Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution Proof?

Apparently you don't understand the concept "after its kind".

Exactly what does that phrase mean to you? Include an example if you can.

Is that why the different dinosaurs are able to be classified like living animals?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

The concept of irony is completely lost on you isn't it?

Do you mean "why" instead of "what"? And what are you trying to say?

Do you think dinosaurs and people lived on the earth at the same time...?
Do you think that dinosaurs were sent into Noah's Ark along with the other land animals...?

Some of you seem to argue that the Theory of Evolution does not have to account for the origin of life in order to be accepted as the origin of all the different life forms present and past.

That seems similar to walking into a theater at the middle of a play, throwing away the script and writing a new one for the second half of the play.

It's great when you get to make up your own "rules".

Not as great as when you can evoke, by mere faith, an omnipresent,omnipotent, omniscient, God that has absolutely zero constraints.

Zero rules trumps making up 'own "rules"'.

What did Elmer have to say on the subject?

Envisioning a "Creation without a Creator" does not seem to me to be a function of intelligence on the part of the "visionary".

The fact that you can accomplish it speaks to something other than our respective IQ's.

Adopting your position would condemn me to a lifetime of searching for answers that will NEVER be sufficient.

Having the "How" question removed, rather than answered, frees me to engage in the business of living as opposed to an endless practice of mental masturbation.

Having been in both "places". I much prefer my present position. I sincerely hope you are as content in your position.

A variety of proteins interact within a fully-functioning eye. Pax proteins are coordinators and attach directly to the DNA, turning on the necessary genes at the appropriate place and time. Oddly enough, Pax is the same in vertebrates and insects so must have evolved before they separated. Even organisms without eyes, such as sponges, have Pax genes; this finding suggests that Pax proteins originally controlled other processes and were later recruited into the eye. Those individuals born missing eyes had defects in the same gene- Pax6- this is required for normal eye development in all bilaterally symmetrical animals.

It appears that unicellular organisms had very primitive �eyespots�. These were made of photoreceptive proteins that sense light and dark, allowing these organisms to have photoperiodism- being able to time day and night. However, this is not sufficient enough for vision, as they cannot detect where the light is coming from, or distinguish shapes (Land and Fernald, 1992).

The three basic functions an eye needs are: light detection; shading, in the form of dark pigment, for sensing the direction light is coming from and connection to motor structures, for movement in response to light. Sometimes, all three of these functions are carried out by a single cell. The single-celled euglena has a light-sensitive spot, pigment granules for shading, and motor cilia. However, this is not considered as a true eye, but a stigma, a small splotch of red pigment which shades a collection of light sensitive crystals, and is located at its anterior end. With the flagellum, the eyespot allows the single-celled organism to move in response to light, often towards it to assist in photosynthesis (Land and Fernald, 1992). The most-basic structure that is widely accepted as an eye has just two cells: a photoreceptor that detects light, and a pigment cell that provides shading. The photoreceptor connects to ciliated cells, which engage to move the animal in response to light (Nilsson, D.-E., 2009).The marine ragworm embryo has a two-celled eye.

Complex optical systems started out as multicellular eyespots gradually developing a depressed cup, granting the organism the ability to detect the direction of light, and then in iner and finer directions as the pit deepened. Pit eyes were seen in the Cambrian and were seen in ancient snails, and modern representatives such as planaria. This animal can slightly differentiate the intensity and direction of light because of their cup-shaped, heavily pigmented retina cells, which shield the light-sensitive cells from exposure in all directions except for the single opening for the light. But, the proto-eye is still a lot more efficient at detecting the presence of lack of light, than its direction (Autrum, 1979).

As animals evolved more-complex bodies and behaviours, the eye too became more complex. Eyes evolved connections to muscle cells rather than cells that moved by waving cilia. Neurons evolved that could process signals and coordinate behaviour (Arendt, Hausen, Purschke, 2009). Based on cells, there appears to be two main designs for eyes- one is seen in the protostomes (molluscs, annelid worms and arthropods) and the other seen in deuterostomes (chordates and echinoderms) (Land and Fernald, 1992). The �pinhole camera� eye is seen in protostomes such as nautiloids. It developed as the pit deepened into a cup, then a chamber. By reducing the size of the opening, the organism achieved true imaging, allowing for fine directional sensing and even some shape-sensing. These animals� eyes have poor resolution and dim imaging, as they lack a cornea or lens, but are still a massive improvement from eyespots. To prevent infection, a transparent film of cells is grown over the pinhole (Dawkins, 1986). The segregated chamber contents specialised for optimisations such as colour filtering, higher refractive index, blocking of ultraviolet radiation, or the ability to operate in and out of water. It is likely that a key reason eyes specialise in detecting a narrow range of wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum- the visible spectrum- is because the earliest species to develop photosensitivity were aquatic, and only two specific wavelength ranges of electromagnetic radiation (blue and green visible light) can travel through water (Fernald, 2001).

So your position has nothing to do with logic, and is just a matter of what is comfortable?

[bleep]' great that you trained yourself to do it; mental ejaculation without mental masturbation. Kudos.

The business of living for me, for the most part, is curiosity of 'How'. You must be retired.

I already have my hands full on the �Killing Jesus� thread, but�

�The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer.�
Carl Sagan

Carl has always written clean and concise words of wisdom about the Cosmos.

I do not know if he was smoking anything or not when he wrote those words.

"Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever it has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?"
Interview with Charlie Rose (1996)

"So your position has nothing to do with logic, and is just a matter of what is comfortable?"

Quite the opposite, my friend.

Your idea of a creation, which is inescapably apparent, without a Creator, is about as illogical a position as I can imagine.

The comfort I experience is a byproduct of accepting the Truth, which is that the creation we see is the product of a Creator.

Were it to be finally determined that the Creator was NOT the God of the Christian bible, but an amalgamation of the Hindu, Buddhist, and Pagan ideas, I would still be closer to the Truth than those of you who insist on a creation with no creative force as the originator.

I believe in Creation through Evolution. I believe the world and life on this earth are God's Creation, and I believe that evolution was a very clever way that God used to achieve His creative objectives.

So a busybody, micromanaging Creator is more logical? What about the possibility of a hands-off force that ultimately resulted in this creation? Seems logically equivocal to me.

I didn't really think anybody would try to define some of the terms they are throwing around casually without really understanding what they mean. Gooey tar pit is about right. It is quite easy for some people to reject things they do not understand.

What do you reckon the "hands off force" is involved in now?

Dunno. Perhaps expanding the Universe.

Not likely it is intentionally killing babies with massive typhoons. But then again.......??????