the sun is impossible to look at too long before permanent eye damage is caused.
after the eye was fully evolved in whatever creature it formed first on was unable to look at the sun.
why did natural selection ignore what rightly cannot be ignored?
Natural Selection uses random mutations to refine and eventually change species.
Also should be noted that natural selection doesn't have foresight. It doesn't work in a way to make all species their "ultimate form". Changes are made that are optimal for survival and propagation of the species.
So is the ability to stare at the sun needed for survival? No, it would be a perk though. Our eyelids do the job of protecting us just fine.
the sun is impossible to look at too long before permanent eye damage is caused.
after the eye was fully evolved in whatever creature it formed first on was unable to look at the sun.
why did natural selection ignore what rightly cannot be ignored?
Why did Natural Selection ignore what rightly cannot be ignored? Shouldn't the eye be compatible with the sun?
Common misconception when people think of evolution is that humans have "arrived" at an end point. But we haven't, we are still evolving and our current state could be considered "transitional". We have visages of our previous forms - traces of hair over our body, goose bumps, wisdom teeth, etc. Interesting note, 10% of newborns today don't have wisdom teeth.
So the questions should be - will we ever evolve to the point where we can stare at the sun? Will our eyes get even more awesome?
I don't think we're in a state of "done". Heck, this is out there, but if we survived on this planet long enough would we eventually resemble something like our imagined aliens - the "greys"?
interesting article from bbc news today, posted the text below but here is the direct link:.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12597564?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter .
this is not a dramatically "new" discovery (this has been hypothesized before) but the findings from this actual meteorite are pretty cool.
Im not sure that they have discovered several thousand planets that could support life.... yet. From what I understand, they are indeed finding quite a few (several hundred) planets that are within the "habitable zone".
There was a recent report from NASA that estimated the amount of planets in our galaxy, The Milky Way, at 50 billion. Of those 50 billion they said 500 million could be in the "sweet spot" to support life. Amazing if accurate.
Here's the link to that article: Milky Way home to 50 billion planets: NASA
Given the vastness of the universe, one has to think there must be SOMETHING out there. Either that or we are alone in a very profound sense of the word.
Agreed. From the same article: "Scientists estimate there are 100 billion galaxies."
Boggles the mind. If our galaxy has 50 billion planets, and there are 100 billion galaxies...well get out the calculator. And our galaxy is considered relatively small, no? With evidence of the building blocks of life flying around on asteroids, and possibly billions of planets that could support life in the universe...indeed it is difficult to imagine we are alone in this universe.
And...welcome to the forum, Glander.
i was sitting in my garage, as i often do, to chill out and i actually ended up becoming angry.. so here i am, in my garage, kicking it on the stool for the drum set that is in there (i am a pianist/composer, not a drummer).
i start to think about all the crazy stuff that transpires on this planet.
we have all seen shows and heard stories or maybe even witnessed events that don't add up.
Side note...I see Google Ads has picked up on the cannabis references (accusations?) on this page. Now we have 'weed' links.
(By the way...who really cares if one uses cannabis? What are we...JWs or something?)
Okay...back to the discussion...
...oh my.. i am not trying to start a creation vs. evolution debate, but something else really did stand out in my mind upon reading this "infamous" book.
and that is that the theory of evolution is a very complex and at times, logically interesting theory.
it makes valid points as well as asking fair and legitimate questions of the theory of creation.
Has anyone read Dawkins: 'The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution'
Yep, last summer. Extremely informative for someone who spent the majority of their life thinking evolution was the devil's work. If you don't really know much about evolution, this book is a great starting point. Lays it all out, and the evidence is overwhelming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_daunnpmhu.
Wait, before we call it a miracle, we need to figure out the astronomical odds of that happening.
Ah, screw it. Beer anyone?
... about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in.
some of us just go one god further.".
dawkins raises a point which some, if not many, theists will dismiss as irrelevant, but i am not exactly sure why.
1) Atheists just go one god further. This is not an entirely valid point. There is a big difference between an atheist and a theist and that is a belief in a creator - no matter the name, sex, mono/polytheist, etc. A theist believes in a creator (s); and the atheist does not. Even if the theist has gotten the nature and/or personality of the creator(s) wrong (or continue to do so), they still have that belief that a god/goddess/etc created everything in the universe.
The OP listed names of specific gods throughout history - Ra, Jupiter, Posseidon, Huitzilopochtli, Baal, etc. Sure, SOME may simply believe in a sort of creator, however vague. But the point the OP addresses is that the vast majority of believers on our planet specifically believe in the God of Abraham. Whether it is Judaism, Christianity or Islam. And not many believers waver from their strict adherence that their ideology of the God of Abraham is the right one. But they do all believe specifically in this one god.
So in context that the God of Abraham is the world's current "god du jour", I think it is very much a valid point.
i was sitting in my garage, as i often do, to chill out and i actually ended up becoming angry.. so here i am, in my garage, kicking it on the stool for the drum set that is in there (i am a pianist/composer, not a drummer).
i start to think about all the crazy stuff that transpires on this planet.
we have all seen shows and heard stories or maybe even witnessed events that don't add up.
Now we're getting somewhere on this thread. Cheers!
so we lost our religion and its time for us to decide which religion to switch, i was sincere so i wanted to do his will as i was taught.... so many here still believe in god and christianity.
so my question for you is.
what makes you think that christianity is the true religion?
Where you were born?
If in the western hemisphere, you're a christian and jesus follower.
If in the middle east, a muslim and a mohammed follower.
Which one is the right one to follow? Are you wrong if you were born in saudi arabia and believe in Mohammed because Jesus is the right one? Or are you wrong to have been born in Alabama and believe in Jesus because Mohammed is the right one?
Bummer it all comes down to geography like that.
interesting article from bbc news today, posted the text below but here is the direct link:.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12597564?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter .
this is not a dramatically "new" discovery (this has been hypothesized before) but the findings from this actual meteorite are pretty cool.
BTW...not posted for a creation debate...that's already happening all over this site.
Thought I'd share with those that think science and research like this is awesome. Science and discovery:
