PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution of the Eye
       how did it happen?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

I am yet to find Anyone who can give a satisfactory explanation to how the eye evolved.


the creationist explanation is this:
it just can't happen. mystery solved

the evolutionists explanation (as I see it) is this:
some poor animal (most likely a fish) had its genes mutated in some way so that it grew a facial tumour.

but this specific tumour was special.
it connected to some nerve endings (later to be called optic nerves) that lead to the brain.
it also had muscles attacked to it so that it could move.
and was covered by a strangely shaped layer of skin (the lens) that helped to filter light.

I'm sorry, I made a mistake. there where actually two identical tumours on either side of the face.

and...



as you can see, my explanation is a little bias.
so this thread shall be dedicated to allowing evolutionists the chance to give their side of the story.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 5:38 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
0

Rate this post:

The simplest eyes are in single celled organisms.


Sight is further developed in multicellular organisms:




Since sight is so useful, it is heavily selected for, so gradual improvements develop.



(Edited by Apoapsis 1/24/2013 at 08:14 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:47 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

WOW
that is actually a far better reply than I ever anticipated.


but obviously there is a huge difference between the genes of a single-celled animal telling it to contain a photoreceptor molecule (not actually an eye. but close enough for this debate) and the genes of a multicellular animal telling it to grow multiple types of cells which each preform a specific duty. and these cells then working in perfect unison to produce an image. unlike the single-celled creature with a single photoreceptor molecule who would see life as if it was watching a black and white TV on a 1 pixel screen.

because I am still a little unclear on the gap between single celled organisms and multicellular organisms
could you (or anyone else) please elaborate on HOW it "further developed in multicellular organisms"


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 10:12 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, I'll have to defer more details on metazoan cell differentiation and bilateral symmetry to somebody who has had biology more recently.  Maybe Derwood is watching this thread.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:30 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anti-Evolutionist -
I am yet to find Anyone who can give a satisfactory explanation to how the eye evolved.


Well then, you have not been using your eyes very well in searching for the answer.

It has been shown that Natrual Selection can very well account for eye evolution.  

1.  University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne recaps how Natural Selection can provide a pathway for eye evolution in his recent book - 'Why Evolution is True'.  (A very readable book for the layperson wanting to learn more about the wide range of evidence supporting evolution. - I highly recommend it.)

Page 141 - 142:
Evolution of the eye

A possible sequence of such changes begins with simple eyespots made of light-sensitive pigment, as seen in flatworms.  The skin then folds in, forming a cup that protects the eyespot and allows it to better localize the light source.  Limpets have eyes like this.  In the chambered nautilus, we see a further narrowing of the cup's opening to produce an improved image, and in ragworms the cup is capped by a transparent cover to protect the opening.  In abalones, part of the fluid in the eye has coagulated to form a lens, which helps focus light, and in many species, such as mammals, nearby muscles have been co-opted to move the lens and vary its focus.  The evolution of a retins, an optic nerve, and so on follows by natural selection.  Each step of this hypothetical transitional 'series' confers increased adaptation on its possessor, because it enables the eye to gather more light or form better images, both of which aid survival and reproduction.  And each step of this process is feasible because it is seen in the eyes of different living species.  At the end of the sequence we have the camera eye, whose adaptive evolution seems impossibly complex.  But the complexity of the final eye can be broken down into a series of small, adaptive steps.


Coyne then goes on to summarize how researcher Dan-Eric Nilsson and Susanne  Pelger of Lund University in Sweden have made a mathematical model of the process of eye evolution.  Nilsson and Pelger calculate that eye eovlution, from rudimentary light-patch to complex camera eye, took less than 400,000 years.  


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 08:58 AM on September 14, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
+1

Rate this post:

This "possible sequence", though very colorful, lacks any real continuity.
First of all, no one has actually observed a light sensitive pigment becoming a dimple or a dimple becoming a cavity, etc. Perhaps this could be demonstrated in a lab through gene manipulation, but that would dismiss the natural side of the equation.
Secondly, should these beneficial changes occur through gene mutation it would require many fortunate concurring mutations to be of any benefit. For example,  the simple "photo receptor" requires some means of transmittal in order for the organism to be able to respond. Also, in the picture apoapsis posted, there are two structures associated with  light reception: pigment shield and photoreceptor. Did they both occur simultaneously and just happen to work together or did they occur separately?
This leads to a third problem: interpretation. How and why does the single celled organism respond to light? It doesn't have a brain. Maybe it "feels" it somehow, requiring some transmission of sensitivity. Did this process also occur during the same fortunate mutational episode?
The pictures and diagrams are very interesting but they demonstrate nothing more than the inconceivability of the complexity of life.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 1:09 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 5:38 PM on September 13, 2009 :
I am yet to find Anyone who can give a satisfactory explanation to how the eye evolved.



I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for as to how Yahweh created Man from dust.

the creationist explanation is this:
it just can't happen. mystery solved

And that isno explanation.

the evolutionists explanation (as I see it) is this:
some poor animal (most likely a fish) had its genes mutated in some way so that it grew a facial tumour.

Then you must be blind.
Fish HAVE eyes.  Nobody has ever proposed anything even close to what you indicate.


but this specific tumour was special.
it connected to some nerve endings (later to be called optic nerves) that lead to the brain.


The retinas ARE neural tissue.  They develop FROM the tissue that produces the brain.

it also had muscles attacked to it so that it could move.

There are muscles all over the face.

and was covered by a strangely shaped layer of skin (the lens) that helped to filter light.

The lens is not skin. Not all eyes have elnses and produce very good images.


I'm sorry, I made a mistake. there where actually two identical tumours on either side of the face.

Never heard of bilateral symmetry, I see.


and...



as you can see, my explanation is a little bias.


I was thinking more along the lines of your caricature of an evolutionary explanation being a little ignorant.

so this thread shall be dedicated to allowing evolutionists the chance to give their side of the story.


Here  is a decent article on research dealing with eye evolution.  CHeck it out, if you really actually care.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:51 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 1:09 PM on September 14, 2009 :

First of all, no one has actually observed a light sensitive pigment becoming a dimple or a dimple becoming a cavity, etc.



And how many people observed Yahweh, the Hebrew tribal deity, willing the universe into existence 6000 years ago?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:53 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To Derwood
I would appreciate it if you did not post on this thread again.
Apoapsis did vouch for you saying
Sorry, I'll have to defer more details on metazoan cell differentiation and bilateral symmetry to somebody who has had biology more recently.  Maybe Derwood is watching this thread.
But it would appear that he was misinformed about your debating skills

the closest you have gotten to producing any sort of counter argument is when you gave this link.
not only did you not give us any information from that link. the the information you could have given us was just the same as what Apoapsis and orion said; a simple Multicellular creatures (sea squirts, flatworms) with simple eyes evolved into more complex Multicellular creatures (humans) with more complex eyes.
I am still waiting for someone to show me the missing links between a Single celled organism and a multicellular organism

it is around this time that you would be making a list of trivialities and and pointless facts to use in your rebuttals. please don't.
saying stupid things like
that is no explanation.
proves you disagree with me. but nothing else
and why even bother asking questions like
how did Yahweh created Man from dust?
or
how many people observed Yahweh willing the universe into existence 6000 years ago?
religions, such as Christianity, are taken on faith. scientific theories, such as evolution are either proved or disproved by facts and reasoning.

oh, and if you are going to now try and prove me wrong with facts and reasoning, don't bother about my interpretation of "the evolutionists explanation". that was not meant to be taken seriously. it was meant as a ploy to entice evolutionists to give their side of the story
and for Apoapsis and orion it worked

I know I started this post saying "I would appreciate it if you did not post on this thread again". but in reality I would be more than happy for you (or anyone else) to post on this thread IF what you post is informative, factual and relevant to the argument
such as describing to me the missing links between a Single celled organism and a multicellular organism

the least you could do is read over what you have typed before submitting it. and given by the number of spelling mistakes in you posts, I would say it is unlikely you have been doing so.
you wouldn't want to end up like this guy. LOL



-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 7:14 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx -
This "possible sequence", though very colorful, lacks any real continuity.  First of all, no one has actually observed a light sensitive pigment becoming a dimple or a dimple becoming a cavity, etc. Perhaps this could be demonstrated in a lab through gene manipulation, but that would dismiss the natural side of the equation.


The fact that we see organisms alive today with various stages of eye development shows the steps in which the eye evolved from a more simple light-gathering organ to a more complex organ capable of focused sight.  It is such a pathway that allows Natural Selection to take.

The article that Derwood pointed to shows a genetic connection for a vital eye proteins between the simpler invertebrate eye and the more complex vertebrate eye.  I would be willing to wager that more genetic connections will be found.  

If you can't admit to that, then you are being stubbornly obtuse.

Secondly, should these beneficial changes occur through gene mutation it would require many fortunate concurring mutations to be of any benefit.


Again, see the article regarding crystallin proteins.  You're trying to argue from Behe's idea of irreducible complexity - which has been proven to be flawed by scientific scrutiny.

This leads to a third problem: interpretation. How and why does the single celled organism respond to light? It doesn't have a brain.


Plants don't have brains, but they certainly sense light.  Ever see turn a plant leaning away from the sun, come back later in the day and see it facing the sun?  

Anti-Evolutionist - it seems you're having a bit of a tantrum there.  You don't seem to have much of a reply beyond telling Derwood to go away.  You asked for facts.  You asked how evolution could account for the development of the eye.   We responded.  

We posted facts.  A reasonable pathway for Natural Selection was presented.  

Examples of various stages of eye development found in living organisms alive today was also presented.  

Finally, compelling evidence in the connection of common genes and gene regulation is found between a simpler invertebrate eye and a more complex vertebrate eye - showing that Natural Selection had existing material upon which to work on for further eye development.  No hocus-pocus needed.

Now you seem to be pouting.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 9:09 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 9:09 PM on September 14, 2009 :
Anti-Evolutionist - it seems you're having a bit of a tantrum there.
Yes I was.
sorry Derwood



orion said
The article that Derwood pointed to shows a genetic connection for a vital eye proteins between the simpler invertebrate eye and the more complex vertebrate eye.
which is true

but ever since the third post on this tread I have been asking How does the eye of a single celled creature evolve into that of a multi celled creature?

so far I have had three very detailed and extensive lists of multi celled animals with different eye types.
been told that these eyes have only minor structural and genetic differences.
reminded that good eye site helps an animal to survive, and therefore breed (survival of the fittest)
and then told to join the dots.

this is a VERY convincing argument. and at no times in this thread have I said that this theory is wrong.
all I have been asking is How does the eye of a single celled creature evolve into that of a multi celled creature?
with the addition of this (still missing) piece of information, we will then have the complete theory of the evolution of the eye. from the simplest eyes of singled celled organisms right up to the most complex eyes of the present day.

so once again I will ask:
How does the eye of a single celled creature evolve into that of a multi celled creature?


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 10:12 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anti-Evolutionist -

first of all, I just want to acknowledge that debating this stuff does get peoples emotions going - it does for me, let me tell you!  

I did notice your question earlier - How does the eye of a single celled creature evolve into that of a multi celled creature?

I don't know.  Single celled organism can have light sensing pigments/organeles  - such as chloroplasts in plants.  How did single cells evolve into multicellular creatures?  Now that would be an interesting issue to research.

I pass this on to someone else.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:39 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 7:14 PM on September 14, 2009 :
To Derwood
I would appreciate it if you did not post on this thread again.


Tough noogies.

As far as my debate skills go, at least I am able to discuss the subjects I bring up at an adult level, and do not spew caricatures and gibberish as if it had merit and warranted serious discussion.

Rude?

Too bad.  You reap what you sow.

Quote from derwood at 2:51 PM on September 14, 2009 :
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 5:38 PM on September 13, 2009 :
I am yet to find Anyone who can give a satisfactory explanation to how the eye evolved.



I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for as to how Yahweh created Man from dust.

the creationist explanation is this:
it just can't happen. mystery solved

And that isno explanation.

the evolutionists explanation (as I see it) is this:
some poor animal (most likely a fish) had its genes mutated in some way so that it grew a facial tumour.

Then you must be blind.
Fish HAVE eyes.  Nobody has ever proposed anything even close to what you indicate.


but this specific tumour was special.
it connected to some nerve endings (later to be called optic nerves) that lead to the brain.


The retinas ARE neural tissue.  They develop FROM the tissue that produces the brain.

it also had muscles attacked to it so that it could move.

There are muscles all over the face.

and was covered by a strangely shaped layer of skin (the lens) that helped to filter light.

The lens is not skin. Not all eyes have elnses and produce very good images.


I'm sorry, I made a mistake. there where actually two identical tumours on either side of the face.

Never heard of bilateral symmetry, I see.


and...



as you can see, my explanation is a little bias.


I was thinking more along the lines of your caricature of an evolutionary explanation being a little ignorant.

so this thread shall be dedicated to allowing evolutionists the chance to give their side of the story.


Here  is a decent article on research dealing with eye evolution.  CHeck it out, if you really actually care.





(Edited by derwood 9/15/2009 at 10:34 AM).

(Edited by derwood 9/15/2009 at 10:36 AM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:31 AM on September 15, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Orion-
The fact that we see organisms alive today with various stages of eye development shows the steps in which the eye evolved from a more simple light-gathering organ to a more complex organ capable of focused sight.

No, it shows SUPPOSED steps. Actual steps would be to find in a colony of light sensitive amoebas in which some are developing dimples around the light sensitive area. The progressive examples previously sited have many other differences besides level of sight that are not accounted for in the "spot-dimple-cavity-eye" story.


It is such a pathway that allows Natural Selection to take.

Natural selection is short beaked and long beaked birds. Trans phyla evolution is blind bacteria to light sensitive protozoa. The differences are vast.
 
The article that Derwood pointed to shows a genetic connection for a vital eye proteins between the simpler invertebrate eye and the more complex vertebrate eye.  I would be willing to wager that more genetic connections will be found.

"Genetic connection" or rather "similarities between allele combination's"  does not necessarily mean "lines of decent". Of course more will be found because evos are looking for them and since there is a single Creator we could expect similarities between different kinds of organisms.

If you can't admit to that, then you are being stubbornly obtuse.

I admit they are there. I differ in my opinion as to what they mean. In my interpretative preconceptions I am indeed stubbornly obtuse as you well know.

Anti-evo,
Derwood gets under my skin too. I just ignore him. Orion and Apoapsis are good guys and have a genuine desire to share their understanding. But I know I get under their skin (especially Orion?) too. What did you call me before, Orion? A master dodger? Anyway if I'm not smiling I don't type.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 2:32 PM on September 15, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Timbrx -
Orion? A master dodger? Anyway if I'm not smiling I don't type.


No, Timbrx, I called you a weasel.  A master weasel.

Of course, I guess, from your perspective, I am one too.  :0)

One master weasel to another master weasel, eh?  

Hey, if you can't laugh in these debates, you'll get really frustrated and upset!  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:46 PM on September 15, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, brother weasel, and I've turned over a new leaf. No more getting frustrated and upset.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 10:28 PM on September 15, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Natural selection is short beaked and long beaked birds.


It's also the evolution of new taxa.   The Institute for Creation Research endorses a book that says new species, genera, and families evolve.

It's also the evolution of an irreducibly complex new enzymes system.   That's been directly observed, as has the evolution of new species.

Trans phyla evolution is blind bacteria to light sensitive protozoa. The differences are vast.


Ah, the "I've seen a man walk 200 yards, but I've never seen one walk 200 miles, so it's impossible" argument.

Do you have anything of substance to offer?



(Edited by Yehren 9/16/2009 at 5:55 PM).
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 5:54 PM on September 16, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ah, the "I've seen a man walk 200 yards, but I've never seen one walk 200 miles, so it's impossible" argument.
actually it is the "I've heard how simple multi celled eyes become complex multi celled eyes, but I still haven't heard how single celled eyes become multi celled eyes" argument


Do you have anything of substance to offer?
I do
not only is there no scientific evidence of the evolution of a single celled eye becoming a multi celled eye. but there is not even a theory of how such a thing could happen


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 7:22 PM on September 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 7:22 PM on September 16, 2009 :

Do you have anything of substance to offer?
I do


"some poor animal (most likely a fish) had its genes mutated in some way so that it grew a facial tumour. "

not only is there no scientific evidence of the evolution of a single celled eye becoming a multi celled eye. but there is not even a theory of how such a thing could happen


Have you ever tried to use, say Google?




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:37 PM on September 16, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from timbrx at 2:32 PM on September 15, 2009 :


Anti-evo,
Derwood gets under my skin too. I just ignore him.


Ignore Dunning-Kruger datum points like Timmy.

He's one of these internet YEC types who has convinced himself he understands more than he really does.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 8:40 PM on September 16, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hey Derwood
I remember you saying
Quote from derwood at 10:31 AM on September 15, 2009 :
As far as my debate skills go, at least I am able to discuss the subjects I bring up at an adult level
so how about we stop these petty posts between you, me and Timbrx and Discus the topic? I will even try and do it at the adult level you seem to achieve ^_^

to help get the ball rolling I will ask you some relevant, on-topic questions and then await for your detailed and equally relevant responses

Question 1
taking into account the imformation already posted by Apoapsis and orion and yourself, is there any new information you would like to detail (in point form if necessary) about the evolution of a simple multi celled eye into a more complex multi celled eye?

Question 2
using google ,as you suggested I do, could you please summarise any theories you find in reference to the evolution of the eye of a singled celled organism into the eye of a multi celled organism?

Question 3
assuming you are unable to find such a theory. and assuming such a task is possible with (not meant as an insult) your level of knowledge. could you please come up with your own theory on how the eye of a singled celled organism evolved into the eye of a multi celled organism?
understandably we will not expect you to back up any claims with scientific evidence.


I hope these questions are satisfactory.
and I appreciate your understanding about stopping these petty posts


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 03:01 AM on September 17, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

anti-evolutionist,

    With a very quick google search I found this from oxfordjournals.org

In Tripedalia the transition from unicellular eye organelles to multicellular eye organs can be observed. The planula larva of Tripedalia forms unicellular photoreceptors scattered over the epidermis (Figure 10), whereas the adult jellyfish forms elaborate multicellular eyes (Nordström et al. 2003). These unicellular photoreceptors contain both the putative photosensory microvilli and the shielding pigment granules within the same cell, which also carries a motor cilium that enables the larva to show phototactic behavior. These unicellular photoreceptors closely ressemble some unicellular photosensitive protists. We propose that in the course of evolution these unicellular photoreceptors has duplicated and differentiated into at least two different cell types, photoreceptor cells and pigment cells, as they are found in adult Tripedalia jellyfish and in the Darwinian prototype eyes of planarians (Polycelis auricularia).

The whole thing can be found here.  I'm sure Derwood can clarify or add anything said there, but assuming you are still unconvinced about unicellular photoreceptors to multicellular eye spots, what else do you have a problem with eye evolution?


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 04:23 AM on September 17, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

unicellular eye organelles to multicellular eye organs
which is to say an eye consisting of a single cell evolves into an eye made of many cells

we ARE getting closer. but this still does not answer the question.

because a multi celled creature containing a single celled eye is different a single celled creature with an  photoreceptor molecule as an eye.
don't give up. we will get there in the end


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 05:49 AM on September 17, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 05:49 AM on September 17, 2009 :
which is to say an eye consisting of a single cell evolves into an eye made of many cells

we ARE getting closer. but this still does not answer the question.

because a multi celled creature containing a single celled eye is different a single celled creature with an  photoreceptor molecule as an eye.
don't give up. we will get there in the end


Ya know, it took me about 30 seconds to find this on google, no joke! If you are really interested in what scientists say about this imagine what you could find if you browsed the web, for, I don't know.... ten minutes. Then imagine if you read what you found for, lets say half an hour, your question will probably be solved. Still, I have a feeling that you are content with people spoon feeding you with the simplest of answers while you do nothing but complain it isn't good enough. Ignorance is bliss, especially if you're willingly ignorant so you don't have to disturb your inflated, idyllic scenario based on bad theology.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 06:53 AM on September 17, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ya know, it took me about 30 seconds to find this on google, no joke!


So where is it? I for one would like to hear it.

If you are really interested in what scientists say about this imagine what you could find if you browsed the web, for, I don't know.... ten minutes.


If you were really interested, you could also get your answers that way Fencer...so what are you doing here???

Then imagine if you read what you found for, lets say half an hour, your question will probably be solved.


Still, I have a feeling that you are content with people spoon feeding you with the simplest of answers while you do nothing but complain it isn't good enough.


Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? What has come over you, Fencer -you sound ruffled....?

Ignorance is bliss, especially if you're willingly ignorant so you don't have to disturb your inflated, idyllic scenario based on bad theology.


Ad hominems don't substitute for answers Fencer, so lets have it.

I want to see the answer you found -please.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 08:46 AM on September 17, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Posted by Yehren at Wed September 16, 2009 - 5:54 PM
It's also the evolution of new taxa.   The Institute for Creation Research endorses a book that says new species, genera, and families evolve.


Yehren, the term trans phyla is meant to express macro evolution. Since we all fail to agree that there is a distinct division between micro and macro I've settled on this division of taxonomy to express the "line". I've taken this from the evo (Ernst Haeckel) "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" as it was once widely accepted that phylogenetic groups are related through evolution rather than observable differences.


It's also the evolution of an irreducibly complex new enzymes system.

Your peers have rejected "irreducible complexity" where it doesn't support evolution. Are you implying that it's ok as long as it DOES?
That's been directly observed, as has the evolution of new species.

Speciation is micro evolution.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 09:09 AM on September 17, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 03:01 AM on September 17, 2009 :
Hey Derwood
I remember you saying
Quote from derwood at 10:31 AM on September 15, 2009 :
As far as my debate skills go, at least I am able to discuss the subjects I bring up at an adult level


Yes, I wrote that, in part, in response to your OP:

the evolutionists explanation (as I see it) is this:
some poor animal (most likely a fish) had its genes mutated in some way so that it grew a facial tumour.

but this specific tumour was special.
it connected to some nerve endings (later to be called optic nerves) that lead to the brain.
it also had muscles attacked to it so that it could move.
and was covered by a strangely shaped layer of skin (the lens) that helped to filter light.

I'm sorry, I made a mistake. there where actually two identical tumours on either side of the face.

That is what is called a caricature.  At least I hope that was the plan.


so how about we stop these petty posts between you, me and Timbrx and Discus the topic?


I did discuss the topic in my first post.  



I will even try and do it at the adult level you seem to achieve ^_^

That will require a departure from what you presented in the OP


to help get the ball rolling I will ask you some relevant, on-topic questions and then await for your detailed and equally relevant responses


Why detailed?  I've seen no detail from you (or any ofther anti-evolutionist on here for that matter), why should I be expected to go into detail only to have it ignored/dismissed/inadequate/etc.?

Here's the thing - I engaged my first anti-evolutionist on a discussion board in 1996 or so.  I have, too many times, taken the time to produce lengthy, detailed, cited responses to questions only to have them totally ignored, dismissed out of hand, or to have an opponant focus on tangential minutiae or worse, for the opponant to write, i effect, "Yeah, well, what about THIS??? Huh?" and just keep asking more questions.


Question 1
taking into account the imformation already posted by Apoapsis and orion and yourself, is there any new information you would like to detail (in point form if necessary) about the evolution of a simple multi celled eye into a more complex multi celled eye?


No.  


Question 2
using google ,as you suggested I do, could you please summarise any theories you find in reference to the evolution of the eye of a singled celled organism into the eye of a multi celled organism?

No.  Why should I do what you should have done BEFORE you made your demands/questions in the first place?

Question 3
assuming you are unable to find such a theory. and assuming such a task is possible with (not meant as an insult) your level of knowledge. could you please come up with your own theory on how the eye of a singled celled organism evolved into the eye of a multi celled organism?


I think you are looking for an hypothesis, not a theory.  As for the eye, I don't have one.  For me, the evidence for evolution as such is sufficient that because I personally do not have a step by step evidence-backed explanation for the evolution of a specific body part I am not troubled.  In much the same way, I am satisfied that my car will start and carry me to work every day even though I know next to nothing about how an internal combustion engine wroks.


understandably we will not expect you to back up any claims with scientific evidence.


I hope these questions are satisfactory.
and I appreciate your understanding about stopping these petty posts


Petty posts are a two way street, but if I am accused falsely of something, I have every intention of supporitng myself.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 2:06 PM on September 17, 2009 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 08:46 AM on September 17, 2009 :
Ya know, it took me about 30 seconds to find this on google, no joke!


So where is it? I for one would like to hear it.


I was referring to the article I posted from oxford journals about eye organelles to organs.

If you were really interested, you could also get your answers that way Fencer...so what are you doing here???


It is not my question, but anti-evolutionist's question. If it didn't take me a minute to find something relevant why can't AE, if he's truly interested, spend a few minutes on the web himself?

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black? What has come over you, Fencer -you sound ruffled....?


Lets just say I wasn't in the best mood when I wrote my last post.

Ad hominems don't substitute for answers Fencer, so lets have it.

I want to see the answer you found -please.


Eye evolution is quite complex, what exactly do you see as an impassable step for evolution?


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 02:17 AM on September 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer
Eye evolution is quite complex, what exactly do you see as an impassable step for evolution?


The evolution of the eye of a singled celled organism into the eye of a multi-celled organism. I don't see how this could have happened. I wanted to know what answer you found for this question.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:38 AM on September 18, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 06:38 AM on September 18, 2009 :
Fencer
Eye evolution is quite complex, what exactly do you see as an impassable step for evolution?


The evolution of the eye of a singled celled organism into the eye of a multi-celled organism. I don't see how this could have happened. I wanted to know what answer you found for this question.



Why does it matter that you cannot see this?





-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:34 AM on September 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The evolution of the eye of a singled celled organism into the eye of a multi-celled organism.I don't see how this could have happened.
Why does it matter that you cannot see this?


Why does it only matter that you can imagine how this happened? Why won’t anybody answer this question? All I’m getting is a series of evasions. What is going on? I want to be able to imagine it too in true scientific style – so will you help or not? it's rare for you to be so reluctant to share plausible stories Derwood. Do you tell your students to imagine it on their own as well?



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 11:26 AM on September 18, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester, did you read the article that Fencer was referring to?
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:45 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 11:26 AM on September 18, 2009 :
The evolution of the eye of a singled celled organism into the eye of a multi-celled organism.I don't see how this could have happened.
Why does it matter that you cannot see this?


Why does it only matter that you can imagine how this happened?


I can't imagine it.  I don't need to.  I can't imagine how gravity actually works, yet I do not deny it.

You (both the generic and the personal YOU) seem to think that if you cannot 'imagine' it that it must not have happened.  
I cannot think of any other way to describe such a position except as hubris.



Why won’t anybody answer this question? All I’m getting is a series of evasions. What is going on? I want to be able to imagine it too in true scientific style –

No, you do not.  You want to be told something and then dismiss or ridicule it.  I've seen you in action.


so will you help or not? it's rare for you to be so reluctant to share plausible stories Derwood.

I've not shared any plausible 'stories' as best I can remember.


Do you tell your students to imagine it on their own as well?


You are asking, as you folks so often do, an unanswerable question - certainly one that you consider unanswerable.  There may well be solid evidence for the evolution of the eye found at some point, but now it is pretty sketchy.  Not that it matter, no amount of evidence will ever be enough for you.  Creationists will always find a way of rejecting evidence that they do not like, if only by simply rejecting it because it does not support their position.  Even 'professional' creationists, who refer to themselves as scientists, do this, as I have documented on this forum (the baraminologists). 

I don't tell my students to imagine anything.  I tell them that there are certain events in evolution that we simply do not understand and/or do not have good evidence for.  In fact, I covered one such issue last week in one of my classes - I was going over the origin of tetrapods and made it quite clear that there is no good evidence for the origin of the pelvic girdle and hind limb apparatus.  
None of the students threw up their hands and declared that therefore the earth is only 6000 years old and evolution must be all wrong.

Of course, prior to that discussion, we had discussed the fossilization process and how the farther back in time we go, the less lilely we are to find fossils at all and such.  So they understand why we do not necessarily have a complete fossil record.

The fact of the matter is, there is voluminous, multifacted evidence for evolution as such, both large and small scale.  There is evidence of multiple forms of eyes evolving.  There is evidence of simpler eyes evolving into 'more complex' ones.  How, exactly, precisely, that occurred, I do not know and have spent a lot of time pondering.  But I am not of the mind that not knowing how each and every body part evolved is reason to question evolution as a whole, any more than I am convinced that because there are some 30 years of Jesus' life that is not accounted for that we should just assume he did not actually live.



(Edited by derwood 9/18/2009 at 3:18 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:12 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You (both the generic and the personal YOU) seem to think that if you cannot 'imagine' it that it must not have happened.


No, I think my point is that without any evidence, and then, beyond that, not even the slightest imaginary scenario for how it might have happened, perhaps it is not science and it didn't in fact happen and is based entirely on a philisophical belief system.

You seem to think, on the other hand, that if you can imagine it, it must have happened.

No, you do not.  You want to be told something and then dismiss or ridicule it.  I've seen you in action.


I really wanted to see how much actual science was contained in your answer.

I've not shared any plausible 'stories' as best I can remember.


I wouldn't expect that you would recognize them. Your whole system would fall apart if you did.

There may well be solid evidence for the evolution of the eye found at some point, but now it is pretty sketchy.  Not that it matter, no amount of evidence will ever be enough for you.


No you're wrong. Evidence would do just fine but it has to be serious evidence, observable evidence, not the fairy story type of evidence that evolutionists are so famous for.

Creationists will always find a way of rejecting evidence that they do not like, if only by simply rejecting it because it does not support their position.


Wow! That's the same thing I say about evolutionists.

Even 'professional' creationists, who refer to themselves as scientists, do this


You mean like the 'professional' evolutionists that refer to themselves as scientists?

I was going over the origin of tetrapods and made it quite clear that there is no good evidence for the origin of the pelvic girdle and hind limb apparatus.


Is there any good evidence for tetrapods at all?

Of course, prior to that discussion, we had discussed the fossilization process and how the farther back in time we go, the less lilely we are to find fossils at all and such.  


Why?

The fact of the matter is, there is voluminous, multifacted evidence for evolution as such, both large and small scale.


There are lots of stories I agree, but you'd have to demonstrate that macroevolution is actually possible before the fossils or DNA would be any good to you as evidence for your position.

There is evidence of multiple forms of eyes evolving.  There is evidence of simpler eyes evolving into 'more complex' ones.


Perhaps there is evidence that certain things have existed in the past but without your philisophical belief system you would not say that one evolved into another.

But I am not of the mind that not knowing how each and every body part evolved is reason to question evolution as a whole


It is if the belief is independant of the evidence.

any more than I am convinced that because there are some 30 years of Jesus' life that is not accounted for that we should just assume he did not actually live.


There are written historical and geneological records of Jesus' existance. We have yet to find such evidence of hippos evolving into whales.

Just as an aside -I am in shock Derwood. You sound almost pleasant today and I'm pretty sure that is a mistake or that you have taken a chill pill and it is artificially induced. But I must say I find it refreshing.













-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 12:45 PM on September 19, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester -

There are written historical and geneological records of Jesus' existance.


Hmmm... you know, I have my doubts that Jesus existed at all.  Would you care to present some concrete evidence, Lester?  

Yes, I know, he is all over the NT of the Bible.  But the Bible is full of unreliable stories, not to mention myths.  Why should I believe that Jesus actually existed?  

And if he was a real historical person, the description of Jesus in the Bible is certainly a myth.  You see Lester, I'm an atheist.  I don't believe in the Jesus myth.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:24 PM on September 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 12:45 PM on September 19, 2009 :
You (both the generic and the personal YOU) seem to think that if you cannot 'imagine' it that it must not have happened.


No, I think my point is that without any evidence, and then, beyond that, not even the slightest imaginary scenario for how it might have happened, perhaps it is not science and it didn't in fact happen and is based entirely on a philisophical belief system.


Which is just what I said.

I mean, do you really accept the evolution of other body parts, just not the eye?  Or do you use this as a means of denyoing the whole thing?


You seem to think, on the other hand, that if you can imagine it, it must have happened.

You keep misrepresenting me.  I just wrote pretty much the opposite of that.  

No, you do not.  You want to be told something and then dismiss or ridicule it.  I've seen you in action.


I really wanted to see how much actual science was contained in your answer.

Not that it seems to matter - you ignore my substantive points when I make them.

I've not shared any plausible 'stories' as best I can remember.


I wouldn't expect that you would recognize them. Your whole system would fall apart if you did.

Inability to provide an example noted.

There may well be solid evidence for the evolution of the eye found at some point, but now it is pretty sketchy.  Not that it matter, no amount of evidence will ever be enough for you.


No you're wrong. Evidence would do just fine but it has to be serious evidence, observable evidence, not the fairy story type of evidence that evolutionists are so famous for.

By observable, what do you mean?  

Creationists will always find a way of rejecting evidence that they do not like, if only by simply rejecting it because it does not support their position.


Wow! That's the same thing I say about evolutionists.

Such unsupportable hypoerbole is a common YEC antic.

Even 'professional' creationists, who refer to themselves as scientists, do this


You mean like the 'professional' evolutionists that refer to themselves as scientists?

Yes, but with a major difference, as I have documented on this forum (and you apparently ignored, as you so often do).  

===
Well, let’s take a look at this creationist metaphysic in action. I will let the objective, rational reader determine if this metaphysic is the superior one when dealing with issues scientific…
When I was a graduate student working on molecular phylogenetics, I discovered a series of articles in the Creationist peer-reviewed literature * dealing with the same subject.
The authors of these articles were applying computer algorithms to molecular data to determine the relationships between creatures that descended from the ‘kinds’ that were Created and were later allowed to live on the ark.
These and other papers lay out the creationist version of systematics, called Baraminology (or Discontinuity Systematics), which utilize standard computer programs and reproducible analyses using molecular data. These ‘baraminologists’ have set up an entire field of study, complete with its own bible-based terminology and concepts.

The first paper, “A Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of the Testudine Apobaramin,” 1997, DA Robinson, CRSQ 33:4 p. 262-272, examines the relationships between turtles, and establishes or at least lays out some important criteria for establishing affinity of species (baramina) – patterns of mutation bias, gaps between ingroup and outgroups, topological congruence of cladograms using differing parameters and analyses, and strong bootstrap support for the arrangements. The author was able to determine using these methods – which are essentially the same as those used by systematists – that all turtles are related via descent from a created kind, but could not resolve lower-level relationships.

The third paper dealt with cat phylogeny, and just expanded on earlier ‘proof of concept’ papers.

But the second paper was of great interest to me.

“A Quantitative Approach to Baraminology With Examples from the Catarrhine Primates,” 1998, D. Ashley Robinson and David P. Cavanaugh, CRSQ 34:4 p. 196-208, was the very subject I was working on.

Much of the paper consists of quoting/referring to Scripture, which is odd for a scientific paper but not, I assume, for a scientific paper premised on the supernaturalistic metaphysic, and outlining their justification for their “baraminic distance” criterion. This takes up about the first 4 pages. The baraminic distance is essentially equivalent to the materialistic genetic distance measure, it is just called something else.

Those pages are, save for the references to Scripture, well written and exhibit a great deal of thought. The paper gets interesting, however, when we get to the Materials and Methods section on p. 201. The title of the paper and several sentences in the introductory portion indicate that the interest here is in the Old World monkeys, not the human-ape question. Indeed, they discount that question altogether:
“Since Scriptures clearly imply that humans were specially created (Genesis 1:26-272 , 22), and thus phylogenetically distinct from other organisms, we utilize the human-nonhuman primate relationship as a control.”
This will be of interest later.
Their data consisted of 12s rRNA gene sequences, chromosomal characters, morphological characters, and ecological characters. The data were analyzed individually and as a total evidence dataset using standard phylogenetic analysis software.
It is the results and discussion in which the metaphysic of supernaturalism comes into play.

For those of you that do not know, when you set up a data matrix for analysis you utilize what is called an outgroup – a taxon that is not closely related to the group under study – for use as a ‘yardstick’ of sorts. For example, when analyzing primates you might use rabbit as an outgroup. Interestingly, as quoted above, the baraminologists use human as the outgroup in their analyses.
Outgroups must be designated prior to running the analysis, or the results will appear strange. If you designate the wrong taxon as the outgroup, your results will be strange indeed (you can, of course, run analyses without an outgroup, but these analyses were not utilized by the baraminologists).
So, when the baraminologists ran neighbor joining analyses on the data, they used human as the outgroup. NJ methods assume a constant rate of evolution, which is not indicated by either fossil or molecular evidence and so has fallen out of favor. Though they do not specifically state that they designated human as outgroup, this is what must have happened. This is because the order of the taxa in the dataset can influence the arrangement produced in NJ analyses. For example, I analyzed one of my datasets and I got an arrangement similar to the one seen in the CRSQ paper. Human is first in that dataset, so I cut and pasted it last, re-ran the analysis, and Human got stuck somewhere in the middle of the cluster (however, when I ran a bootstrap analysis, human grouped with chimp). However, when I designated a new world monkey as outgroup, I got the ‘accepted’ arrangement – human + chimp. Making human the outgroup produces an arrangement similar to the one in the CRSQ paper – NJ analyses by default use the first taxon as the outgroup unless designated otherwise.
And what follows from that is the production of weakly supported topologies, since they tried to force the data to conform to a ‘non-natural’ topology. The node linking chimps and gorillas was supported with only 53% bootstrap support. That is fairly low. In a paper not constrained by the antimaterialism metaphysic, in which human is not the outgroup, chimps join gorilla with 96-100% support, depending on the data used. Forcing the data to fit a preconceived notion based on a metaphysic produces statistically significant error.
They mention in the abstract “We have found that baraminic distances based on hemoglobin amino acid sequences, 12S-rRNA sequences, and chromosomal data were largely ineffective for identifying the Human holobaramin. Baraminic distances based on ecological and morphological characters, however, were quite reliable for distinguishing humans from nonhuman primates.”

The description of the morphological analysis sounds impressive – 43 characters. The morphological characters, however, I believe, were specifically selected to produce the desired results. Why do I say this? Because this paper:
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 1996 Feb; 5(1): 102-54. Primate phylogeny: morphological vs. molecular results. Shoshani J, Groves CP, Simons EL, Gunnell GF.**
Was known to the authors. It contained an analysis of not 43 characters, but 264, and this analysis grouped human with chimp.
The other data, ecological data, is the most subjective and should produce no surprise when it was this data that provided the baraminologists their ‘strongest evidence' for a separate human baramin. And what were some of these data? Things like percent foliage in diet, monogamy, population group size and density, home range size, etc. It looks to me like these data too were chosen to produce a desired outcome, for what exactly does “monogamy” have to do with descent?

Indeed, the authors state in their Discussion section:
“Character selection, not the method of analysis, is expected to be the primary factor affecting baraminic hypotheses. False conclusions can be reached unless baraminically informative data has been sampled. Since we have no a priori knowledge regarding which characters are more reliable for identifying holobaramins, it is important to evaluate the reliability of a wide variety of biological data for inferring baraminic relationships.”

And later:

“it is interesting to note that the ecological and morphological criteria were the most adept at distinguishing humans and the most highly correlated, indicating that the datasets in the strongest agreement were the most reliable.”

Yes, that is interesting – the most subjective and limited criteria are the most reliable for giving the creationist the arrangement they want…

That is, they have to pick data that give them the results they want – those that conform to Scripture.

Creationism’s metaphysic in action…
What I did not mention is this, from the section on selecting characters:
“With the exception of the Scriptural criterion no single data set is sufficient to define the holobaramin.”

Translation: Scripture gives us the answers, we need to find the data that will conform to these answers.
The ‘superior’ metaphysic in action.

*I had contacted the authors of this paper in 1999 asking for reprints and neither replied to my requests. I had to buy the issues from CRSQ. Later, after reading in the paper that the data sets were available from the authors on request, I sent an IM to DA Robinson while online one day. First he pretended not to know what I was talking about. After he acknowledged co-authoring the paper, he said something that astounded me – he said that he didn’t think the data sets even existed anymore!
===
I was going over the origin of tetrapods and made it quite clear that there is no good evidence for the origin of the pelvic girdle and hind limb apparatus.


Is there any good evidence for tetrapods at all?

You are one.
There is very good evidence for vertebrate evolution.

Of course, prior to that discussion, we had discussed the fossilization process and how the farther back in time we go, the less lilely we are to find fossils at all and such.  


Why?


If you do not knnow, then you've not studied the issue at all (which I think most of us realized already).
Combining the information found
here with some of the stuff found
here  you will surely see why, if you choose to.
Again, my students had no probelm understanding this.

The fact of the matter is, there is voluminous, multifacted evidence for evolution as such, both large and small scale.


There are lots of stories I agree, but you'd have to demonstrate that macroevolution is actually possible before the fossils or DNA would be any good to you as evidence for your position.

Again with your derogatory claim of 'stories', which for me is just more evidence that you've not given the issue an objective read, despite your witnessing of claiming to have been an evolutionist in the past (which I simply do not believe).
The DNA and fossil evidence show that it happened.  Breeding studies, genetics, and actual observation shows how it can work.
No stories are required, unlike what is required to accept religious myths.

There is evidence of multiple forms of eyes evolving.  There is evidence of simpler eyes evolving into 'more complex' ones.


Perhaps there is evidence that certain things have existed in the past but without your philisophical belief system you would not say that one evolved into another.

Oh, right - I forgot that it is all philosophy.  Well, if that is so, then I ascribe the one philosophy that can actually point to empirical evidence for support rather then to special pleading and fallacious argumentation, whihc YECs rely on.

But I am not of the mind that not knowing how each and every body part evolved is reason to question evolution as a whole


It is if the belief is independant of the evidence.

Good thing it is not.  Please stop projecting the impetus of your belief system upon others.

any more than I am convinced that because there are some 30 years of Jesus' life that is not accounted for that we should just assume he did not actually live.


There are written historical and geneological records of Jesus' existance.

Written records can be fabricated.  No corroborating evidence for his existence, is there?

We have yet to find such evidence of hippos evolving into whales.

We have, however, uncovered voluminous evidence, on this very forum, of Christian YECs spewing caricatures and strawman arguments despite having the truth of the matter explained repeatedly to them.  I wonder why a person who claims to have understood evolution and who presents himself as having a great deal of knowledge about all this insists on continually misrepresenting the opposition?
Is that really all you have?
Do you really have that little understanding of evolution that you must simply - proudly - regurgitate disiniformation about it to make yourself feel as though you are doing Yahweh the foreskin lovers will?


Just as an aside -I am in shock Derwood. You sound almost pleasant today and I'm pretty sure that is a mistake or that you have taken a chill pill and it is artificially induced. But I must say I find it refreshing.


And I find you to be yourself, as always.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:19 PM on September 19, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 1:24 PM on September 19, 2009 :
Lester -

There are written historical and geneological records of Jesus' existance.


Hmmm... you know, I have my doubts that Jesus existed at all.  Would you care to present some concrete evidence, Lester?  

Yes, I know, he is all over the NT of the Bible.  But the Bible is full of unreliable stories, not to mention myths.  Why should I believe that Jesus actually existed?  

And if he was a real historical person, the description of Jesus in the Bible is certainly a myth.  You see Lester, I'm an atheist.  I don't believe in the Jesus myth.



And isn't it strange that a King, whose birth was foretold, whose birth was attended by 'wise men' from neighboring nations, whose father was God, is simply unheard from for some 30 years, when he suddenly makes waves as a carpenter?

Sounds more like, if Jesus existed at all, he was simply a regular guy whose mental illness finally overhwelmed him in his middle years.

I mean - today, when soomeone claims to know God's will, we put them in the funny farm.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:23 PM on September 19, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, I think my point is that without any evidence, and then, beyond that, not even the slightest imaginary scenario for how it might have happened, perhaps it is not science and it didn't in fact happen and is based entirely on a philisophical belief system.
Which is just what I said.


You said that just because I couldn't imagine it wouldn't mean that it didn't happen. I said that just because you could imagine it, didn't mean that it did actually happen. This is all about your philisophical belief system allowing imagination to be a measure of truth in 'scientific' endeavour.

I mean, do you really accept the evolution of other body parts, just not the eye?  Or do you use this as a means of denyoing the whole thing?


I don't use it for anything. I say all body parts were created to function together as a whole and you say each body part evolved randomly through chance mutations and selection of the best mistakes to make something that worked in a co-ordinated manner.


Those are our respective metaphysical positions and the question really is what does the actual evidence, the observable data, support?

Not that it seems to matter - you ignore my substantive points when I make them.


Not when you make substantive points, no. When you think they are substantive, maybe I don't; but often I just ignore you because of your petty manner on most things. I'm just not generally inspired to answer you. I often read what you have to say though, when I catch it; but if your tone is really full of self importance and bluster, I just go somewhere else. Sorry, that's just me -you're welcome to ignore me too.

I wouldn't expect that you would recognize them. Your whole system would fall apart if you did.
Inability to provide an example noted.


The evolution of the eye is an example -you don't know that it evolved. You don't know that it wasn't created by a master engineer. But you do think that stories of how it must have happened will pass for evidence of same.
That's a metaphysical belief system. I admit that I have one, it's time for you to admit it too.

By observable, what do you mean?  


Well, for example, it would be a good start to prove that macroevolution is even possible before assuming that one kind of an eye can change into another kind of an eye at all.
Without that established, no story will substitute for evidence of eye evolution.

Even 'professional' creationists, who refer to themselves as scientists, do this

You mean like the 'professional' evolutionists that refer to themselves as scientists?

Yes, but with a major difference, as I have documented on this forum (and you apparently ignored, as you so often do).


And the major difference would be ...

I will let the objective, rational reader determine if this metaphysic is the superior one when dealing with issues scientific…


Aah, so we seem to have agreement that your system is also metaphysical -so are we just questioning which is the better metaphysic then?

There is very good evidence for vertebrate evolution.


What good evidence? All I have ever seen are imaginary scenarios that lack evidential support. Can you give me something more solid?

Of course, prior to that discussion, we had discussed the fossilization process and how the farther back in time we go, the less lilely we are to find fossils at all and such.

Why?

If you do not knnow, then you've not studied the issue at all (which I think most of us realized already).


No, I think you will find that your reasons for the answer to this question are motivated by metaphysical assumptions. I don't happen to agree with your conclusion that the further back we go in time, the less likely we are to find fossils, not at all but then I don't agree that the fossils are a record of time in the first place. So we have a difference in reasoning here and I'd like to know how, in your reasoning system, you came to that conclusion at all.

Again, my students had no probelm understanding this.


Of course not, as long as they can understand the english language; if they're metaphysically tuned in to your system so much the better. Give it to me in a couple of your own sentences and I'll see whether I get it or not. That's all I'm asking.

despite your witnessing of claiming to have been an evolutionist in the past (which I simply do not believe).


Are you an evolutionist Derwood? Yes
Am I a creationist, Derwood? Yes
Was I always a creationist? No.
Did I believe in evolution for most of my life? Yes.
I was an evolutionist Derwood; I did not say or imply at any stage that I taught the stuff nor that I was any more than broadly au fait with its concepts.If you concluded that I was claiming any more than that, your assumptions were wrong. But don't tell me that I said anything that was in any way untrue.

Sometimes the deeper you wallow in the mud, the dirtier you get. If you've been in that pit long enough, perhaps you don't even recognize it for what it is. You may have a hold on all the minute details but maybe you are simultaneously missing the bigger picture which us broadly stupid people can still see and which I am patiently trying to show you.

The DNA and fossil evidence show that it happened.


No, they assume the common ancestry they purport to prove. It’s a metaphysical assumption.

Breeding studies, genetics, and actual observation shows how it can work.


No they show variation within the ‘kind’, no more, in support of our metaphysical assumption, not yours. The rest is assumed, not demonstrated and thus does not constitute science.
DNA can prove a common designer rather than common ancestry and until we can prove that DNA forms naturally, we have no reason to believe that it did form  naturally.

No stories are required, unlike what is required to accept religious myths.


No, you’re quite wrong. Your religious myths do require storytelling, lots of it.

Written records can be fabricated.  No corroborating evidence for his existence, is there?


Well we do rely on historical records for the existence of people in the past and it’s not just the Bible that affirms the existence of Jesus Christ; other historians corroborate his existence.Do you believe that Abraham Lincoln existed? If so, why?
Historical records have never discussed how eyes evolved however so we are relying on metaphysical assumptions and long ago and far away.

We have, however, uncovered voluminous evidence, on this very forum, of Christian YECs spewing caricatures and strawman arguments despite having the truth of the matter explained repeatedly to them.


I think you’re in exaggeration mode here Derwood. There’s no voluminous evidence for such a thing; though some evidence that a hippo-like ancestor evolved into a whale would be nice.However, as long as you can’t demonstrate that any one kind (eg a bacteria) can change into any other kind (eg. An invertebrate), I think you’re going to find the evidence hard to come by, stories aside. Having a fanciful story regurgitated time and again should not be misinterpreted as having the truth repeatedly explained.

Just as an aside -I am in shock Derwood. You sound almost pleasant today and I'm pretty sure that is a mistake or that you have taken a chill pill and it is artificially induced. But I must say I find it refreshing.
And I find you to be yourself, as always.


Well that’s a good thing that I’m still myself. You, on the other hand, are returned, sadly.




















-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:57 AM on September 20, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:57 AM on September 20, 2009 :
No, I think my point is that without any evidence, and then, beyond that, not even the slightest imaginary scenario for how it might have happened, perhaps it is not science and it didn't in fact happen and is based entirely on a philisophical belief system.
Which is just what I said.


You said that just because I couldn't imagine it wouldn't mean that it didn't happen.

Right.  And nowhere did I say the opposite, that just because I can imagine it, it did.  I was quite explicit about that.

I said that just because you could imagine it, didn't mean that it did actually happen. This is all about your philisophical belief system allowing imagination to be a measure of truth in 'scientific' endeavour.

Right, I agree that just because you can imagine something is no evidence that it actually did occur.  

I am of the position that one need not have all the details - right now this second - to conclude that something did happen due to circumstantial (for lack of a better word)  or other incomplete evidence.

I mean, do you really accept the evolution of other body parts, just not the eye?  Or do you use this as a means of denyoing the whole thing?


I don't use it for anything. I say all body parts were created to function together as a whole and you say each body part evolved randomly through chance mutations and selection of the best mistakes to make something that worked in a co-ordinated manner.

You say that, but you present exactly ZERO actual supporting evidence.
Of course, I do NOT say that all body parts evolved randomly.  Caricatures only show the shallowness of your position.

Those are our respective metaphysical positions and the question really is what does the actual evidence, the observable data, support?


Well, that may be your metaphysical position, but you've simply created a strawman of mine.  Not that it matters - the observable evidence and 'actual data' FOR your position seems to consist entirely of not 'believing' in mine.

Which is to say, no evidence or data at all.

Not that it seems to matter - you ignore my substantive points when I make them.


Not when you make substantive points, no.

Actually, yes.

When you think they are substantive, maybe I don't; but often I just ignore you because of your petty manner on most things.

Were one to ignore all of your posts that possess petty digs and misrepresenations, I'd say more than half of yours would go response-free.  But we all have to make sacrifices, don't we?

but if your tone is really full of self importance and bluster, I just go somewhere else.

Can you provide an example of my self-importance and bluster?

This will be most interesting, for I believe that folks in your position set up these scenarios wherein you cast anyone with relevant education and experience who do not support your worldview as 'elitist' and 'arrogant' and and of exhibiting 'self-importance' and 'bluster', when the exact same statements, were they made by one whose worldview coincides with your own is depicted as confidence.  
So please, an example or two if you would.
I wouldn't expect that you would recognize them. Your whole system would fall apart if you did.
Inability to provide an example noted.


The evolution of the eye is an example -you don't know that it evolved.

No, I don't.  But there is evidence that indicates that it did.  
I'm not sure why folks like you have this distinct set fo double standards - for 'evos', you demand explicit and intricate detail supported with reams of evidence that fit your idiosyncratic criteria for counting as evidence, but for your own position, you seem to require only your interpretation of Scripture, or the overconfident disinformation peddled by some witnessing wannabe like Menton or Behe trotting out unsupported assertions.


You don't know that it wasn't created by a master engineer.

No, but if this master engineer exists, nobody has presented any evidence of it, and I would question the master engineer's actual abilities, seeing as how there appears to be so much failure in Nature.


But you do think that stories of how it must have happened will pass for evidence of same.

You keep projecting what YOUR side does onto mine. There is a big difference between extrapolating from evidence to what might have been and fabricating evidenceless 'stories.'  One need only skim the bible to see story after silly story, complete with unicorns, talking animals, and magic.

That's a metaphysical belief system. I admit that I have one, it's time for you to admit it too.

Why should I admit to what is not in evidence? You seem to think that simply because we do not have concrete answers to all possible questions yet accept evolution that we are engaging in some sort of 'belief system' that relies solely upon 'story telling', when it is YOUR actual belief system that relies solely on mythology and mysticism and ritual and blind faith.
Show us the EVIDENCE for your designer/creator that does NOT rely on claims that the evidence fo revolution is not good enough for you.

Can you do that?

By observable, what do you mean?  


Well, for example, it would be a good start to prove that macroevolution is even possible before assuming that one kind of an eye can change into another kind of an eye at all.

What do you mean by macroevolution?
Creatinists used to say that speciation was macroevolution, then, instances of speciation could no longer be denied, so creationists seem to have altered their definition.  So, what do you mean?

Without that established, no story will substitute for evidence of eye evolution.

And one can plainly see that you did not even attempt to actually explain to me what you mean when you say "observed."
Even 'professional' creationists, who refer to themselves as scientists, do this

You mean like the 'professional' evolutionists that refer to themselves as scientists?

Yes, but with a major difference, as I have documented on this forum (and you apparently ignored, as you so often do).


And the major difference would be ...

See below....

I will let the objective, rational reader determine if this metaphysic is the superior one when dealing with issues scientific…


Aah, so we seem to have agreement that your system is also metaphysical -so are we just questioning which is the better metaphysic then?

Um, no, I was really couching it in the terms used by the creationist I was responding to.  He tended to get bogged down in declaing - as you do - that evolution acceptance is just a metaphysical/philosophical issue.  So, I decided to just play his game.  

I note that you did not comment on the documented shenanigans of 'creation scientists.'  I can only imagine the hue and cry that would be emanating from you and the YEC crowd if evolutionists had published a paper in which they ran an analysis, but didn't like the results, so they cherry-picked data that they knew would give them the answers they wanted and ran with it, trumpeting their results.

No comment at all?

There is very good evidence for vertebrate evolution.


What good evidence? All I have ever seen are imaginary scenarios that lack evidential support. Can you give me something more solid?


I will have to ask you to define 'evidence.' If all you have ever seen are stories and imaginary scenarios, then I would say you've never looked beyond the pulpit and what you are ordered to believe.  
I am not going to rehash the evidence for you, but if you are truly interested, you can try picking up a textbook like
this one  or
this one or do a search using a database like
Google Scholar .

If you are actually interested, that is.

Of course, prior to that discussion, we had discussed the fossilization process and how the farther back in time we go, the less lilely we are to find fossils at all and such.

Why?

If you do not knnow, then you've not studied the issue at all (which I think most of us realized already).


No, I think you will find that your reasons for the answer to this question are motivated by metaphysical assumptions.

I take it that you ignored the links I provided.

It would appear that your basic schtick is to simply dismiss everything by labelling it as a metaphysical or philosophical assumption.

In reality, it is pretty much standard geology (and for more recent history, standard archaeology) that the farther back you go, the less evidence there will be for anything.  Erosion, weathering, standard geological phenomena, etc.,  destroy evidence over time.  I should think that this would be obvious and acceptable to anyone, regardless of their 'metaphysical' position.

But let me turn this around - where are the bones of the bilical patriarchs?  Where are the tablets of the 10 commandments?  Why is there no record of the events depicted in Exodus in any Egyptian records?

And please - no evidence-free stories.

I don't happen to agree with your conclusion that the further back we go in time, the less likely we are to find fossils, not at all but then I don't agree that the fossils are a record of time in the first place.

So, you disagree.  Fine.  Can you provide a reason that you disagree?  Or am I supposed to just accept your story?  And how many people do you think will agree with you?  If tim eis no detriment to evidence, please answer my previous questions.


So we have a difference in reasoning here and I'd like to know how, in your reasoning system, you came to that conclusion at all.

I guess, again, you simply did not read the links, and you really have not studied evolution as much as you let on.

1.  Fossilization itself is not a guaranteed outcome of the death of an organism.In fact, because of the processes involved, fossilization is quite rare.
2. If a fossil forms at all, it is then subject to the geology around it.  Volcanism, erosion, weathering, tectonic activity, etc., can all then damage or destroy fossils.
3. The longer a fossil is in the ground, the more likley such forces are to have acted on it.

Pretty obvious and simple, really.  
Again, my students had no probelm understanding this.


Of course not, as long as they can understand the english language; if they're metaphysically tuned in to your system so much the better.

Right, it must all just be the metaphysics involved.  The explanation and such clearly had nothing to do with it.


Give it to me in a couple of your own sentences and I'll see whether I get it or not. That's all I'm asking.

I did.  If you cannot get it, then clearly your metaphysical position is forcing you not to.


despite your witnessing of claiming to have been an evolutionist in the past (which I simply do not believe).


Are you an evolutionist Derwood? Yes
Am I a creationist, Derwood? Yes
Was I always a creationist? No.
Did I believe in evolution for most of my life? Yes.
I was an evolutionist Derwood; I did not say or imply at any stage that I taught the stuff nor that I was any more than broadly au fait with its concepts.If you concluded that I was claiming any more than that, your assumptions were wrong. But don't tell me that I said anything that was in any way untrue.


Sorry, I just don't believe you for reasons that I have written before - every single person that I have personally known who has made the claim of once having been an evolution and later converted has not been completely truthful, and I have also looked into several cases of 'professional' creationist having made the same claims, and they have also been less than honest.  The most blatant example of this is ICR geologist Steve Austin.  Austin claims to have been an old earth evolutionist until he studied geology at Mt.St.Helens in 1980, and he suddenly became a YEC.  Problem is, he had been writing YEC articles for creationist magazines as early as 1976 under the pseudonym Stuart Nevins.

So please forgive me if the embellishments of your brethren have made me less likley to accept such claims.

Sometimes the deeper you wallow in the mud, the dirtier you get. If you've been in that pit long enough, perhaps you don't even recognize it for what it is. You may have a hold on all the minute details but maybe you are simultaneously missing the bigger picture which us broadly stupid people can still see and which I am patiently trying to show you.

ah, the old 'these eggheads are so wrapped up in their ivory tower that they need us common folk to set them straight' nonsense.
Let me guess - you also believe that people like me cannot change a tire or play sports or tie our own shoes, right?

Yo've been sold a bill of goods.  Some guru has told you this nonsense about 'belief systems' and it is all about the same evidence, just 'different interpretations'.  Right?  And you bought it, because it allowed you to dismuiss those facts that you found troubling about your own actual 'belief system'.  Right?

Fact is, Lester, we are not quite as tunnel-visioned and inexperienced as you have been told we are, and likely hope we are.

The DNA and fossil evidence show that it happened.


No, they assume the common ancestry they purport to prove. It’s a metaphysical assumption.

Your record seems to be skipping.

Given the demonstrated level of understanding you have of both the fossil record and the fossilization process and geological phenomena and molecular phylogenetics, I am going to conclude
that whenever you trot out the 'its just a metaphysical assumption' bit it is because you know that you cannot actually discuss the material, but you have been ordered to believe that YOUR metaphysical positionis TROO, so you just know that all other positions must also be metaphysical in nature and, beccause you know you are RIGHT, must therefore be wrong.

And you folks like to accuse US of arrogance.

Breeding studies, genetics, and actual observation shows how it can work.


No they show variation within the ‘kind’, no more, in support of our metaphysical assumption, not yours. The rest is assumed, not demonstrated and thus does not constitute science.

'Kind', eh?
So, are all bats of one 'kind'?  All turtles?  All priamtes?  Where is the cut -off?
How did we get from some original 'kind' on the ark to the extant diversity we see today?  What mechanism do you propose for that?
Surely you do not think that all the living species were on the ark?

DNA can prove a common designer rather than common ancestry and until we can prove that DNA forms naturally, we have no reason to believe that it did form  naturally.


Well please expand on this claim that DNA proves common designer.  Provide your evidence - evidence that does not rely on having to look at it from within your metaphysical worldview to accept it as described.
Of course, DNA does 'form naturally'.  It can even form in
space.
Let me guess - if I look at this using the appropriate worldview, I would know that this just means Jesus is everywhere.

No stories are required, unlike what is required to accept religious myths.


No, you’re quite wrong. Your religious myths do require storytelling, lots of it.

So you keep asserting, but your assertions continue to be entirely unsupported.


Written records can be fabricated.  No corroborating evidence for his existence, is there?


Well we do rely on historical records for the existence of people in the past and it’s not just the Bible that affirms the existence of Jesus Christ; other historians corroborate his existence.

And if they are relying on the same fabricated or embellished accounts?

Do you believe that Abraham Lincoln existed? If so, why?

I've seen pictures of him, fo rone thing.  No pictures of Yahweh the foreskin lover, so I don't believe he ever existed.


Historical records have never discussed how eyes evolved however so we are relying on metaphysical assumptions and long ago and far away.

Right, so since there are no historical records of Yahweh or the creation, both must be just stories.

We have, however, uncovered voluminous evidence, on this very forum, of Christian YECs spewing caricatures and strawman arguments despite having the truth of the matter explained repeatedly to them.


I think you’re in exaggeration mode here Derwood. There’s no voluminous evidence for such a thing; though some evidence that a hippo-like ancestor evolved into a whale would be nice.

Well, you reject any and all evidence presented so you can just continue to live in your fantasy world of denial.  But at least you have (sort-of) corrected one of your oft-repeated caricatures.
However, as long as you can’t demonstrate that any one kind (eg a bacteria) can change into any other kind (eg. An invertebrate), I think you’re going to find the evidence hard to come by, stories aside.

And until you demonstrate that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old and was created by the Hebrew tribal deity called Yahweh in 6 24 hour days, a flood covered the entire world with several cultures apparently not noticing it about 4,500 years ago, that the entire extant human species arose from 4 inbreeding pairs of people in less than 4,500 years, that an original 'kind' of animal (according to literalist interpretations of the pentateuch, there were only 365 'kinds') can hyperevolve - using no known or even speculated mechanisms - into dozens or hundreds of extant species with nobody noticing, you've really got nothing but denialism and tall tales.

Having a fanciful story regurgitated time and again should not be misinterpreted as having the truth repeatedly explained.


Indeed - this is why I have basically tuned out your claims of 'metaphysics'.

(Edited by derwood 9/21/2009 at 4:07 PM).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 3:57 PM on September 21, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

to Derwood,
it has come to my attention that there seems to be a theme for you debating methods.
of what I have seen, whenever you are asked a question that you can't give an answer to, or when you receive a rebuttal that, if not disproves, then at least casts serious doubt over a point you brought forward. you give a reply that is something similar to
" Oh yeah! well Creationists can't prove their faith either"
to help sort out this dilemma, I have provided you with some of the definitions of faith and a link to verify them:

faith:
2. belief that is not based on proof.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.
5. a system of religious belief.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

and for a contrust, here is the definition of a theory (eg. theory of evolution) and a link to verify them:

theory:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.


to put it into more simple terms.
faith in creationisim must be taken in on faith
the theory of evolution must be proven through facts and "a coherent group of general propositions"




and as proof that I am not casting rumours about you, I have compiled a list of quotes  Just from your last post:
Quote from derwood at 3:57 PM on September 21, 2009 :

You say that, but you present exactly ZERO actual supporting evidence.
the observable evidence and 'actual data' FOR your position seems to consist entirely of not 'believing' in mine.
Which is to say, no evidence or data at all.
for 'evos', you demand explicit and intricate detail supported with reams of evidence that fit your idiosyncratic criteria for counting as evidence, but for your own position, you seem to require only your interpretation of Scripture
trotting out unsupported assertions.
if this master engineer exists, nobody has presented any evidence of it
There is a big difference between extrapolating from evidence to what might have been and fabricating evidenceless 'stories.'
it is YOUR actual belief system that relies solely on mythology and mysticism and ritual and blind faith.
Show us the EVIDENCE for your designer/creator
where are the bones of the bilical patriarchs?  Where are the tablets of the 10 commandments?  Why is there no record of the events depicted in Exodus in any Egyptian records?
And please - no evidence-free stories.
Provide your evidence - evidence that does not rely on having to look at it from within your metaphysical worldview
So you keep asserting, but your assertions continue to be entirely unsupported.
Right, so since there are no historical records of Yahweh or the creation, both must be just stories.
until you demonstrate that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old and ...



and just to be totally sure you don't misinterpret this post, I will repeat the important bit:
faith in creationisim must be taken in on faith
the theory of evolution must be proven through facts and "a coherent group of general propositions"


Signed A-E


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 5:41 PM on September 21, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

and just to be totally sure you don't misinterpret this post, I will repeat the important bit:
faith in creationisim must be taken in on faith
the theory of evolution must be proven through facts and "a coherent group of general propositions


Then what are you doing here? Faith is irrelevant when discussing science. I have no doubt that faith is a powerful force in shaping the religious views of many people, and for them their faith is strong personal proof in what they belief. But for the rest of us, someone's personal faith is meaningless; conclusions that cannot rest on tests, measurement, or falsifiability have no utility outside personal belief. That begs the question, what are Earth are you doing trying to convince someone that a worldview based on faith is correct when you know ahead of time that they will only be swayed by reproducible evidence?


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:49 PM on September 21, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

there is one fatal problem with what you are saying:

I am NOT trying to convince you, or anyone else, that the creationist view (Christianity) is true

I chose the name 'Anti-Evolutionist' because that is what I am. I argue against evolution. not for creationisim

this group of debates are labelled under the title " Creationism vs Evolution debates".
that is the reason (as well as personal beliefs) that I offer Creationism as an alternative to evolution.
for all I care you can become a Islamic extremist.

and because you evidently misinterpreted my last post (as I was afraid someone would) I will explain what I meant:
the theory of evolution is a science based belief. it NEEDS TO be proven it is consistent with scientific facts.
creationisim is a faith based religion. it simply CAN NOT be proven nor disprove.
that is why is Evolution Vs. Creation debates it does not matter how much (or little) evidence there is for creation. the only thing that matters is how much evidence there is of evolution.

I hope you understand this time


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 12:10 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 12:10 AM on September 22, 2009 :


the theory of evolution is a science based belief.


It is a science. PERIOD

it NEEDS TO be proven it is consistent with scientific facts.


If a theory is not consistent with the facts, it is a sign that it needs to be revised.  At this point in time, the Theory of Evolution is far stronger than the Theory of Gravity.

creationisim is a faith based religion.


Yes, based on bibliolatry rather than Christianity.

it simply CAN NOT be proven nor disprove.


However, evidence brought up in favor of creationism can be demonstrated to be at odds with scientific facts.


that is why is Evolution Vs. Creation debates it does not matter how much (or little) evidence there is for creation. the only thing that matters is how much evidence there is of evolution.

I hope you understand this time



There is abundant evidence for evolution and an old earth, as you have been shown repeatedly, and no real reason other than pride to reject it.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:32 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 12:10 AM on September 22, 2009 :
there is one fatal problem with what you are saying:

I am NOT trying to convince you, or anyone else, that the creationist view (Christianity) is true

I chose the name 'Anti-Evolutionist' because that is what I am. I argue against evolution. not for creationisim

this group of debates are labelled under the title " Creationism vs Evolution debates".
that is the reason (as well as personal beliefs) that I offer Creationism as an alternative to evolution.
for all I care you can become a Islamic extremist.

and because you evidently misinterpreted my last post (as I was afraid someone would) I will explain what I meant:
the theory of evolution is a science based belief. it NEEDS TO be proven it is consistent with scientific facts.
creationisim is a faith based religion. it simply CAN NOT be proven nor disprove.
that is why is Evolution Vs. Creation debates it does not matter how much (or little) evidence there is for creation. the only thing that matters is how much evidence there is of evolution.

I hope you understand this time



Your summary of the situation is not quite correct. Scientific ideas need not be proved 100% to be accurate or useful; what ultimately matters for a scientific theory is if the framework helps science advance in some way. While you're on your soap box protesting the idea that evolution is true, scientists have been busy using the knowledge gained from evolution to improve our understanding in medicine, genetics, biochemistry, ecology, and paleontology.

More importantly, though, you misunderstand how this discussion works. When you say something, we expect that you will try to back it up, whatever it is. Having a skeptical position does not absolve you of having to support any of your positions, especially when you offer positions in the affirmative. It's not matter of faith to make the claim that "your beliefs are motivated by metaphysical assumptions". If that kind of statement is true then you should have no trouble backing it up without any reliance on faith.

I shouldn't have to explain this, but if you are to operate in this ridiculous dichotomy of "evolution as we currently understand it is either 100% proved or there is no reason at all to believe it," then you should be prepared to defend the alternatives arrived at by implication, such as your own belief that creation occurred. Part of the process of science is comparing incomplete or imperfect explanations and determining which of them makes the most sense. To completely discard an entire theory based on minor absences of evidence for very specific phenomena such as the multi-cellular stage of eye evolution is absurd all by itself, but to discard it without claiming to favor any scientific alternative is just unbelievable.

Finally, you lose a lot of credibility when you tell us you reject evolution based on a lack of evidence yet accept your own position of creation without any need for evidence. What this tells us is that evidence is not an issue for you, and you've admitted as much yourself. You can't credibly claim to believe something without any need for evidence and then demand evidence in order to believe something else. We aren't mind readers, but we don't have to be -- it could not be more obvious that your views  draw on inconsistent and unfair demands for support. Personal incredulity is generally irrelevant in all cases anyway, but with you especially, it is clear that you're just biased by your faith-founded beliefs, so when you say that the evidence in one area just isn't satisfactory enough for you, all we can do is shake our heads, because we know that evidence was never part of the program for you in the first place, and that it still isn't.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:33 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis

It is a science. PERIOD


I'm afraid not. The parts that are observable and repeatable are science-based. The unobservable, unrepeatable parts from the past are not science. PERIOD

If a theory is not consistent with the facts, it is a sign that it needs to be revised.


Yes and that means that evolution needs to be revised. Some parts, those not consistent with the facts, need to be removed from the evolution syllabus.

At this point in time, the Theory of Evolution is far stronger than the Theory of Gravity.


The theory of gravity may have a few problems but at least large portions of it are observable and demonstrable. The theory of evolution has long been weak and remains weak independantly of anything that gravity is doing.Strong assertions aside.

creationisim is a faith based religion.
Yes, based on bibliolatry rather than Christianity.


Creationism may be faith-based but creation science is the evidential part of the equation. Much like evolutionism is the faith based part of evolution and evolution would be, presumably, that portion of evolution that might be said to be based on observable, repeatable evidence.

The two standpoints, creation and evolution, are polar opposites and evidence against one is, at least in a general sense, evidence for the other and vica versa.

As for the bibliolatry, I think that since Christianity is supposed to be based on the conviction that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, the position of creation science could be said to be synonymous with Christianity proper and the theistic evolution position could be said to be bibliolatry or a revised reading of otherwise well known words. (Revised according to the changing words of men in fact. )

However, evidence brought up in favor of creationism can be demonstrated to be at odds with scientific facts.


Well please elucidate. Exactly what evidence are you talking about?

There is abundant evidence for evolution and an old earth, as you have been shown repeatedly


No ,there is only evidence for microvariation and for the fact that mutations do happen. No evidence for evolution in the manner you believe it and certainly no evidence for an old earth that is in any way solid. There are no direct ways of telling age without things like birth certificates, historical records and the like, and the assumptions of radiometric dating do not hold true and have in fact proven to be inaccurate and misleading.Results show that the assumptions are clearly wrong.









-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:10 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:10 AM on September 22, 2009 :

Well please elucidate. Exactly what evidence are you talking about?


All bluster Lester.  When presented with real data you run, as you have demonstrated many times.  Your position is so weak you are reduced to cheap sniping and plagiarism rather than addressing evidence.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 08:09 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lester10 asks Apoapsis
Exactly what evidence are you talking about?

Apoapsis replies to Lester10
Your position is so weak you are reduced to cheap sniping and plagiarism rather than addressing evidence.


is it just me, or does anyone else see that Apoapsis is using "cheap sniping" instead of giving evidence?


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 08:45 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 5:47 PM on September 13, 2009 :
The simplest eyes are in single celled organisms.


Sight is further developed in multicellular organisms:




Since sight is so useful, it is heavily selected for, so gradual improvements develop.






-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:26 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 7:10 PM on August 23, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 03:14 AM on August 22, 2009 :
Mustrum

Let's hear more about these other techniques.

Sea sediment compared to accumulation rate


The oldest sea floor is about 200 million years old, so it won't have billions of years of sediment.

We can see sea floor being created, and measure how fast it is moving.

Sea floor speading video



(Edited by Apoapsis 8/23/2009 at 7:42 PM).



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:29 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 07:58 AM on June 26, 2009 :
Quote from Lester10 at 02:15 AM on June 26, 2009 :
Tell me where the science is that I'm ignoring?



Explain the Casimir effect.

This experiment measures the Casimir force between two gold-coated cylinders positioned at right angles to one another.

The upper cylinder can be lowered using the piezoelectric tube, which changes shape when a voltage is applied. The lower cylinder is mounted on a piezoelectric deflection sensor (known as a bimorph spring) that generates a charge when it is bent. When the two cylinders are close together, the Casimir force causes the lower cylinder to be attracted to the upper one, thereby deflecting the spring in the process.

The linearly variable displacement transducer (LVDT) monitors the nonlinear expansion of the piezotube.


You keep maintaining that particles do not pop out of existence.  The Casimir effect demonstrates that they do.  We both have the same evidence.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:32 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.