| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/28/2007 12:19:46 AM · #751 |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 04:30:06 AM · #752 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Truly I think the evolutionist who flippantly says an eye can evolve no problem at all does not understand the challenges of such an organ... |
Truly, I think you do not understand the power of evolution, either that of you don't like the conflict it has with your personal beliefs and choose to ignore it. I don't mean to insult your intelligence, you are obviously a clever man.
I think this attitude was nicely described by Carl Sagan:
"In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, âThis is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!â? Instead they say, âNo, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.â "
|
|
|
|
11/28/2007 08:37:06 AM · #753 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, I'm just keeping a running tally of subjects since I've started:
* Crack cocaine
* The flood
* Evolution of the eye
* The uneducated masses of Europe
This is a pretty wild thread even for rant! |
There was something mentioned about science and theology, too, wasn't there????
And philosophy, and Creationism, and nut-kicking, and reasoned people, and.....
|
|
|
|
11/28/2007 08:42:58 AM · #754 |
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
I believe there is only one thing in this universe, not two. Science is god and god is science. |
Overly simplistic, not reasoned or rational, and a band-aid thought.
It's almost as abstruse as Creatinism is in its literal sense......requires too much suspension of disbelief.
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
We just don't understand it with same concepts. One spiritual, other technological. |
Umm.....you just contradicted your previous tenet.
Originally posted by FocusPoint:
But they will merge at the end. When it does, we probably will answer more questions than we think right now. |
They are interrelated now in many facets......the questions come when faith and reason start to get in each other's way.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2007 08:46:44 AM · #755 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
....requires too much suspension of disbelief. |
Wouldn't that be faith? |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 09:18:00 AM · #756 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
....requires too much suspension of disbelief. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Wouldn't that be faith? |
Whoa.....gotta do this one carefully.
I think faith is the very essence of belief, whereas disbelief is to my mind what makes science the delight and drive for answers and the constant search for and proving of theories.
The faith that I have in God doesn't necessarily mean that I have disbelief of something or other that I really don't know the answer to, I just know that I do believe in God......hence my faith.
One thing that has become obvious to me is that at some point in my thinking, I do depart from reason into faith because I don't have what can be described as legitimate proof of God, as I understand my God to be. I have proof in my own mind, but it's nothing that anyone who wants to refute it couldn't tear apart with all sorts of rationale and explanations to the contrary, but I choose to accept my belief, without the benefit of conventional proof. I keep going back to the whole love thing and the persons that my wife and daughter are.......that they love me is perhaps explicable by standard means, but WHY they do, and why they continue to, is a mystery.
I also look at the type of personalities that they are, and I cannot fathom anything but some divine providence that makes truly kind, selfless people. That isn't something that can be taught, and although possibly genetic, I certainly cannot fathom some of the characteristics that my daughter has on any level other than some state of grace.
She's always been this way, too......and it's not just that she's my daughter and of course, from that aspect she's wonderful, but it's the way that people who become exposed to her and her relationships with them kind of causes them to seek us out and tell us how wonderful they think she is. I've never experienced a person who inspires this urge to do such a thing. She is probably the nicest, kindest human being I have ever known, and not in that insipid, sappy way that all too many people get when they're just nice......this kid just seems to transcend that whole thing too. It's even hard to explain for me.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2007 10:00:02 AM · #757 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
....requires too much suspension of disbelief. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Wouldn't that be faith? |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Whoa.....gotta do this one carefully. |
Eh careful, schmareful. Acceptance of anything that defies the laws of nature/physics (supernatural) pretty much requires suspension of disbelief. |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 10:34:49 AM · #758 |
| When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 10:38:19 AM · #759 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
watch the other one, photosensistive cells arent too much a of leap. Two eyes - depth perception, simple as that and an obvious evolutionary advantage. Maybe in a few hundred million year gophers will indeed have eyes in the back of their head. Give it time my friend!
Here is the childrens evolution of the wing |
Even the development of a single photo-sensitive cell is a leap, because photo-sensitivity is worthless without the corresponding development within the Central Nervous System to process and interpret the results of such sensitivity.
But even if such were NOT too much of a leap, what purpose would a single photo-sensitive cell serve, that it would be deemed an evolutionary advantage, making its possessor more fit than its non-possessing neighbor to survive and pass on its genes?
Or are we to believe that the first instance of a photo-sensitive cell actually replicated without reason until it consisted of a cluster of hundreds of thousands of such cells without the nervous system to interpret their sensations? And then, viola, the requisite nervous system "evolved" because it was necessary?
Sorry, I'm not buying it, even if I were to grant millions of years to let it "happen".
BTW, have scientists ever found fossils that show a progenitor species with but a single eye? or one withOUT eye sockets ( as Dawkins demonstrated before he added the "cup" )? or one with asymmetrical eye sockets? Or were there always two, symmetrical eye sockets? And, if so, why aren't there any such fossils? Surely, with all of the fossils found, there should be at least one showing an evolutionary step backward? |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 10:57:57 AM · #760 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
....requires too much suspension of disbelief. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Wouldn't that be faith? |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Whoa.....gotta do this one carefully. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Eh careful, schmareful. Acceptance of anything that defies the laws of nature/physics (supernatural) pretty much requires suspension of disbelief. |
But it's not that simple......you can't tell me that feelings are something that is governed by the laws of nature/physics.....why you like Canons over Nikons isn't completely tational.....there are just things that you like about them better......both camps offer basically the same thing.....there are just ceratin things that you *like* better on a visceral level.....which isn't necessarily rational or easily explicable.
Do you like blondes, brunettes, or redheads best?
Do you like a woman who's more a fun loving person, or an intellectual?
Why *DO* opposites attract?????
Just because science doesn't have proof of a supremem being/diety/God doesn't mean there isn't one.
Besides, if God is as omnipotent as what those of us believ him/her to be, you think he couldn't make it so that.....oh say.....
There would be a perpetual discussion going on between the two camps ad infinitum?????
There's this thing I call spiritual laughter.....hear it????.....8>)
Just 'cause you may not, doesn't mean I can't!
If a tree falls.......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/28/2007 11:30:14 AM · #761 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Even the development of a single photo-sensitive cell is a leap... |
Pssst... your gaps are getting smaller.
Originally posted by RonB:
photo-sensitivity is worthless without the corresponding development within the Central Nervous System to process and interpret the results of such sensitivity. |
Ever hear of chlorophyll? Whattya know... no nervous system.
Originally posted by RonB:
But even if such were NOT too much of a leap, what purpose would a single photo-sensitive cell serve, that it would be deemed an evolutionary advantage, making its possessor more fit than its non-possessing neighbor to survive and pass on its genes? |
The ability to detect light helps many forms of life to find energy and/or hide in darkness. Plants can turn toward the sun, bacteria can move toward likely food sources, etc.
Originally posted by RonB:
BTW, have scientists ever found fossils that show a progenitor species with but a single eye? or one withOUT eye sockets ( as Dawkins demonstrated before he added the "cup" )? or one with asymmetrical eye sockets? |
Yes. |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 11:38:43 AM · #762 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Truly I think the evolutionist who flippantly says an eye can evolve no problem at all does not understand the challenges of such an organ... |
Truly, I think you do not understand the power of evolution, either that of you don't like the conflict it has with your personal beliefs and choose to ignore it. I don't mean to insult your intelligence, you are obviously a clever man.
I think this attitude was nicely described by Carl Sagan:
"In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, âThis is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed!â? Instead they say, âNo, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.â " |
No I understand evolution quite well. I also understand biological systems quite well and know their complexity and marvel that something could arise without a guiding hand. To steal a quote about something else, "to believe in a Supreme Being is absurd. To not believe, even more so."
I'm just saying that the great deal of confidence typical armchair evolutionists exude about their theory is likely overdone. Evolution as a theory (the frequency of a gene changes over time in a population) is robust and strong. Evolution in the real world (from abiotic material to man) is much more murky. I'm just saying we need to give that complexity the respect it deserves and either be awed that it was created or be awed that it arose by chance.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2007 11:44:43 AM · #763 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
....you can't tell me that feelings are something that is governed by the laws of nature/physics. |
Why not? Why couldn't evolution allow the development of emotions or even moral standards (see the capuchin fairness study linked earlier) in social animals? We don't prefer Nikons/Canons, blondes/redheads, etc. at birth as some sort of preprogramming. Those preferences "evolve" with our own knowledge and personal experiences, and a redhead whacking you with a Nikon in kindergarten can affect your attitudes toward them in the future. If personalities weren't directly tied to physical biochemistry, then Prozac would be useless, and brain damage wouldn't alter personality.
Message edited by author 2007-11-28 11:46:38. |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 12:00:53 PM · #764 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm just saying we need to give that complexity the respect it deserves and....be awed that it arose by chance. |
You should put your personal feelings aside and listen to Dawkins lecture about evolution, if you haven't. He is awestruck at the complexity and variety of life.
"Armchair evolutionists" is harsh. Accepting the overwhelming evidence of decades of research and theorizing is hardly dilettantism. And actively objecting to the half-baked "theorizing" of others is work for which one should be credited. For example,  milo655321's posts are always well thought-out and approachable. Such people are defenders of reason, not dabblers. |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 12:02:50 PM · #765 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
But it's not that simple......you can't tell me that feelings are something that is governed by the laws of nature/physics..... |
You may not be able to be told, but it is not an unreasonable theory. Dawkins goes to some length describing altruism as an evolutionary development in "The God Delusion", as discussed here in another thread. |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 12:25:30 PM · #766 |
With all the excitement I almost forgot!
I'd like to dedicate this photo to you guys!
It contains a book list for those 'armchair evolutionists'...
Ronb, the answers are there! But I don't think that's why you asked the questions!
I'd like to take a step back, and ask if your position (and that of others here) is similar to the creationist Kurt Wise:
"... if all the evidence in all the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the word of god seems to indicate. Here I must stand."
Turning it around, my stand point would be (anyone else with me?):
"If all the evidence in the universe turned in favour of creationism, I would be the first to admit it, and I would immediately change my mind. As things stand however, all available evidence (and there is a vast amount of it) favours evolution. It is this reason alone that I argue for evolution with a passion of those who argue against it. My passion is based on evidence. Theirs, flying in the face of evidence as it does, it truly fundamentalism"
Would you say that was a fair assessment of the situation? When two opposite points of view are put across the truth does not necessarily lie midway between them. It could be possible that one side is simply wrong, and in doing so justifies the passion of the other.
Doc, as Dan Dennett said, do you "Believe in Belief"? Sadly believing in something doesn't make it true, else I'd have more ribbons that ALL of you put together...
|
|
|
|
11/28/2007 12:46:05 PM · #767 |
I use "armchair evolutionists" for anybody who does not have training in biology. It's not necessarily derogatory but just reflects the fact that the majority of people here have their understanding about evolution from the lay press. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying it wouldn't stand up as an "expert witness" in court. I'm also not saying that just because the majority lack training their point is not true. Let us not forget I subscribe to the evolutionary process.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2007 12:53:09 PM · #768 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
Even the development of a single photo-sensitive cell is a leap... |
Pssst... your gaps are getting smaller. |
It's not MY gap. I was stating that that even an Evolutionists SMALL gap is, in reality, a LARGE one.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
photo-sensitivity is worthless without the corresponding development within the Central Nervous System to process and interpret the results of such sensitivity. |
Ever hear of chlorophyll? Whattya know... no nervous system. |
Yep. Chlorophyll is the agent of photosynthesis, which is a process that occurs within a single cell - and requires no coordination of cells, or interpretation of results.
But you are correct, since my statement was too broad, as stated.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
But even if such were NOT too much of a leap, what purpose would a single photo-sensitive cell serve, that it would be deemed an evolutionary advantage, making its possessor more fit than its non-possessing neighbor to survive and pass on its genes? |
The ability to detect light helps many forms of life to find energy and/or hide in darkness. Plants can turn toward the sun, bacteria can move toward likely food sources, etc. |
Plant heliocentricity was certainly not exhibited as a result of the initial presence of a single photo-sensitive cell.
Bacteria are not multi-cellular. And their reaction to light is not "directed" to help them find food - ref: this article from ScienceDirect which says:
"Observation of the bacterial trails left by the tardigrades indicates that this behavior is not negative phototaxis, but rather negative photokinesis which is a non-directed, random movement in which the animal either increases its speed or changes its direction when exposed to light."
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RonB:
BTW, have scientists ever found fossils that show a progenitor species with but a single eye? or one withOUT eye sockets ( as Dawkins demonstrated before he added the "cup" )? or one with asymmetrical eye sockets? |
Yes. |
a) a stigma in a one-celled animal is neither an eye nor an eye socket
b) a worm has no "eyes" per se, only scattered photo-sensitive cells
c) neither is a fossil.
d) hopefully, neither is a progenitor species, since both are extant. |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 12:55:35 PM · #769 |
| You may not think it's bad, but it sure smacks of elitism. :-) Don't forget that you don't require a formal education in order to completely understand something. And I don't think it's a given that the general understanding of evolution comes from the lay press. Perhaps people aren't reading journals, but there are plenty of excellent scholarly books written for peer review that are worthwhile, and that people have access to. |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 12:56:03 PM · #770 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I use "armchair evolutionists" for anybody who does not have training in biology.[/b] |
As opposed to, say, the armchair creationist with no degree in theology? I would expect paleontologists to be at least as informed as biologists on the issues, and much of this discussion could be held with only high school level biology, geology, physics and astronomy. |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 01:01:05 PM · #771 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I use "armchair evolutionists" for anybody who does not have training in biology.[/b] |
As opposed to, say, the armchair creationist with no degree in theology? I would expect paleontologists to be at least as informed as biologists on the issues, and much of this discussion could be held with only high school level biology, geology, physics and astronomy. |
It can, but lets take it for what it's worth. Louis said that Dawkins, an expert in evolution, was awed by the sheer audacity of chance to come up with what it did. I'm just looking for a little more of that. That's all. I wouldn't put any more stock in a creationist trying to discount evolution with scientific facts if he/she didn't know what they were talking about.
If it's elitism Louis, then I'm guilty. Sue me for putting more stock in an expert's opinion than a non-expert. Doesn't mean the expert is correct all the time, but it does mean he/she should be listened to a little more carefully than the non-expert. This is plain common sense.
Message edited by author 2007-11-28 13:04:56. |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 01:15:21 PM · #772 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Louis said that Dawkins, an expert in evolution, was awed by the sheer audacity of chance to come up with what it did. |
I actually said: "He is awestruck at the complexity and variety of life." Which he is. I haven't heard him specifically mention "audacious chance". |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 01:17:45 PM · #773 |
Originally posted by cheekymunky:
Ronb, the answers are there! But I don't think that's why you asked the questions!
I'd like to take a step back, and ask if your position (and that of others here) is similar to the creationist Kurt Wise:
"... if all the evidence in all the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the word of god seems to indicate. Here I must stand." |
a) I would not be the first to admit it. To do so would be a denial of faith. If, as Scripture says, "Satan masquerades as an angel of light", then it would seem possible that all the evidence in the world might also be convincing, yet false.
b) I would still be a creationist.
c) I do not hold steadfast to a belief that the earth is "young". I see no Scriptural evidence that there could not exist a period of millions ( or even billions ) of years ( as we measure time ) between Genesis 1:1 ( "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." ) and Genesis 1:3 ( "And God said, Let there be light..." ). Scripture doesn't specifically say that God created the heavens and the earth on the First Day, nor does it give any kind of timeframe for the first day relative to that of initial creation. |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 01:28:37 PM · #774 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If it's elitism Louis, then I'm guilty. Sue me for putting more stock in an expert's opinion than a non-expert. Doesn't mean the expert is correct all the time, but it does mean he/she should be listened to a little more carefully than the non-expert. This is plain common sense. |
I don't think anyone's saying that it is "elitism" to place more stock in expert opinions than in lay opinions. I think they are saying that the unfortunate phrase "armchair evolutionists" is a snide one and smacks of elitism. I tend to agree with that; whether it's intentional or not, it shows an attitude, if you catch my drift?
It reads like shorthand for "If you don't have my depth of training in biology, don't even bother talking to me, dude; talk to the hand..."
R.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2007 01:37:52 PM · #775 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Bacteria are not multi-cellular. |
Tardigrades aren't bacteria, and may have tens of thousands of cells. Still, some bacteria do react to (or even produce) light. Right there is your precursor to a single photosensitive cell. Suddenly it's not such a leap after all. ;-)
Originally posted by RonB:
And their reaction to light is not "directed" to help them find food |
Perhaps not in that particular case, but your question was only about the possible survival advantages of light sensitivity. In this case, it could be as simple as the fact that even random movement in response to light stimuli may confer a survival advantage over sitting ducks when a shadow passes overhead.
Originally posted by RonB:
a) a stigma in a one-celled animal is neither an eye nor an eye socket |
Eyespots are the simplest and most common "eyes" found in nature
Originally posted by RonB:
b) a worm has no "eyes" per se, only scattered photo-sensitive cells |
So? Even without a complete "eye," they have many light-sensitive sensitive cells and a nervous system to interpret the signals, thus proving the fallacy of your argument.
Originally posted by RonB:
c) neither is a fossil. |
Hogwash. Even I have some worm fossils at home, and you referred to evidence of fossil microbes in rocks earlier.
Originally posted by RonB:
d) hopefully, neither is a progenitor species, since both are extant. |
Algae and bacteria are extant, too. Even after all these threads, you're still remarkably clueless about evolution. Maybe if you actually studied the theory you were arguing against instead of relying on pro-creationist myths, you'd save a lot of wasted effort? I mean that with all due respect, as posts like this one demonstrate complete ignorance of even the basic principles.
Message edited by author 2007-11-28 14:16:34. |
|
