DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The evolution of the eye
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Those that believe in a Theistic Evolution in agreement with Darwinian evolution is 38% in recent gallop poll roughly equivalent to those that hold a Biblical Creationist view. this is actually lower than previous polls.
Those that hold a Philosophical Naturalism view without God is 19%.
Not ridiculous at all, the objective verifiable evidence supports sea mammals descended from land mammals..
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Life came out of the oceans and evolved into Pakicetus then Pakicetus when back to the oceans and evolved into whales, while most of the life stayed on land.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
It's not just a belief in evolution it's an established scientific fact and scientific theory, big difference. How many people in America know it's an established scientific fact and scientific theory, matters only in, were not doing enough for education. Every science supports it, nor matter how you want to try to diminish it, by not understanding it.
Name anything in Nature that hasn't evolved?
The universe from the beginning has and is evolving as is everything in it. From cosmology to astronomy to biological evolution.
The best way view the polls is to follow the trends over time, which reflects the variation in the sampling of the polls. The gallop poll has polled the USA since 1981.
Gallop Poll reference: In US, Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low
Those that were polled supporting a Philosophical Naturalism view of the supporting the science of evolution without God have showed a steady increase from 9% in 1981 to 19% in the 2014-2017 polls.
Those polled that support a Theistic Evolution supporting the science of evolution view is more variable ranging from a high of 42% to a low of 31%, but with a consistent average of 38%.
Those polled that support Biblical Creationism is variable also from a high of 47% to a low of 38% in 2017. There is an apparent trend of a decrease in this view, which is encouraging, but because of the variability in the results I have to give a wait and see for the results of future polls.
Part of the problem of the poll results among Theists is the variability of the views of evolution and their religious beliefs. Even though YEC Creationism is clearly defined other views of OEC, and other Theistic views vary in their acceptance of evolution. One common view is that all animals naturally evolved, but humans did not. More specific questions taking these different views of evolution may help to give better poll results.
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
sorry I'm late
many years ago I watched a practical demo of focused light
several spheres sliced in successive manner....
full hemisphere and then lesser domes
the lesser (shallow) domes focus light but not to a common center
the more spheroid the dome the greater the focus to a common center
the outer surface was semi-transparent
but still the effect of focus was there
primitive live would live better and longer able to sense a shift in light
(shadows if nothing else or more)
and movement is more noticed if the light is focused
better yet....if the receptive cells learn various coloring
better still if the receptive cells learn detail
many years ago I watched a practical demo of focused light
several spheres sliced in successive manner....
full hemisphere and then lesser domes
the lesser (shallow) domes focus light but not to a common center
the more spheroid the dome the greater the focus to a common center
the outer surface was semi-transparent
but still the effect of focus was there
primitive live would live better and longer able to sense a shift in light
(shadows if nothing else or more)
and movement is more noticed if the light is focused
better yet....if the receptive cells learn various coloring
better still if the receptive cells learn detail
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Piltdown man was an established fact- among scientific academia in America, not the American people- who have a healthy tradition of independent thinking which is what made it #1 in practical science globally.
And which is ultimately the whole point of science; not having to take someone else's word for it. Classical physics was so well established in academia it was declared utterly 'immutable'. While the concept of mysterious invisible underlying forces guiding nature.. was still considered religious pseudoscience for the 'ignorant' masses.
So I am rather less interested in whether a theory is considered 'scientific', far more interested in whether or not it's actually true- BIG difference
The Ford F150 has evolved also, if you are defining evolution as change in the makup and distribution of life over time, then I agree with you,
But then so does Genesis- including animal life originating in the ocean- and culminating in mankind- lucky guess perhaps- but the point being it's a wide enough definition to cover anything
So what most people are skeptical of is not the science, it's the unsubstantiated assumptions of Darwinsim- they were a somewhat logical guess 150 years ago, in the context of a simplistic pre-QM Victorian understanding of reality, but science has come a long way since then. Academic consensus always tends to lag the actual science.
It does not help to avoid reality by covering your eyes with your hand!
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
No, but it does help me to better cope with people buying into nonsense.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I'd say it was a sort of logical guess, in the context of Darwinism, many years ago- as was Piltdown man, dogs from grey wolves, birds from dinos etc..
But the picture that keeps emerging is that similar design patterns are more the result of similar functional requirements, rather than being closely related. The latter is largely driven by the constant pressure to find some of those elusive transitional examples, and has produced countless debunked assumptions over the last 150 years.
The added problem in the case of whales is the ever shrinking window to perform these extreme feats of metamorphosis- as the fossil record becomes ever more informative
This is also a common occurrence; where eventually the supposed result of a proposed transition, is found predating it's supposed predecessor- and the hypothetical 'common ancestor' is pushed back into the shadows once again
Talking of whales, a lot of them get stranded in that estuary in your avatar, do they not?
Last edited:
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
I suppose they do, I do not know. I left Scotland as a very young child and wish I knew more about it.
The whole idea of a single-celled organism somehow transforming itself over millions of years into billions of different life forms seems implausible if not impossible to me. A lot of faith is indeed required to believe such a theory.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Do you have any idea how idiotic that response looks?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
True, although it's faith that does not acknowledge itself as such: aka blind faith!
It's simply not something we can test, observe, verify in direct experimentation on single cells, or the fossil record, or in computer models
Yet we keep hearing how 'undeniable' it is.. I think some people find the theory itself so compelling, any evidence can be made to seem consistent with it
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
and talking of eyes..... we wandered off point as usual!
How do you solve the irreducible complexity problem here-
A whole eye is too great a leap for a 'blind' luck so to speak- random mutation, while half an eye offers no advantage.
It's an old question obviously, but more problematic than ever with our knowledge of DNA, and just how much specific design information is required for an eye
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
This is an old ID canard trumpeting the fallacy arguing for the negative when you are ignorant of the actual genetic and fossil evidence for the diversity, and progressive evolution of the eye. You can of course begin with the references I and others provided.
The specific information is the genetic information showing many of the steps in the evolution of the eye.
Last edited:
Covering your eyes makes it easier for you to buy into the nonsense.
Another old canard. The witness of science is self correcting, and the Piltdown man was accepted for a while because there simply was very little fossil evidence to compare it to. It was skeptical scientists who questioned and discovered the fraud.
Of course Newtonian Classical Physics was considered the established belief by academia, and it still is for the macro world and engineering today, and used to design building, jet engines, and much of our technology today, but of course it was limited to the macro world. Knowledge, of course evolves, and the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were needed to describe the micro world.
Meaningless.
That is how life evolved on earth, but it was not engineered like your Ford.
No, 'hand wave' does not suffice.
There skepticism is grounded in a religious agenda.
The unsubstantiated assumptions are those who put Genesis as a standard over 150+ years of sound science where 99% of the scientists in the fields associated with evolution consider the science of evolution the best and only scientific explanation for the history of life on earth.
False, the lag you speak of is simply the evolving advancement of science based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis, and not ancient mythology.