Abstract

hows that's for infomation?

NCBI HomePage
US government-funded national resource for molecular biology information.
Access to many public databases and other references, including the draft human ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
National Library of Me ...[text shortened]... 's foremost medical research centers. An agency of the US Department of ...
www.nih.gov/

Thanks for the links, I'm reading them.
Kelly

Originally posted by Conrau K
When I asked 'is evolution a scientific fact?' I was not trying to impugn the validity of evolution. I wanted to know whether it is fact or theory. Put is this way, i have heard many poeple critisize creation theories ...

Read what I and others have posted on this and every other thread: evolution is a theory, which is slightly higher than fact on the meter of reliability in science. That is, facts get refuted and repudiated far more often than do theories in science. Creation(ism) has never succeeded as any more than a weak hypothesis. Calling it a theory is intellectually dishonest and irresponsible.


Also, I would gain some respect for the honesty of your questions if you would at least take a stab at the question I posed yesterday:

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Where did you complete a course in genetics and fail to learn the difference between facts, hypotheses, and theories?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Thanks for the links, I'm reading them.
Kelly

Hope it helps . and your welcome.