“Your second article shows that irreducible complexity is is a non scientific idea which can be debunked quite quickly by the scientific community as my embedded videos show. So you too obviously disagree with Bane, since both your articles support my initial post 3656.”
The video's you embedded contain some basic information as to how the human eye possibly evolved through natural processes. On the in depth study of ophthalmology: one must become a physician (8 years after high school), and land a residency in ophthalmology, which requires very good grades in medical school and high board scores, and frequently research experience in ophthalmology. All residencies require the completion of a separate accredited internship a year prior to beginning ophthalmology residency, which is 3 years in length (4 more years total). After finishing residency, there are several fellowships available for ophthalmology. Obviously, the human eye is a highly complex organ and can not be explained as a reducibly complex organ in just a few minutes of video. That is why I said that superficial analysis as evidence for evolution, without charting an accurate path of development in "evolutionary species" is not evidence to honest minded individuals.
FAO: Bane - You Mentioned the Eye
by cantleave 56 Replies latest jw friends
-
alice.in.wonderland
-
bohm
AiW: I think the point here is that the evolution of the eye is not a big mystery. if the evolutionary pathway is true or not is an open question, ofcourse. (AFAIK, and i dont know a lot about the subject).
-
FuzzyPaul
I took a year of pre-med biology and can't comprehend how someone teaching a course that complex could believe in pure chance. The mathematical probability against it is beyond comprehension and quarantees that it didn't and doesn't happen. Evolution is taught because one has to or you "will never get a job teaching (at a secular university) or get published" which is a real threat and demonstrates the intimidation and methods of those anti-god philosophers who control higher education. If academic freedom WAS allowed most profs wouldn't sink their conscience to sell that dogma.
The coding needed for anything in DNA is precise. Many disease states are minor errors in the DNA and many errors in DNA code are fatal to an organism. It just doesn't happen. I wrote computer programs and that is baby's play compared with DNA.
For numbers that exceed 1 chance in 10^50 a probabiblity and statistics mathematician will imform you that is the threshold of impossibility. 10^100 approximates the volume of the known Universe in cubic Angstroms. A hydrogen atom is about an Angstrom in diameter based on the Bohr radius of 0.53 A. Probabilities far worse than that exist for the simplest steps in evolution as proposed by models beginning with just chemical evolution. The chances against the right kind of molecules occurring is beyond possibility.
Get real. There is a GOD. He cares for you since he made you. He loves you and knows that we are all stupid here but stop denying him the chance to show HOW MUCH HE CARES.
As an ex-jw of 45years I am very happy in Christendom - the world wide empire of blessings from Jesus.
Regards,
Paul
-
bohm
Paul, your dead-set wrong on the math thing.
The mathematical probability against it is beyond comprehension and quarantees that it didn't and doesn't happen.
Well, if you know that, then what is it? how is it calculated?
The coding needed for anything in DNA is precise. Many disease states are minor errors in the DNA and many errors in DNA code are fatal to an organism. It just doesn't happen. I wrote computer programs and that is baby's play compared with DNA.
Yet each of us have about 150 mutations in our genomen which are unique to us.
For numbers that exceed 1 chance in 10^50 a probabiblity and statistics mathematician will imform you that is the threshold of impossibility.
I have only heard creationists say this stuff and i work with statistical modelling. think about it, whats the probability of any given (natural) configuration of water molecules in a pool of water?
10^100 approximates the volume of the known Universe in cubic Angstroms. A hydrogen atom is about an Angstrom in diameter based on the Bohr radius of 0.53 A. Probabilities far worse than that exist for the simplest steps in evolution as proposed by models beginning with just chemical evolution. The chances against the right kind of molecules occurring is beyond possibility.
and here is where you are wrong: You dont know that probability. nobody does. if you still think you do, please provide evidence.
the probablity arguments are known amongst mathematicians as "Hoyles fallacy". i did a topic on it a while back and i invite you to defend the idea there if you still think there is anything to it:
-
-
cofty
Paul - evolution by natural selection is not about pure chance. That's the whole point.
-
Mad Dawg
Hmmm.... and evolutionists argue by use of YouTube vidoes. Puh-leeze. If only evolutionists actually understood what creationists put forward. Dawkins puts out a video (and writes books) claiming that the evolution of the eye is a simple thing when it is actually immensly complex. If the premise is wrong, then the conclusion based on the premise is wrong.
Dawkins makes for some good story telling, but he is still a long way from proving that is the way it happened. Has this been observed in a single species? How about following the evolution of an eye in a single species in the fossil record? Has it been repeated or tested in a laboratory? If the answer is "No", then it is nothing more than story telling.
Why hasn't the evolution of an eye been observed in the fossils? It requires a long slow process, but when it is pointed out that this is not what is observed you yell, "Foul! Punctuated equilibrium!" So which is it? Long slow, or PE?
BTW, Dawkins initially placed the retina behind the eye, how did it evolve to the inside, in front of the blood vessels? Let me guess, evolution of the gaps.
-
cantleave
Has this been observed in a single species? How about following the evolution of an eye in a single species in the fossil record?
Of course this can't be observed in the fossil record, soft tissue cannot fossilise so therefore the evolution of the eye has not been documented.
Why do you throw in the theory of punctuated equilibrium? That is a straw man in this context.
What we do see is different species with with different levels of ocular development. Therefore, as previously stated we do in effect have a living fossil record.
The U-tube video was posted for a bit of fun but it does make some valid points, such as why do some species have vestigal eyes? Why is the eye so badly designed?
You talk about story telling, I think the indefinite existence of an omnipotent, intelligent being is the greatest form of story telling.
I could go down the route of cut and paste posting about Johnathan Sarfati, showing what little credibilty he has in the scientific community but I won't since there is just too much to paste. Suffice to say he is a believer in a young earth.
-
poppers
Dawkins makes for some good story telling, but he is still a long way from proving that is the way it happened.
Therefore, creationism is correct?
Why hasn't the evolution of an eye been observed in the fossils? It requires a long slow process, but when it is pointed out that this is not what is observed you yell, "Foul! Punctuated equilibrium!" So which is it? Long slow, or PE?
Therefore, creationism is correct?
BTW, Dawkins initially placed the retina behind the eye, how did it evolve to the inside, in front of the blood vessels? Let me guess, evolution of the gaps.
Therefore, creationism is correct? Somehow I'm not convinced.
-
Mad Dawg
Lining up eyes of various complexities proves.... what? Let me see, we can't document something, so we have to assume it is true? You like to complain that creationists just don't understand evolution, yet you display a lack of knowledge of what creationists say on a subject. Blind cave fish? Badly designed eye? Get real.
Please tell me how an eye can slowly develop when the theory is punctuated equilibrium - long periods of nothing then BAMM! sudden huge changes.
And I am still waiting to hear how the retina moved from behind the eye to within the eye.