Eye evolution - Misunderstood

Originally posted by KellyJay
Which claim do you think I have not addressed?

Why don't you admit that you were wrong and Proper Knob is right that the eye could never have evolved?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I was after some reason and evidence to support your claim that the eye was designed perfectly only to develop flaws over the last few thousand. Also, how do you explain the completely implausible amount of mutations and structural changes that need to happen within the eye to fit this scenario.

I believe a creator setup the universe to fully function, I've made no claims that my beliefs
rested in something other than faith! Where I do have issues is where other claims of
faith are made out to be something more than just that! The implausible amount of
structural, functional, and all the necessary timing in many complex systems suggest to
me that no amount of luck would ever over come all the necessary steps to build
something as the eye and the real kicker keep it!

One of the most sad things those who buy into evolution just hangs on too tooth and nail
is that for some reason you think just because evolution may in some outlandish means
find the perfect or presentable thickness for say a vein that the very next mutation would
not ruin it. The very thought that random mutations through natural selection could
actually keep any prized upgrade is unrealistic in my opinion! There is nothing about
random changes that would ever cause that to be true.

Natural selection in itself doesn't direct any random changes in DNA it only filters that
which is given to it. That said if the vast majority of mutations are bad there isn't much to
work with, if random chance happens to string together a few good mutations that are
all some how related to one another, the very next mutation could ruin it. Just saying
all the good ones get to stay due to natural selection and not only that build upon one
another isn't something you can show me as ever working, EXCEPT in a program that
was designed to do just that!

With the eye not only do you have to build up a light sensitive spot which has all the
down falls I just discussed, in addition to that it would have to sync up with the life form
that is getting the string of mutations to acquire previously unknown data *light*, with that
information it would then have to understand it on some level, and not go off the deep
end and cause it to act negatively. Feeding unknown information into a system that is not
designed to receive it could ruin all of the previously working parts of the system that
were up to that time behaving properly, no matter how useful the information is it would
be nothing more than noise, a distraction at best.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why don't you admit that you were wrong and Proper Knob is right that the eye could never have evolved?

I've never said that the eye could have evolved from a simple state into what we see all
around us today. I do admit that when I say evolve that simply means change from one
state to another. Change can be either good or bad, with random mutations the majority
are bad.

Originally posted by KellyJay
One of the most sad things those who buy into evolution just hangs on too tooth and nail
is that for some reason you think just because evolution may in some outlandish means
find the perfect or presentable thickness for say a vein that the very next mutation would
not ruin it.

I for one have actually studied enough biology and mathematics to understand how it works. So I do not just 'buy into evolution' or 'just hang on too tooth and nail'. I actually understand how it works and know that it really is possible. You on the other hand have not studied it and are making the claim that it is not possible despite not actually knowing this to be the case. Your claim is not based on facts at all, but rather your desired conclusion. If you actually took the time to learn the biology and do the math you would discover that you are mistaken.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've never said that the eye could have evolved from a simple state into what we see all
around us today. I do admit that when I say evolve that simply means change from one
state to another. Change can be either good or bad, with random mutations the majority
are bad.

But the eye could not change for good without God.

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

(Mark 10:18 KJV)

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

(Luke 18:19 KJV)

A much better word for a bad change in biology is REGENERATION. So don't let yourself be deceived and brainwashed by the Evilution crowd.

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

(Matthew 7:13-14 KJV)

HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Originally posted by RJHinds
But the eye could not change for good without God.

HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

'And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away.' Matthew 18

Now that's just silly.

HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy! etc etc

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
'And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away.' Matthew 18

Now that's just silly.

HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy! etc etc

To me, that proves the eye is not getting better, but is degenerating. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe a creator setup the universe to fully function, I've made no claims that my beliefs
rested in something other than faith! Where I do have issues is where other claims of
faith are made out to be something more than just that! The implausible amount of
structural, functional, and all the necessary timing in many complex systems suggest to
me th ...[text shortened]... atter how useful the information is it would
be nothing more than noise, a distraction at best.

But the bottom line is, prove it. Where's your evidence? You know as well as I do you don't have any.

Why is there no evidence humans lived with dinosaurs?
Why is there no evidence T-Rex's were vegetarian?
Why is there no evidence the earth and universe is in the thousands of years old?
Why is there no evidence for a global flood?
Why is there no evidence for Adam and Eve?
Why is there no evidence for a lineage back to Noah and his family?

Where's your evidence? To claim your opinion is somehow the same as the mountain of knowledge gathered through the scientific method over the last 2500 years is verging on insanity.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But the bottom line is, prove it. Where's your evidence? You know as well as I do you don't have any.

Why is there no evidence humans lived with dinosaurs?
Why is there no evidence T-Rex's were vegetarian?
Why is there no evidence the earth and universe is in the thousands of years old?
Why is there no evidence for a global flood?
Why is there ...[text shortened]... nowledge gathered through the scientific method over the last 2500 years is verging on insanity.

I have already given evidence for all that. Either you did not pay attention or you just want to harass KellyJay. Which is it? 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
But the eye could not change for good without God.

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

(Mark 10:18 KJV)

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

(Luke 18:19 KJV)

A much better word for a bad change in biology is REGE ...[text shortened]... at find it. [/quote]
(Matthew 7:13-14 KJV)

HalleluYaH !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

Yes, there are words we could use to show improvement with evolution other than good,
but you really do need to grasp that change can be a degeneration as well. I'm talking
about evolutionary changes and show that not all evolutionary change has to be an
advancement.

If you are upset at the word "good' that I used to describe those mutations that we all
agree are useful, or beneficial what can I say. I'm not using that word in terms of
righteousness so I do believe you are over the top in your complaint here..

Originally posted by Proper Knob
But the bottom line is, prove it. Where's your evidence? You know as well as I do you don't have any.

Why is there no evidence humans lived with dinosaurs?
Why is there no evidence T-Rex's were vegetarian?
Why is there no evidence the earth and universe is in the thousands of years old?
Why is there no evidence for a global flood?
Why is there ...[text shortened]... nowledge gathered through the scientific method over the last 2500 years is verging on insanity.

You are not following along well with this discussion are you!?
If I could prove my beliefs they would not be matters of faith!

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have already given evidence for all that. Either you did not pay attention or you just want to harass KellyJay. Which is it? 😏

Two things Ron, firstly I don't read your posts. You're an idiot and a deceitful liar and it's not worth my time or effort to sustain reading your utter drivel for more than 2 seconds. Anymore time than that and I reckon I could physically feel my brain cells dying from having to make sense of such moronic nonsense. As a result I just skip over them, have done for a long time, I also reckon I'm not the only poster here who does that.

Secondly, even if I did read your posts I don't watch YouTube videos.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are not following along well with this discussion are you!?
If I could prove my beliefs they would not be matters of faith!

I'm following along perfectly fine. 🙂

How come there is no evidence for your beliefs? Why would that be do you think?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Two things Ron, firstly I don't read your posts. You're an idiot and a deceitful liar and it's not worth my time or effort to sustain reading your utter drivel for more than 2 seconds. Anymore time than that and I reckon I could physically feel my brain cells dying from having to make sense of such moronic nonsense. As a result I just skip over them, hav ...[text shortened]... ter here who does that.

Secondly, even if I did read your posts I don't watch YouTube videos.

That explains your ignorance. 😏

Most Carnivorous Dinosaurs Were Actually Vegetarian

Paleontologists and horrible individuals Lindsay Zanno and Peter Makovicky say in a research paper that most theropods—the family of the T-Rex and the Velociraptor—were actually vegetarians.

Their study—Herbivorous ecomorphology and specialization patterns in theropod dinosaur evolution, which just appeared in the December 20, 2010 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences—has detected "21 morphological features that exhibit statistically significant correlations with extrinsic fossil evidence of coelurosaurian herbivory, such as stomach contents and a gastric mill."

After studying 90 theropod species, their conclusion is that vegetarianism was widespread and "contrary to previous thought, hypercarnivory was relatively rare and potentially secondarily derived."

Most theropods [like the T-Rex] are clearly adapted to a predatory lifestyle, but somewhere on the line to birds, predatory dinosaurs went soft. Once we linked certain adaptations with direct evidence of diet, we looked to see which other theropod species had the same traits, then we could say who was likely a plant eater and who was not.

This new research firmly supports what we've have been speculating about for some time. Its time to start seeing these animals in a new evolutionary context.

http://gizmodo.com/5715569/most-carnivorous-dinosaurs-were-actually-vegetarian

Newly Discovered Dinosaur Is The T-Rex's Vegetarian Relative

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/27/new-dinosaur-vegetarian-t-rex_n_7155284.html