|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:19 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eyeI'm not an enormous supporter of evolution, but it looks like scientific proponents of evolution have the subject covered pretty extensively. I've heard of discussion over the eye in evolution and natural selection before, but at least theoretically, evolution seems to account for it.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:28 am
Seems there's intelligence in it to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 9:39 am
Well, like I said, evolutionary theory doesn't do much to explain how life came to be, only how it has changed and adapted. The beginning, as it were, is fairly open to interpretation.
Evolutionary theory and the idea of a deity-like creator aren't necessarily mutually exclusive concepts, unless you approach it through ultra-conservative intelligent design.
I mean, I don't see anything in the evolution of the eye necessitating a creator of sorts, but I think when you talk about the beginning of life itself, the possibility of a creator setting life and/or the universe into motion is not all that absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 10:00 am
Azkeel Survival of the fittest and gentic mutations... Well I'll just throw in the eyeball. It would be a mutation, and it would be useless at it's first stages and wouldn't even have sight. Unless you admit something so complex can just happen. So, since the begining form of the eye would not have sight since it would happen over a period of time. The eye would really have no reason to develope into something with complexity perhaps even be weeded out because it would have been useless at it's first stages. Simplicity is really the key here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:04 pm
God Emperor Akhenaton Azkeel Survival of the fittest and gentic mutations... Well I'll just throw in the eyeball. It would be a mutation, and it would be useless at it's first stages and wouldn't even have sight. Unless you admit something so complex can just happen. So, since the begining form of the eye would not have sight since it would happen over a period of time. The eye would really have no reason to develope into something with complexity perhaps even be weeded out because it would have been useless at it's first stages. Simplicity is really the key here. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html No! bad! I could have thrown links up supporting me but I decided to take the time and write it in my own words. So in other words I'm not gonna take the time to click that link. Unless if it's a link to a funny video... And with that being said; how I don't use links, I guess we could call it... The missing link! Haha but yeah I'm not going to go out of my way on this one cause I really don't care. If I wanted anything other then the basic run down on evolution I'd study it on my own. Other then that; most of my questions I possed on here are my own other then the eye one. nothing against you though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:41 pm
Azkeel God Emperor Akhenaton Azkeel Survival of the fittest and gentic mutations... Well I'll just throw in the eyeball. It would be a mutation, and it would be useless at it's first stages and wouldn't even have sight. Unless you admit something so complex can just happen. So, since the begining form of the eye would not have sight since it would happen over a period of time. The eye would really have no reason to develope into something with complexity perhaps even be weeded out because it would have been useless at it's first stages. Simplicity is really the key here. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html No! bad! I could have thrown links up supporting me but I decided to take the time and write it in my own words. So in other words I'm not gonna take the time to click that link. Unless if it's a link to a funny video... And with that being said; how I don't use links, I guess we could call it... The missing link! Haha but yeah I'm not going to go out of my way on this one cause I really don't care. If I wanted anything other then the basic run down on evolution I'd study it on my own. Other then that; most of my questions I possed on here are my own other then the eye one. nothing against you though. When you defy TalkOrigins, all you are really doing is stalling for time to make me look like a fool when in reality, you are one. These are people with PhD's and when you are a professor in field of evolution, you tend to be subjected by tons of questions mainly from creationists. Trust me. There is nothing that anyone who is anti-evolution came up with that even remotely has a seed of truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:36 pm
Azkeel Quite frankly make sense of this. We supposedly came from single celled organisims that gained energy from the sun. Why would we evolve to no longer take energy from the sun and have a need to ingest energy? That doesn't sound like a survival of the fittest. It sounds more like more complications are arising then a simple organisim like plankton. So we evolved to make life harder on earth? We developed these multi-cells for what reason? When clearly a single celled organisim is far better suited for this world. Chill out in the ocean soaking up rays converting co2 into o2 why would there be a need to evolve from that? Survival of the fittest is the reign of the supreme. As time went on, space became a problem as those cells needed to reproduce and grow. So those that would rather rule than be ruled or be average and normal decided to grow to higher levels of existence, taking in energy in the best way they knew to rule: Consumption of the enemy. Life is a competition and survival of the fittest is obtained by how much power you have. The sin may not have been written until millions of years later, but the idea existed ever since life's first start. Evolution is advancement. Adaptation is the survival of the fittest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:13 pm
"Survival of the fittest" can be a deceptive term. There's a certain deer species that has large, strong males that fight for dominance and it also has smaller, sneakier males that just go off with the females and mate while the larger males are fighting each other.
Those males aren't stronger or better fighters; they just see an opportunity and they take it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:03 am
God Emperor Akhenaton Azkeel God Emperor Akhenaton Azkeel Survival of the fittest and gentic mutations... Well I'll just throw in the eyeball. It would be a mutation, and it would be useless at it's first stages and wouldn't even have sight. Unless you admit something so complex can just happen. So, since the begining form of the eye would not have sight since it would happen over a period of time. The eye would really have no reason to develope into something with complexity perhaps even be weeded out because it would have been useless at it's first stages. Simplicity is really the key here. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html No! bad! I could have thrown links up supporting me but I decided to take the time and write it in my own words. So in other words I'm not gonna take the time to click that link. Unless if it's a link to a funny video... And with that being said; how I don't use links, I guess we could call it... The missing link! Haha but yeah I'm not going to go out of my way on this one cause I really don't care. If I wanted anything other then the basic run down on evolution I'd study it on my own. Other then that; most of my questions I possed on here are my own other then the eye one. nothing against you though. When you defy TalkOrigins, all you are really doing is stalling for time to make me look like a fool when in reality, you are one. These are people with PhD's and when you are a professor in field of evolution, you tend to be subjected by tons of questions mainly from creationists. Trust me. There is nothing that anyone who is anti-evolution came up with that even remotely has a seed of truth. I'm not stalling for anything, once again I don't care for the subject. And a PhD means nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:51 am
I'm more into physics then biology anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:41 pm
God Emperor Akhenaton Michael Noire aliens. 1. I've seen enough UFOs in person and on the news to last a lifetime 2. my roommate studies genetic engineering...out loud sad conclusion? regardless of where or how life evolved or was generated, I believe the life on Earth was placed here by life from elsewhere in the universe. In other words, I have no need of evolutionary theories or creator deities because my theory can be expressed as a repeatable but economically devastating experiment known as terraforming. There is also one problem. You're talking in the field of creationism and abiogenesis. Something evolution doesn't touch. evolution is a word and a paradigm. My paradigm doesn't necessitate the paradigm of evolution. Capice?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:59 pm
Obscurus "Survival of the fittest" can be a deceptive term. There's a certain deer species that has large, strong males that fight for dominance and it also has smaller, sneakier males that just go off with the females and mate while the larger males are fighting each other. Those males aren't stronger or better fighters; they just see an opportunity and they take it. Survival of the fittest: Brain Edition. To be fit is to be above in mind or body. While the stronger fight for control and first dibs to the females, the weaker are smart enough to just take the females.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:06 pm
Ledon Kester Obscurus "Survival of the fittest" can be a deceptive term. There's a certain deer species that has large, strong males that fight for dominance and it also has smaller, sneakier males that just go off with the females and mate while the larger males are fighting each other. Those males aren't stronger or better fighters; they just see an opportunity and they take it. Survival of the fittest: Brain Edition. To be fit is to be above in mind or body. While the stronger fight for control and first dibs to the females, the weaker are smart enough to just take the females. Exactly. I just wanted to point that out. Whenever "survival of the fittest" comes up people typically start talking about strong and fast rather than smart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:36 pm
Azkeel God Emperor Akhenaton Azkeel God Emperor Akhenaton Azkeel Survival of the fittest and gentic mutations... Well I'll just throw in the eyeball. It would be a mutation, and it would be useless at it's first stages and wouldn't even have sight. Unless you admit something so complex can just happen. So, since the begining form of the eye would not have sight since it would happen over a period of time. The eye would really have no reason to develope into something with complexity perhaps even be weeded out because it would have been useless at it's first stages. Simplicity is really the key here. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html No! bad! I could have thrown links up supporting me but I decided to take the time and write it in my own words. So in other words I'm not gonna take the time to click that link. Unless if it's a link to a funny video... And with that being said; how I don't use links, I guess we could call it... The missing link! Haha but yeah I'm not going to go out of my way on this one cause I really don't care. If I wanted anything other then the basic run down on evolution I'd study it on my own. Other then that; most of my questions I possed on here are my own other then the eye one. nothing against you though. When you defy TalkOrigins, all you are really doing is stalling for time to make me look like a fool when in reality, you are one. These are people with PhD's and when you are a professor in field of evolution, you tend to be subjected by tons of questions mainly from creationists. Trust me. There is nothing that anyone who is anti-evolution came up with that even remotely has a seed of truth. I'm not stalling for anything, once again I don't care for the subject. And a PhD means nothing. Oh so you are one of those people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
