believingxjw: You may enjoy this lecture from Britain. It's given in a lively manner, with the public in mind.
The Evolution of the Eye.
by whereami 38 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
caliber
For those who believe in the progressive development of the eye .. I have an "overlapping generation "theory that should then be a piece of cake to understand .
-
notverylikely
For those who believe in the progressive development of the eye .. I have an "overlapping generation "theory that should then be a piece of cake to understand .
Well, one has evidence, one does not.
-
caliber
The eye...can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages -- simultaneously.8 Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms
Richard Feynman, a Nobel Prize winner for quantum electrodynamics, said, "Why nature is mathematical is a mystery...The fact that there are rules at all is a kind of miracle."12
I was an atheist at one time. And like many atheists, the issue of people believing in God bothered me greatly. What is it about atheists that we would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that we don't believe even exists?! What causes us to do that? When I was an atheist, I attributed my intentions as caring for those poor, delusional people...to help them realize their hope was completely ill-founded. To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.
Marilyn Adamson http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.htmlTurning a "blind eye " to existing evidence is not wise
-
believingxjw
Thanks for the link, Leaving.
I enjoyed it and hope that many lurkers here enjoyed it as well.
After displaying an example of an evolutionary tree of life with branches representing the various plant and animal kinds, starting at about 42:29 Dawkins has this to say:
"All these animals are cousins of one another and they're cousins of us. These hamsters here are also cousins of us. Everything that's alive today is a cousin of us. These fish are cousins of us, this elephant, these elephants-by the way extinct elephants-are our cousins this swift is our cousin. We know that they are all our cousins because we know that they all have the same DNA code. The DNA code of all living things alive today is the same. And, that is too improbable to have come about unless we have an ancestor. We're all descended from one remote ancestor which lived probably between 3-4 thousand million years ago, and we are all, therefore, cousins."
This is consistent with the Bible. No, not the Bible's supposed timeline but the principle that all life has a first origin, an ancestor, a Father if you will.
"If we ever meet life from another planet, the creatures from there will not be our cousins. They will have evolved entirely independently. They won't have DNA, it would my guess. However, I would be prepared to say that they are likely to have quite a lot in common with us simply because there's a lot of similar problems to be solved in living. And those problems are likely to be the same all over the Universe. So, although they won't have DNA, they'll have something very similar in function. It'll do something very like DNA, and it'll work in a similar way to DNA. I'd also be willing to put my shirt on the bet they will have evolved by the equivalent of Darwinian natural selection."
I like Dawkins, I enjoy listening to him. He appears very sincere and I respect anyone who, as he does, tries to spread or teach or investigate what they believe is true or can lead to truth. I do think, though, that similar to some religious people he is taking a leap here when he claims to know the "likely" problems which confront all life forms in the Universe! Or presumes that the problems for establishing and sustaining life are the same in all the Universe. How could he know this? It's not too different from a theologian who presumes to know the mind of God merely because he has read something in a book about God. The difference is Dawkins' book is the discovered laws and principles that apply to our rather small space in time and physical location. To use that rather limited knowledge as the hand by which all in the universe can be understood is just as foolish as when a man believes that Moses or Jesus taught all there is to know about God period.
"If we're ever visited by life forms from another planet, they will certainly have evolved the power to think and do science. Otherwise, they couldn't have got here. And their science is bound to be essentially the same as our science. This is because the principles of physics and chemistry are the same all over the Universe. They'll have the same values of the constants-of constant pi as we have, they'll have Pythagoras' theorem, they will have relativity, although they won't attribute it to Einstein. They'll probably find us pretty childish, but they will be quite kind about our science. They'll pat us on the head and say, "Well, what you know about Universe is pretty much correct. You got a lot to learn yet, but you are doing fine. Keep it up."
"They will certainly have evolved the power to think and do science," what about a primitive life form from another planet something similar to our viruses reaching the earth? No, just as religious people are accused of making their God in their own image Dawkins, in this setting at least, is forming his alter-ego, the alien being, as a scientist someone similar to himself. And now the very sad and hard to understand naivete of those scientists who speak of, or search for, the ETs of the Universe while believing them to be moral peaceful beings, (it puts in question whether they truly believe in life on other planets, btw): How in the world could an educated man even for a moment believe that alien beings from across the Universe are going to be father-like, pat on the head, kinds of persons? I found it hilarious when years ago a satellite was launched that described us and located our planet for all alien life forms to find. lol And religious people are called childish and naive? Common on! If we discovered a hidden planet close to our solar system that had life forms living similar to how the American Indians were living 500 years ago would we pat them on the head and tell them their doing a good job and leave? or would we sweet talk them into sharing their resources or worse? Why should alien life forms be more moral than we are?
"That's what they would say if they were talking to our scientists. What if they were talking to our best lawyers or literary critics or theologians? I'd doubt if they'd be so impressed. Their anthropologists, the equivalent of their anthropologists might be interested in us but they would be bound to notice that our cultural beliefs are very local and parochial; not just by their standards, their Universal standards where they certainly would be, but even by our own standards. Because what people believe on our planet depends so much on whereabouts on the planet they happen to be born, which is a fairly odd thing."
His elevation of scientists above those involved in secular law, literature and religion is childish in itself.
So then, alien life forms from a planet across the Universe will all have No gods, will they? No hopes for life after death? All of them just like Mr. Dawkins believing the same as he? No one believing in the energy of the Universe as a power beyond all power and forming a culture around that belief? No one on that planet believing their race of beings are the supreme race of beings in the Universe and forming a cult of worship/celebration of themselves? If that were so then I would assume all scientists on earth are as Mr. Dawkins. All scientists on earth have no religion, no faith in God and no hope for a life after death. It must be that no scientist on earth has a religion since Mr. Dawkins is so sure that intelligent space traveling alien beings would surely not have one. Or perhaps he believes space aliens are more mature than many of his fellow scientists who do believe in God?
Dawkins' audience was made up of mostly young people and honestly the way he presented his material reminded me of a Sunday School lesson where the Sunday School teacher does her/his best to enforce the day's lesson and regulate the thought processes of the young people. In both instances the young are not helped to develop clear thinking abilities but rather to learn and believe what is being presented before them. In both situations the children walk away with minds shaped into the desired form of the teacher instead of minds taught to reason and trust in the cognitive abilities they were born with and to respect the ideas and opinions of others even those who do not agree with their teachers.
The link did not address the question I asked but I did enjoy it, Leaving. Thank you.
-
leavingwt
The link did not address the question I asked but I did enjoy it, Leaving. Thank you.
I was hoping that this was the lecture in which he touched on your question. It's been quite a while since I've seen it. Glad you enjoyed it.
-
cantleave
"Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye."
That is WT quote and it is wrong, if it is indicating every change may be beneficial, because not every change is beneficial.. Many changes occur that do not provide an advantage and they are lost (usually as the organism does not survive to reproduce). Changes that provide an advantage may enable the organism that contains that change or mutation, to survive an event that it may not have without that mutation. It survives, reproduces and passes the characteritic on.
-
cantleave
http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/sex.html
Interesting link - love the last hypothesis - yep I'm a parasite!
-
believingxjw
Cantleave, it is not a Watchtower quote if that's what you are saying.
"It survives, reproduces and passes the characteritic on."
That brings me back to my original question. How do animals that reproduce sexually pass down a gene they have individually developed through mutations and which provide a natural selection advantage? Primitive animal A is born with a trait that gives it an advantage over its peers. For animal A to pass down that trait it must mate with animal B who has the same exact genetic trait. Then in the case of the eye and other organs their offspring must not only inherit the original beneficial trait, such as the light-sensitive spot, but they must also continue to do the same with each step forward, develop the next step and mate with an animal that has also by gene mutation developed the same exact trait. And at each step down the line each one would need to mate with an animal that is at the same exact stage of development.
From fish to whale to chimp every step along the way needed a corresponding DNA gene provided by a mate who was evolving at the same exact rate and time as the original animal.
-
The Scotsman
I know. Learning it hard. It's easier to just believe what you want. Keep up the good work.
Your right - learning "can" be hard for all of us. I have learned nothing on this thread and neither have you - which pretty much solidifies my point - debates on this subject are pointless, they very rarely, if ever change someone's pre-position.
And it is not about taking some easy route because I maintain my own beliefs.
To believe the eye evolved without intelligent input - now thats far from easy....