Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part Three

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Very true, but through “synthetic biology” they hope to do better than nature. It is deluded, but if someone with money says “do it,” they’ll give it a try.
 
Sorry, I forgot the multiple smiles icons. Sad thing about the internet - no real people. No real human contact. Assume the worst. I could go on…

Rick James made an idiotic remark. I did see him make it. As if cocaine is just something people take. No big deal.
 
Last edited:
rossum said:
… scientific literature. HbC protects against malaria: Modiano et al. (2001). Apo A-I Milano protects against atherosclerosis: Bielicki et al. (1997).

Most mutations are neutral, having no effect. Of those that do have an effect the great majority are deleterious, as you say. A few mutation are beneficial. Given a human population of 7 billion, since each of us has an average of 60 mutations, that is a total of 420 billion mutations over the whole human population. A few of those 420 billion mutations are beneficial.

rossum
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t they all be mutations if we are derived from the dirt and later one cell creatures.

Those 420,000,000,000 mutations would not different. That is how we determine that people originated from different parts of the world and migrated, where we originated and how some remains may be older than others.

The complexity of the genome, especially when it seems so perfectly aligned with the expression of traits specific to humanity such as mathematics, story telling, science and so on that require a larger brain to “process”, points to there being another order at work. Design rather than random biochemical processes wins hands down.

I would agree that certain actual glitches in the system may have some unexpected benefits like the genetic disorder Sickle Cell anemias. Some animals survive in spite of the deformities, like the flounder.

Not many people are convinced that random genetic mutation is the driving force behind diversity once they think about it. Natural selection, while it clears the dead wood, is insufficient as an explanation as to why the diversity and cannot explain stasis.
 
Last edited:
A stretch, but even Rick James might be evidence of some form of evolution. His life certainly (de)volved. The very definition of entropy. Sorry if my warped sense of humor is rather obtuse on my high-dose steroid days. I do know that steroids are a hell of a drug.

Back somewhat on point: Why do so many hold to evolution when devolution is far more observable and measurable? Entropy applies to all things. Genetics, at least in humanity, do not tend to improve, but to degenerate, picking up more mutations as we go. Were pure Darwinian evolution true, we should be gaining perfection rather than ruin.
 
Last edited:
The time it takes for anything to evolve is not a static amount. It just so happens that any particular thing took any particular time to evolve into the particular form that it has.
 
The finished human eye needs that. The first “step” along evolution of the eye only needs any part of an organism having any capacity to react to light.
 
Aloysium said:
Those 420,000,000,000 mutations would not different. That is how we determine that people originated from different parts of the world and migrated, where we originated and how some remains may be older than others.
Click to expand...
You are talking about mutations that multiplied through the human genome. He’s talking about the mutations that exist, right here right now, and have so far been passed on to at most a few offspring.
The complexity of the genome, especially when it seems so perfectly aligned with the expression of traits specific to humanity such as mathematics, story telling, science and so on that require a larger brain to “process”, points to there being another order at work. Design rather than random biochemical processes wins hands down.
Click to expand...
Nope. The accretion of small changes over large numbers of generations is sufficient for this level of complexity.
 
The human eye provides its own evidence. Why would an eye designed intelligently be designed with a blind spot, when other animals’ eyes were not?

The evolutionary answer is simple: it’s the way in which the human eye developed that made it turn out this way. The Biblical answer is-- what? God wanted us to have pretty good vision but to have a blind spot?
 
Aloysium said:
Some animals survive in spite of the deformities, like the flounder.
Click to expand...
Why you say this is a deformity ? It lays perfectly on the bottom to camouflage itself an anbushes its prey… it’s just part of God’s food chain.
 
What I mean is, do you have a science reference describing the process? An article from a peer-reviewed journal? The answer is very complex. Evolution provides no guidance. What is this “blind spot”? I’ve studied the human eye and there is no blind spot.
 
You’ve studied the human eye and there is no blind spot?

Let’s just stop there, while you actually go and study the human eye and learn about its blind spot. See you in ten minutes?
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
Post #4. “Some people” what? Have no sense of humor? Oh, I’ve been guilty of that alright. Anyway, that is a direct quote of Rick James, who fervently believed it. If it is patently offensive in an entertainment thread, then I will gladly remove it.
Click to expand...
Lol… it’s ok, it just went over our heads. 😉
 
Let’s see:
Code: 
"Light enters the eye through the cornea, the clear front surface of the eye, which acts like a camera lens.
"The iris works much like the diaphragm of a camera--controlling how much light reaches the back of the eye. It does this by automatically adjusting the size of the pupil which, in this scenario, functions like a camera's aperture.
"The eye’s crystalline lens sits just behind the pupil and acts like autofocus camera lens, focusing on close and approaching objects.
"Focused by the cornea and the crystalline lens, the light makes its way to the retina. This is the light-sensitive lining in the back of the eye. Think of the retina as the electronic image sensor of a digital camera. Its job is to convert images into electronic signals and send them to the optic nerve.
"The optic nerve then transmits these signals to the visual cortex of the brain which creates our sense of sight."
Perception, Color, and Image

The eye’s retina contains millions of tiny light-sensing nerve cells called rods and cones, which are named for their unique shapes.

Eye’s retina comprised of nerve cells
Code: 
Cones are responsible for perceiving color and detail.
Rods are responsible for night vision, peripheral or side vision, and detecting motion.
Rods and cones convert the light from our retinas into electrical impulses, which are sent by the optic nerve to the brain, where an image is produced. The macula is the part of the retina that gives us central vision. It’s how we see form, color, and detail in our direct line of sight.
 
edwest211 said:
The eyeball needs an optic nerve connected to the brain which has the ability to “process” the image.
Click to expand...
Flowers have no eyeball, no optic nerve and no brain, yet they close their petals at night and open them during the day in response to light. Sunflowers do better, they track the sun across the sky.

Euglena is a single celled organism, again no eyeball, no optic nerve and no brain, yet it has an eyespot and it can adjust its position with respect to ambient light.

There are a great many different ways to detect light, and not all of them involve the standard tetrapod equipment. Even your skin can detect ultra-violet light without all that equipment – you get tanned.

There are many different ways for light-detection to work.

rossum
 
Animal 1.0 upgrades to become Animal version 1.1 …Animal 1.0 is still out there surviving and reproducing offspring. How did Animal version 1.1 cause Animal 1.0 to die out ?
 
Last edited:
Aloysium said:
Wouldn’t they all be mutations if we are derived from the dirt and later one cell creatures.
Click to expand...
Only the first one is a mutation, where the DNA is different from the parents’. After that the mutation is inherited, and so is not technically a mutation, but better described as a rare allele.

With 420 billion total mutations over 3 billion codons in the human genome, the chances are that any given point mutation will occur more than once.

rossum
 
edwest211 said:
What is this “blind spot”? I’ve studied the human eye and there is no blind spot.
Click to expand...
You are in way over your head, ed, this is basic biology 101. Didn’t you ever do that trick where you close one eye and move a finger around until the tip of the finger disappears? That is your blind spot. Tetrapods have them; cephalopods don’t. We are tetrapods.

Basic errors like this on simple biology will not make it easier for you to convince us that you know what you are talking about scientifically.

“An intelligent mind acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” - Proverbs 18:15.

rossum
 
edwest211 said:
“The optic nerve then transmits these signals…”
Click to expand...
Yes, so it does. Now have a good look at an anatomical diagram of the inside of the eye, with particular focus on the exact path of the optic nerve. You are quoting some text here, but you do not fully understand what you are reading. You lack of the basic background knowledge is getting in the way of your understanding.

Stop this line of argument, ed; you are in a hole and you need to stop digging.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top