Religious Education Forum  

Welcome to Religious Forums
Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page!

Home Who's Online Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   Religious Education Forum / Religious Topics / Religious Debates / Evolution Vs. Creationism
Sitemap Popular RF Forums REGISTER Search Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-14-2007, 10:44 PM
methylatedghosts's Avatar
methylatedghosts Offline
Religion: Pick-'n'-mix-ism????
Title:Fire in your heart
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: HERE!!!
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,950
Frubals: 1406747
methylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whore
methylatedghosts is a Frubal Whore
methylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whoremethylatedghosts is a Frubal Whore
Default Evolution of the eye

Ok, this is taken from an article in the regional newspaper here, The Daily Post so I'm just writing exerpts from it and I know that this is a big point some people have to debate against evolution and I wonder if it'd change anything:

"Scientists have traced the origin of the eye back to a transparent blob of living jelly floating in the sea about 600 million years ago. That creature, the distant ancestor of the freshwater animal known as a hydra could only distinguish light from dark."

"It was the precurser of the wildly different, ever more complex eyes of animals today."

"In their research, David Plachetzki and Todd Oakley discovered that a gene called opsin (From the greek word "ops" meaning "eye") exists in hydras but not in sponges - an even more primitive animal."

"They calculated that opsin genes appeared about 600 million years ago, because that's wehen the evolutionary branch that led to modern hydras aplit from the branch that led to sponges. 'We chronicled when and how animals went from lacking opsin genes to possessing opsin genes with different functions.' Oakley said.

"Opsin genes direct the production of light-sensitive proteins, also called opsins, that coat the surface of the hydra especially around the mouth area. The opsin proteins would help these animals tell night from day and perhaps help them find food.

"According to Oakley, the opsin proteins must have evolved from earlier 'signalling' proteins that send chemical messages to other proteins. Signalling proteins exist in all living creatures from the single celled bacteria to humans. "


And those are the most informative bits taken from the article.

Any thoughts?
__________________
If I do not
go within
I
go without
You touch my mind in special places...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-15-2007, 03:52 AM
rocketman's Avatar
rocketman Offline
Title:Out there...
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Gender: Undisclosed
Posts: 977
Frubals: 200886
rocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond repute
rocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by methylatedghosts View Post
Ok, this is taken from an article in the regional newspaper here, The Daily Post so I'm just writing exerpts from it and I know that this is a big point some people have to debate against evolution and I wonder if it'd change anything:


Any thoughts?
Interesting and I think it's no surprise to the 'for' side, but I don't see it changing things much overall. This isn't the first time simple photosensitive cells have been cited as possibly having had a role. Somehow we need to get from these simple elements to what is arguably the most sophisticated tissue in biology, the retina/optic nerve, not to mention the whole interelated eye/brain programmming/optic nervous system, which is ridiculously sophisticated. The image 'processor' is more than a match for modern supercomputers in a much smaller and more efficient package. It's hard to imagine the precise lenses and optics and 'programming' all 'moving forward together'. An 'in-between' system that still functions would be a much more impressive find, but what would it look like?

Those are my thoughts.

Last edited by rocketman; 11-15-2007 at 05:14 AM. Reason: grammar
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-15-2007, 05:27 AM
Jayhawker Soule's Avatar
Jayhawker Soule Online!
Religion: naturalism
Title:Supporter
Prolific Poster Award:  - Issue reason: You have acheived over 10,000 posts here at RF. Congrats! Scholarship Award:  - Issue reason:  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,360
Frubals: 3105380
Jayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal Whore
Jayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal Whore
Default

Evolution of the Eye
__________________
if G-d ( G-d is not 'X' for all 'X' )
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-15-2007, 07:56 AM
painted wolf's Avatar
painted wolf Online!
Religion: Native American
Title:Uber Member
Scholarship Award:  - Issue reason:  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH, USA
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,810
Frubals: 1333500
painted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whore
painted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whore
painted wolf is a Frubal Whorepainted wolf is a Frubal Whore
Default

Rocketman, you should actually look to the evidence to see the eye evolving.

Bacteria have the ability to detect light, Hydrozoans do it much better by localizing the cells to do so. Turbalarians have done them one up by haveing eye spots, Mollusks run the gambit, from having a retina with no lens to having lenses and quite sophisticated eyes. Even the insect eye is genetically evolved from the same ancestor as ours.

The eye is no big deal for evolution, it is not "irreducably complex" as the Natilus gets by just fine without a lens, and the Turbalarians get by without a retina.

Sorry but the steps on the road to eye devolpment are plain as day if you actually look at the world that looks back at you.

wa:do
__________________
mispellers of the world 'untie'!
wa:do Cherokee for 'thank you'
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-15-2007, 08:16 AM
camanintx's Avatar
camanintx Offline
Religion: Humanist
Title:Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: 3rd Rock
Gender: Undisclosed
Posts: 854
Frubals: 217113
camanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond repute
camanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond reputecamanintx has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman View Post
It's hard to imagine the precise lenses and optics and 'programming' all 'moving forward together'.
Why do so many people who doubt evolution have difficulty imagining how the process works?
__________________
"Can omniscient God, who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change His future mind?" -- Karen Owens
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-15-2007, 10:00 AM
Terrywoodenpic's Avatar
Terrywoodenpic Offline
Religion: Anglican-heretic
Title:Oldest Heretic
Kindness Award:  - Issue reason: The kindness award has been given to you by your peers and is well deserved.  Congrats. 
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,068
Frubals: 604063
Terrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on trees
Terrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on trees
Terrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on treesTerrywoodenpic thinks frubals grow on trees
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by camanintx View Post
Why do so many people who doubt evolution have difficulty imagining how the process works?
Because mostly they do not understand or study the biological sciences.
nor indeed any science that might have an impact of the origin of the world.
Why would they see the need to study any thing to which they know the answer, and which is the irrefutable word of God?
__________________
Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

Last edited by Terrywoodenpic; 11-15-2007 at 10:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-15-2007, 05:33 PM
rocketman's Avatar
rocketman Offline
Title:Out there...
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Gender: Undisclosed
Posts: 977
Frubals: 200886
rocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond repute
rocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic View Post
Because mostly they do not understand or study the biological sciences.
That does not apply to me. The view I have is valid precisely because I study these things, to my mind anyway. But each to their own.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-15-2007, 06:38 PM
rocketman's Avatar
rocketman Offline
Title:Out there...
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Gender: Undisclosed
Posts: 977
Frubals: 200886
rocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond repute
rocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by painted wolf View Post
Rocketman, you should actually look to the evidence to see the eye evolving.
I have. And yes, I'm well versed in the principles of mutation and selection and so-called gradualism and punctuated equilibrium and everything in between. All of the 40+ independendant evolutions of various types of eyes are all pretty sophisticated interelated systems (the eye itself being but one element). I'm not ashamed to say that I find it next to impossible to believe that these things can come about 'bit by bit'. And yes, I'll repeat that I am well versed in the principles of mutation and selection. It's not in some people's nature to 'infer' across gaps. I can't help the way my mind weighs things, and it's got nothing to do with religion. I don't think this latest finding will do much overall.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-15-2007, 07:22 PM
Jayhawker Soule's Avatar
Jayhawker Soule Online!
Religion: naturalism
Title:Supporter
Prolific Poster Award:  - Issue reason: You have acheived over 10,000 posts here at RF. Congrats! Scholarship Award:  - Issue reason:  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,360
Frubals: 3105380
Jayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal Whore
Jayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal WhoreJayhawker Soule is a Frubal Whore
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman View Post
I'm not ashamed to say that I find it next to impossible to believe that these things can come about 'bit by bit'. And yes, I'll repeat that I am well versed in the principles of mutation and selection.
I find it remarkable that someone so well versed would come out with: "An 'in-between' system that still functions would be a much more impressive find, but what would it look like?"
__________________
if G-d ( G-d is not 'X' for all 'X' )
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-15-2007, 08:29 PM
rocketman's Avatar
rocketman Offline
Title:Out there...
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Gender: Undisclosed
Posts: 977
Frubals: 200886
rocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond repute
rocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond reputerocketman has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
I find it remarkable that someone so well versed would come out with: "An 'in-between' system that still functions would be a much more impressive find, but what would it look like?"
Why?

I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that I find it hard to believe. Because, for example, lots of things have to happen, not just changes to the eye. Things like the architecture of the eye socket (blood vessels, bones), major biochemical changes, major neurological changes (probably the most sophisticated ever). Each step along the way needs to be able to use these linked systems to see, assumedly with greater ability as time moves forward. I look at how minute changes in optical systems extant today disable those systems and I'm even less convinced.

Nilsson and Pelger's model calls for a constant mutation rate for 300,000 years straight, a cute guess if there was ever one. Their light-sensitive patch is said to gradually become a focused lens but there is no explanation of how the system as a whole could support the altered optics at all the points along the way. In the end one has to accept that there were in-between animals with light-sensitive systems co-existent with early optical definition systems; and tha