Entropy contradict Evolution

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Hadeka, Jul 29, 2004.

  1. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Dude, the kid will eat the whole pizza. When he reproduce then you will need to order a new pizza. For the new children. Just a joke.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Another joke out of this would be. If 99 out of a 100 would die. Then how will that 1 (survivor) reproduce? This of course applying to animal who reproduces sexually.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Anyways. Maybe it was a bad analogy. As I said I'm not good with analogies.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I haven't seen the answer. I don't know where you saw the answer. I was discussing about "eye" but then Nasor changed my direction to Mutation again. Now I'm back to discussing about the "eye".

    So question remains.

    "how did an eye come into being (existence)?"
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104

    Here is a starter. I'll be back with more but you can see (no pun intended) that there are many different eyes and hence many different evolutions to an eye function.

    A bit more information on the make up of different eyes of increasing complexiety.

    http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm

    It does seem there is ample material to answer your question. It also seems you may be being disengenious in asking your question. Although there is more than enough information to satisfy your question, you are placing an undue burden on this forum to explain in detail the evolution of an eye.

    That is it would be like me challenging you to name every part, and how they are assembled, for the ISS. Not a valid question for a forum like this.

    http://www.biol.lu.se/funkmorf/vision/dan/model.html

    People have spent years and use complex computer programs to illustrate the process. It is not something that can reasonably be replicated here. to suggest that failure to fullfill your question means it is not true is simply false.

    But I'll continue to search for a good solid description and see just how determined you are to pretend you have made a point by rejecting the information.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2004
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I have read your article. Pretty interesting. Thanks for sharing, it raised my knowledge, but let me get back to the question.

    The article shows simple to complex. This is NOT what i'm asking. I'm asking the formation of the first eye. What you just shared is simple existence to complex existence.

    My question is from non-existense to existence.
     
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    OK. Disregard my above post. You have clarified. I'll see what I can find but I am curious why you haven't searched for yourself?

    I believe you will find your answers if you Google "Intercalary Evolution".

    http://sdb.bio.purdue.edu/fly/neural/sineocl3.htm
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2004
  9. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I have, but I didn't get any results. All I get is something like what you just shared. This is what I am not interested in, as I told you. So hopefully you guys will be able to show me.

    A reason for my failure to get results could be that I didn't try hard enough, but in my thinking I really did try.

    This is for the people who don't get, why I'm asking this question-Evolution says gradual changes. So there has to be a non-existence of an eye to the existence of an eye. So a non-existence of an eye which gradually changed into the existence of an eye.
     
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Well, I think this one shares some light. It states that certain mutation had other functions unrelated to vision or eyes but became useful in the development of eyes.

    That is like saying "How did a car evolve?". Well you make wheels. Gee they roll and make things easy to move but it isn't a car. Now make a frame and mount 4 wheels and you get a more stable platform for moving things but you still don't have a car.

    Add piece by piece and ultimately you have a car. I don't really see your problem since components for eyes developed independant of evoluving for or to be an eye. With components being available it is easy to see how something with no eye could suddenly have a light sensative spot. That would be a most beneficial mutation and off we go with evolution of an eye.

    http://146.186.95.23/weiss_lab/CQ/CQ07_HowTheEyeGotItsBrain.pdf
     
  11. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Huh? Could you explain this better?
     
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    From the quick read I gave that jpaper it seemed rather obvious. Components of the eye arose through evolution and served purposes other than for generating sight. All the parts to an eye didn't just occur and go from no eye to an eye but components for light sensitive spots, etc already had come into existaance before they appeared in the form of rudimentary vision (light sensative) arrangement.

    i.e. - The parts to your car are scattered around the garage and are being used for things other than functioning as a car.
     
  13. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Hmm. Interesting. Can this assumption be supported? Just curious.
     
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104

    In great contrast to your resistance to the idea of evolution explaining the formation of an eye, the following paper suggests that eyes may have evolved independantly 40-65 times!

    http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1skp/Eye evolution.htm
     
  15. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Yeah, I've heard this idea before. I'll post tomorrow, hopefully. I'm 'bout to go to sleep.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Hey, I have a question, so I don't get confused later.

    What do you believe? The eye evolved independantly (40-65 times) or it evolved from 1?

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I think it could be either way. But when you say "1", I take exception. You have to be more specific when you want to claim "No Eye" to an "Eye". The first bits of photosensitive cells did not function initially as an eye. However when they coincidentally occurred in a manner to be linked to a brain they began to stimulate vision, albiet minimal.

    There are to many forms of light senstive cells, so I would suggest that independant evolutions looks more realistic.
     
  18. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Ok. So I'd take that you believe in independantly evolving eyes. Right?
    I'll share thinks regarding this.

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    You are a bit eager to test your claims. You are distorting what I said. I said "Either" but that I tended to "Favor" independant.

    Having said that I am speaking logically based on the evidence I see. I am not a biologist and have little interest in the field. So arguing with me, even should you win the debate, will really not be a feather in your cap. Save your arguements for those that can properly challenge your claims.
     
  20. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    Oh I know what you meant.

    When you "favor" something over the other than obviously you believe in it MORE than the others.

    But ok. I'll ask others about this question.

    "how did an eye come into being (existence)?"

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Q25 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    how did you come into existence?
    how did all those bazilion liforms on earh come into existence?
    they EVOLVED from other lifeforms,and changed and adapted to their different environments.
    your problem me thinks is thinking in terms of 6 thousands(or whatever) years creation the religion teaches.

    forget about that and THINK 100 million years,or there abouts and it will be much easier to comprehend evolution
    try here
    www.talkorigins.org
    or here
    www.infidels.org/index.shtml
     
  22. 786 Searching for Truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,089
    I have looked at those sites many times. Especially Talk Origin, because it is given to me the most often.

    Both are bias sites. Talk Origin supports Evolution right? Well go to True Origin it supports Creation, and refutes Talk Origin.

    You can provide evolutionist sites, and I can provide creationist sites. It's not going to help the debate, is it?

    The question remains- "how did an eye come into being (existence)?"

    Peace be unto you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. BobG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    162
    But if you look at talkorgins many claims are supported with references.
     

Share This Page