Hello everyone, I'm making this topic for creationists who don't really know anything about the theory of evolution and natural selection. It's a text-based example of how the process works. After reading this, there's no excuses for saying "random chance!"

In this example we will be trying to make an eye (a common offering of something too complex to come about by "chance"). We will begin with nothing, and work our way up by a chain of chance mutations, eventually giving us a complex eye. The stages of evolution will be represented by numbers. 1 is little ability to collect photons, 5 is an evolved, human-like eye. Naturally, more light collection equates to more chance of survival.

In each stage or life cycle, one "number" will reproduce 3 times. The "babies" will be decided to have the same light collecting ability, greater light collecting ability, or lesser light collecting ability based on random numbers between 1 and 3 generated by http://random.org . A 1 will mean less ability, a 2 will mean the light collecting ability does not change, and a 3 will mean it gets greater. In the case of a 3, the "number" for the current popular organism will increase by 1, until we reach 5. Babies who decrease in ability will (for the purpose of not branching out too heavily) cease to reproduce and survive. If a baby ceases to survive, it will be marked by an x. Also, if a number gets below the current leading complexion by 2, it will die out. So if we have a 5 in the field, only 4s and 5s will be able to survive. Again, that is just to keep it from being too complex.

1 ||
1 | 1 | x ||
1 | 2 | 1 || 2 | 1 | x ||
2 | 2 | x || x | 2 | 3 || x | x | x || 2 | 3 | 2 || <--- 1 has become obsolete and died off
x | x | x || x | 3 | x || x | x | 3 || 4 | x | x || x | x | x || 3 | 4 | 4 || x | x | x || <--- 2 has become obsolete and died off
4 | x | x || x | x | x || 5 | 5 | 4 || x | 4 | 4 || 4 | 4 | 5 || x | 4 | x || <--- 3 has become obsolete and died off. 5 has been reached!


Now this is a very short example of how the process works. Obviously an obsolete class is not guaranteed to die off (which explains the diversity of life), and obviously the process would take much much longer than this. But this thread is intended to demonstrate the basic principle of evolution. I was not trying for 5, it was completely random, but I ended up with 5 eventually. Jumping from 1 to 5 would have been much less likely, and I could do this process to reach 1,000 or 1 million.

LOL, so, you set up the perfect environment, and then simplify the complexity of the organ being developed, fail to take into account the myriad of other systems that also have to be evolving at the same time and you have now explained evolution and removed the randomness!!!

Again, this post was just to explain the concept to people who think it's just one thing magically changing into the next. I'm not setting up an evolution of all early lifeforms simulation here. Obviously in the end the ones that get the OVERALL better traits are the survivors. Even when you add more mutations, it is a fact that some overall trait changes will be better than others for survival, causing a higher survival rate in that set of trait changes. If I were trying to give an example of exactly how every mutation happened and generated a random for every other possible mutation, that would not be something suitable for a forum post

Atmospheric, climactic and geologic history would show it is all a matter of survival of the fittest. Nature doesn't play the victim card, it consumes the victim and survives. I find it odd that, for some, natural change is impossible. That somehow evolution (change, adaptation), can not be a composition of the god creation theories that many theists hold as true. Instead, rather that all that god created being invested with the natural will and powers , to survive as gods creation, have to somehow be effected personally by god. At each level of change. As if god is this master weaver, spinning to life and shuttling the minutia, so as to continue existence through the ages.

Why can't god create something , just like humans are created, so that it is able to survive itself by renewing itself and adapting to the environment in which it is contained?! Just as humans physiologic and biological processes do now!? We know for a fact the atmosphere, climate and geologic record, has evolved or changed, between 36 B.C. and April 2007. How many species are extinct now, between then and today!? Survival of the fittest, necessarily entails adaptability. How is it contrary to belief in creation, to think god would have gone to the trouble to make something, it's not far removed from logic to think god would have made it to survive, after. And if it wasn't for a matter of evolution, dinosaurs would rule the earth and humans would still be picking each other for fleas.

It's a simplification for the sake of explanation, which is sorely needed.



Organisms are chosen according to their entire phenotype; the scenario proposed by KBA doesn't suggest that only allele frequencies of a single given trait will undergo change.

Well, my Creator did... but I don't have an Adam and Eve story to wrap a theory around.

Not that all Christians do disregard the theory of evolution... some don't consider the book of Genesis to have been an accurate scientific record of the process of creation and manage to believe in the biblical god and evolution at the same time. Like this one for example.

Sure, but if you're trying to eliminate the obvious argument of the impact of randomness on macroevolution by talking about the development of a such a complex system as the eye by fantastically oversimplifying it, and also isolating it, we have to also be upfront about the fact that this is now a purely fictional explanation and bears no resemblance to the reality of the fantastically improvable set of beneficial random events that would have to occur in a similarly improvable sequence to bring about this event.

We will begin with nothing, and work our way up by a chain of chance mutations, eventually giving us a complex eye.......this is where you have a problem first....i understand all the numbers, probabilities, etc, etc, etc,....you can not justify making something out of nothing....your own mathmetics prove that is not possible....0 + 0 = 0......something had to exist first....0 + 1 = 1.....then how do you justify where the 1 came from and until you can justify where another 1 came from which joined each other together, then you are not proving your belief.....like what you say we as beilevers in creation by God can't do...

randomhit10

I do recognize there are liberal christians. I see them rarely, but when I seeZ one I knows one.

Thank you for that link. I very much appreciate this observation: "Not all my students come to accept evolution as the explanation for the history of life found in the fossil record. I continue to treat them with respect for their religious beliefs, although I do expect them to know the evidence that has been used to support evolution, as well as the current explanations for how evolution occurs. Even my students who continue to espouse creationism, however, recognize that evolution need not be synonymous with atheism."

I think that , for some, << Note that doesn't say, all , that believe in creationism it does become a conservative issue. Accepting evolution (change, adaptability), discredits god. And therein lies the problem, I think , because the fossil record (for example) may often become an adversary, to that loyalty. I think the intention to remain loyal is what gives rise to intelligent design theory, as well. The god factor evolved to the 21st century consciousness.

See? Change happens!

Simplified, yes. "Fantastically" simplified? Not at all, what changes have been made? Increased mutation frequency, ideal selection. It's still very much true to the process which occurs. Isolating it makes no difference at all.

Regardless, this thread is about demonstrating the fundamental concept of natural selection, and it does so accurately and effectively.



Where does 'making something out of nothing' come in to it, can you be more specific?

We will begin with nothing, and work our way up by a chain of chance mutations, eventually giving us a complex eye....this was in the first post by KBA.

randomhit10

Yes, FANTASTICALLY simplified. First, the eye is not a one piece organ, it's made up of many parts all of which have to be present in order for the eye to be anything more than a lump of useless flesh. (LINK), then to begin with nothing and suddenly we have a random event making something which then through one more random event becomes something improved. Come on, it IS fantastically oversimplified.

No, it doesn't; and if you believe it does, it's no wonder why you aren't questioning this theory.

"Nothing seems to be more important philosophically than the revelation that the evolutionary drive, which has in recent years swept over the whole field of biology, also includes in its sweep the evolution of galaxies and stars, and comets and atoms, and indeed all things material." Harvard College Observatory Director Harlow Shapley ~ In his 1967 essays Beyond the Observatory

If evolution is not a viable theory, to creationists,then what is the change that takes place, in our galaxies!? Where we can witness in light years, stars being born and stars dying?! Is that not change? Light years ago. A time frame that describes an event happening in the past that only catches up to our awareness, long after it occurred!? What are we now, but a visual perhaps to some other civilization, gazing at our galaxy, in what is our present and yet witnessed by others as what was, long ago before the light could allow them to see. Dimensional relativity. Worlds within worlds. My Father's house are many mansions. Wouldn't it be funny if evolutionists and creationists were really arguing about the same thing!?

I misread the first post, I didn't realize that '1' was supposed to be a bunch of useless cells while '5' was a fully functioning eye.

But consider that '1' is, for example, a region of photosensitive cells on a flat surface, while '5' is a region of photosensitive cells in a deepened cavity; and there you go.

the fossil record does not justify evolution...it more often denies evolution...i can accept the idea of mutations in all species due to many catalysts but evolution and mutation are two different ideas...

randomhit10

cut it out IAMS, the lad just trying to explain something here...........

Why is it when some tries to explain anything linked to evolution...in comes someone to be sarky about it??

Time to correct a little misconception here. I think the majority of people, whether Christians, creationists, or anyone else who has issues with the theory of evolution has problems with the macroevolution part and also with a part that is sometimes considered a separate theory, but which is immediately assumed as soon as you accept any part of the theory of evolution which is abiogenesis. I think anyone, creationist or not will agree that the microevolution portion of the theory of evolution appears to be valid... creationists even see that reflected in the Genesis account of creation.

The evolution of stellar systems, galaxies, thought processes, etc. are not immediately seen as out of hand since the description of these evolutionary processes is for one not speaking about biological entities.


I don't know why it happens EVERY time, but I stepped in because I see the explanation as being overly simplistic.

but the bible is very much simplistic in its explaination of creation...its no biggie LMAO!!

Creationists are not the only people who you think knows less about evolution. Some materialistic, humanistic people blindly following the theory to suite their philosophy. "Because hey... science says so, im not going to question that..."

"Working our way up by a chain of chance mutations" sound a bit like an oxymoron from what geneticists observe today. By saying "nothing" i presume you are referring to non-photosensing ability of the "organism" (if it means non-life, you are dreaming). It would be nice if you could conceptualize how that first photosensing cell was formed as a result of a mutation. Fill in the gaps.

So is the assumption for it to work. So that first light sensing organism can sense light by a chance mutation, how is it going to help if it cant respond to the stimulus? A simultaneous mutation for light interpreting system? Or did it carry the light-sensing mutation for millenia to wait for interpreting system to mutate too, eventhough the light-sensing cells didn't carry any advantage for selection all that time?

Easy to conceptualize the evolution of an organelle, but unless it can be proven, it is nothing more than a fairytale. And there are a lot of fairytales around, even peer-reviewed fairytales.

Just because I agree with the theory, doesn't mean I have not/do not question it.

That concept appears to be unfamiliar to way too many people.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you using randomly generated numbers in your example? If so then doesn't that mean the process is random. I don't see how you've eliminated random chance.

Yes, it is, but we are talking about evolution here. I'm not looking at this as a Christian, I'm looking at this as a scientist, skeptical of a weak, oversimplified explanation. I do not have a problem with evolution because I'm a Christian, there are plenty of Christians who believe the theory to be correct, I have a problem with microevlution because I believe it is bad science.

Macro- or microevolution?

Okay, so ignoring the bad example posted at the beginning of the thread, what problem do you have with evolution? What makes it bad science?



Less advantageous 'numbers' were killed off.

The assumption that the LUCA existed. The assumption that everything came from a single cell. Why not discuss how mutation and selection resulted in formation of eyes? Bad example?

Actually the fact that an example like that one is considered good is the problem I have with macroevolution and abiogenesis... and since we're talking about the actual development of an eye, I would say we're talking about abiogenesis and just pretending we're not.

"Okay, so ignoring the bad example"?




Abiogenesis is generally not considered to be part of the theory of evolution

Should a new thread be opened to discuss the example (eye-evolution)? It is in this thread after all.

Abiogenesis either happened or you are a creationist. Naturalism or creationism?

Correct me if I am wrong Jim

But don't a lot of christians try and explain creation...by saying things like -- Look around you..................look at this peice of fruit ie the banana..it has a outter skin...it had to have came from somewhere...GOD did this and this and this and this

All christian like to give their OWN examples...................so why cant the NON christian like KBA....give out HIS OWN examples??


After all isnt evolution and creation................just theories given and written by MAN??????????

You can sit here now and try and give me your OWN examples as to how everything was created by God...as if it where magic...


no harm in you giving it a go...is there Jim??


Brains are given to you for a reason...to USE.............so KBA has put his to good use and done a good job...............how many of you can do the same??Speaking of course in the names of evolution or creationism!!...

Actually, the creation account is the one that claims god made something from nothing. That's about as simplistic as what compels some to criticize the evolutionary theory, based on that abstract assumption of nothingness and the eye. (mentioned earlier in the thread.)


In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Curious isn't it. Thinking of infallibility of the word here. How is the Earth without form and void and still an Earth? And how does darkness come upon the face of the deep and god move upon the face of the waters, on an Earth that is without form and void?!

Somehow, I don't think micro and macro-evolution are theories worthy of contempt, in the creationist model opinion, given that contradiction attends the first chapter, the first and second verse, of the first book of the infallible words of god. I don't think science is unworthy of respect, because it holds no theory like unto that, because while science may be theoretical, it at least knows better than that making a bit of material sense. It's little details like Genesis 1:1-2, that I think prove bible literalism's really aren't paying attention to the details. Not even, "CONTEXT!" can be used as a pretext to excuse that one.

I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL weird huh??

The thing is you CAN'T ignore the example because although it is a bad example of SCIENCE, it is a good example of macroevolution/abiogenesis. If you begin to look at all the explanations of how different organs developed you find a lot of bad science.


So, then Raptor, what is the origin of life, in your opinion?

Hey, I have no problem with the theory of evolution. Somebody will either find a way to prove it or somebody will find something wrong with it and it will be replaced by some other theory. Either way it makes no difference to me.

It just seems to me the example at the beginning of the thread relies on random numbers so it is therefore random. I don't see how it eliminates random chance if it is random.

Evolution is just a theory...and I dont see the harm in the likes of KBA trying to work things out from it

Just like I wouldnt see the harm in ie you Jim, trying to make up your own theories of creation...explaining it in your OWN way, on what you think...

After all the bible can never be proved correct either...so whats the harm??

The harm is we are teaching BAD science and acting like it isn't.

No it's not, because it suggests that entire structures appeared preformed. That's not what the theory of evolution states.



Such as?



I don't have one. I'm completely neutral on the subect, because frankly? I'm not informed enough to pass proper judgement on the subject.

If she wants wants to try and work things out then that's fine with me. I believe in freedom of speach. I just don't understand how the example she gave isn't random.

I don't see why people think one theory is correct and the other theory is false. It is always the Biblical version of creation against the theory of evolution, as though those were the only possibilities. There are other creation accounts besides what's in the Bible. People can come up with other theories besides evolution. How does anybody know creation and evolution aren't both true? God could have created life and given it the ability to evolve. Both theories could conceivably be wrong.

They will never be able to prove the creation story in the Bible. I don't believe that's the way God created us and the earth.

To be fair to Christians some of the Bible has been proven. Archaeologists have been able to prove that some of the history in the Bible actually happened. Not all of it. They haven't proven there were actually giants or the miracles actually happened. Those stories appear to be myths.

The traits were randomly passed on, but selectively chosen for.

Oh don't get ridiculous. Now for the sake of evolution I have to prove the origin of life? Or are you talking about the development on the creature of an eye? The 1 would come after the creature had a mutation that allowed him to sense photons.



Well it's probably a good ideal to FANTASTICALLY simplify something FANTASTICALLY difficult to demonstrate a basic concept. Why can you not understand that this post is not a complete simulation of how an eye first formed? It's not supposed to be absolutely accurate, it's not supposed to take all things into consideration. I could do it 1 to 1 million and greatly offset the chance of the eye improving at birth, and you'd still EVENTUALLY end up at 1 million. I could add in other survival factors like negative and positive mutations elsewhere on the body. But this is a quick explanation for those who don't understand the concept at all, so I'm not going to.



That's because it's extremely difficult to find large amounts of transitional fossils because fossils are very rare things. However, there are some transitional fossils.





There is no macro or micro evolution in the form that theists use it. There's no magic line between mutations and change of species. Fundamentally we are the same as apes. We are just different enough that we put ourselves in another group. If you accept that it's possible for species to mutate and keep those mutations over time, and deny that it's possible for one species to change into a new one, you're simply being ignorant.

We don't have any real largely differing qualities from an ape. There's no "eye" in this situation. You could make a rudimentary ape from a human being if you had a slider with different traits like: "Hair, skull shape, size", etc. The way their body works is the same, with a few differences here and there.


I know. I said it's not "one random chance and pow you have a complex organism", as many theists sadly think it is.



IAMS, I don't know how many times I will have to explain that this is not a scientific essay on evolution. This is demonstration of a concept, and only that.



I can't explain to you exactly how the formation of an eye would start. I'm not a scientist. I would guess that the organism ends up with a phew photon receptors, then over time more and more and can sense the direction light is coming from, then something to focus the light so it can see sharper images, etc. As for would they be able to use the new mutation once they had it? Well, that's a good question. Although I know that when people have a large-scale mutation like an eleventh finger they can use it.



*Sigh*, this is not an example of the development of an eye. This is a demonstration of the CONCEPT of how an eye might develop. Anyone can call something a bad example when they're looking for something more than they were told to expect. But that's alright, I knew nobody would be able to take this thread for what it is.. and I'd receive the utmost scrutiny from the suddenly skeptical theists. Isn't it funny how an old illogical book, very little if any proof, and really good PR has the theists sold on creationism yet they are unwilling to accept a simple demonstration of the concept of evolution because it does not fully and completely explain the process and address every potential pitfall?



I'm not teaching science here. I'm giving a basic primer on the theory of evolution for people who accuse it and know nothing about it.
I also find this post from you funny, because how many different and polarizing teachings and interpretations are there of the Bible, the cornerstone of all Christian faith? These day's it's hard to find two Christians who completely agree on what the Bible is trying to say and means! (I'm not pointing this out to shift the topic, I simply don't like hypocrisy, and I see very much hypocrisy in your criticism).



Yes, I was assuming there was already some structure there for an eye, and how it may evolve to be a complex eye from that point. But again, this is to show a concept, it's not to prove how the eye evolved. I don't want to over-complicate something with a simple objective.

Here's a tip, not everyone who disagrees with a post regarding evolution is religious.

I strongly believe in evolution, I don't believe in a god. That doesn't mean I'm going to blindly agree with what you say.

It's a bad example because you gave the offspring entire structures in a single generation. If someone with no knowledge of evolution at all read your post and took it at face value, they'd be given the wrong impression. Other than that, it seems fine.

Care to open a thread to explain the FANTASTICALLY difficult concepts? Neo-Darwinism Theory kind of breaks down at the FANTASTICALLY difficult concepts and turns into a festival for people with very good imaginations and little emperical science. Good luck finding more positive mutations than negative mutations.


The fossil record does show distinct living and extinct forms that seem to have appeared suddenly, not near-unclassifiable transitional forms constantly evolving from one major taxa to another. If it did, i dont think people will be having this discussion.

Care to explain how you understand these specimens to explain human evolution as you understand it at the moment. It seems to change on a yearly basis.

There does seem to be a magic line between mutations and a change in family, order, class etc. Evolution does predict the formation of new families at least.

Different genus. Strange how pigs are used in medical research as some of their organs seem to be more compatible with ours that other primates. That is a different Order!

And you are simply dreaming if you think mutations will lead to the formation of a new Family, Class, Order etc. However evolution does predict it.

Cant you say the same with pigs, looking at some humans

And how evolutionists sadly think "millions of random chances and a lot of time and POW, all complex life we see today came from a single cell".

No, I understood that you're not religious. The bold part was referring to Iams. And how would they be given the wrong impression (If anything it would be much more accurate than "apes magically became humans after a little while of changing")? That's the fundamental concept of evolution, nothing more, and I didn't try to make it anything more. It seems like people want to nitpick at my post as if it's an article in a popular science magazine or something, when it is, was, and was presented to be a very simple representation of the basic principle of natural selection.

And I was originally going to do the experiment on a 1 to 100 basis, only I forgot that that would have taken up a couple pages of numbers and x's. If I'm demonstrating concept there's no reason to do that. I can show you how to jump rope by doing 5 repetitions of rope-jumping or 1,000. Either way, you'll know that I'm swinging the rope under my feet and back around again. I never inferred how much closer towards a perfect eye they were getting in each cycle, and if you scale it up it would be very little gain per generation, I think anyone who could follow the post should understand that.

Fearisgood:
1. I showed you transitional fossils. Those would be evident of a change of the animals leaving those fossils. Since we do not see creatures with the same skeletal composition anymore, we can imply that whatever it was no longer exists and has changed into something else based on the slow progression of the appearance of the fossils.
2. Pig organs (or sheep organs, etc) are used, that's true. Why? Well, just because one species is closer to a human does not mean every aspect of that species is closer to a human. I would also guess there's the factor of size, and supply (I don't know if pig organs are actually more similar to human organs than ape organs or not). We kill pigs for food, we don't with apes, and there are more pigs on this earth than apes.
3. And I'm dreaming if I think evolution can create a new class/family/species? How so? If mutations can form and be passed on what exactly would you propose eventually stops large-scale mutations from happening? Small things eventually add up, that's a fact. If in a thousand years things like height, bone mass, etc could slightly change, what's to say that in a million years you couldn't have thousands of changes like that? And in a billion years millions of changes? It's a fact that once something changes enough it becomes unrecognizable with respect to its original form.
4. And no, I don't care to open a thread about the difficult points of darwinism, because I'm not a scientist and I wouldn't know what I'm talking about. I wouldn't go to a television repair place and start telling them which transistors on my TV need replacing (or what have you) because I wouldn't know! I do know that well-trained scientists spend a lot of time researching and testing theories. That's what gave me this laptop I'm typing on, that's how people knew to cause the chemical reactions that power it. If I have to know in-depth everything a scientist is saying to actually believe he's not lying, I'm going to be studying different sciences every last second of my life. Where's your mention of all the potential complexities of gravity? Or do you not doubt gravity? I bet you couldn't tell me the complete inner-workings of gravity and vacuums in space, but you know that the textbooks aren't lying when they say you're being sucked onto this rock of an earth.

i'll try to refrain from being ridiculous....your first post said you start with nothing....that is one of the cornerstones for the religion of evolution....the science that you are using says you can't make something out of nothing, not even an eye....no, you do not have to justify all life via evolution just how you were able to start with nothing and create something....as far as the fossil records, what i read by researchers is that the fossil record abruptly begins and abruptly ends in the cases of extinct species...during which time there is little or no change seen in the fossil record....even for the species that have survived all the years there is little on no change...the fossil would record the transition from one being turning into something totally different over a period of time, and it does not....research done on some of the remains also show there is little change from the older relatives of species to the current model...now that being said i do think the many species adapt to the environment they live in, including the eye...but there is a big difference in the idea of mutation, adaptation, and evolution....the evidence , to me, still points to creation and a creator, who i believe is God.

No, but you see, I'm not trying to explain life with evolution here. I'm trying to explain the complexity of conscious life with evolution. You don't start with nothing when forming an eye from a race of creatures with no eyes, although you do start with no light collecting ability. And again, brief sections of fossil records are to be expected, when fossils are such a rare thing. As an example, I would think an ice age would be more likely to produce fossils than a hot, humid era. And the transitional fossils I posted seem quite clearly linked IMO, you can very easily see the gradual changes taking place in them. And if you like, call it a creator.. that's your belief. But I'm looking for the truest and most evident, researched, and tested theory here. Maybe to you that is a creator, but I do not choose to see complexity as evidence of intelligence or creation, because there are far too many things I don't know to be making rash assumptions... so to me, there is zero evidence of a creator as of now.

If evolution is disproved or found to be an inadequate explanation, I will look for a new one. But as of now it is the best and most sensible theory to me.

and as i see it the evidence points to a creator i call God.....in which case, we can agree to disagree and continue both our searches....if i can help in your search please call on me, even if we disagree.

randomhit10

First of all, I made it a point to state that I do not oppose macroevolution/abiogenesis because I'm a Christian, I oppose it because it's bad science, (in fact I think it is actually a religion mascarading as science) and yet, you can't seem to help yourself in trying to make it a creation vs evolution issue by attacking the Bible.


First of all it's "idea" not "ideal." I understand this is a simulation, however, the oversimplification of your simulation gives an incorrect impression, therefore it is a bad simulation. The process is not that simple and you tried to gloss that over and you are still trying to do so. You also failed to state that this is a simulation of how some scientists (not all) think a process MAY work, your whole post makes it seem you're explaining how a process works and there is no proof that it does work that way. You are also underestimating the ratio of negative mutations to positive mutations aren't you?
These are fossils of different life forms, there is NO proof that one led to the next... the fossil record somehow loses the millions of life forms that would have to exist from one to the next, how interesting.



Millions of generations of fruit flies have been born and died in the labs, with all kinds of allele changes taking place and yet we have not had ONE birth that was not still a fruit fly, and we've had MILLIONS of mutations occur and they were ALL bad for the organism.

Wow, you really do believe things are that simple don't you? If we're so close to an ape why is it that humans can't successfully breed with apes? After all, lions can breed with tigers.


Still trying to make it a creation vs. evolution issue. IT'S NOT THAT AT ALL, GET IT THOUGH YOUR HEAD, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SCIENCE OF THIS THEORY BEING BAD.

I never said it was an essay, I did not criticize it as an essay on evolution,I criticized it as a weak example.

Have you any idea how complex just a system of photon receptors is?
Yes, they can use it, but is there an advantage in it? Does it get passed on to offspring? If it gets passed on, is it any more useful to the offspring?


Still trying to make it a creation vs. evolution issue? IT'S BAD SCIENCE!!!!

And all I said was that it's a weak example. When did I bring in religion?


Sure and the simpler you make the example the more viable it appears, that is why it's a bad example, it's so simple it's become fiction.

You showed fossils theorized to be transitional, there is NO proof they are transitional, they could just as well be animals which had been around all along, and which had been previously left out of the fossil record since, as you have pointed out, fossils are very rare. What proof do we have that just because these fossils only appear in one part of the fossil record that was the only period of time these animals existed? How can we be sure they hadn't just not left fossils previously? See, there's a whole bunch of assumptions there.

Doesn't this apply to apes too?

If I lose some weight and breathe in enough helium, and if the gravitational field of the Earth suddenly weakened at just the right time, I could float 100 feet into the air.


Do you have even the vaguest understanding of gravity? "sucked onto this rock.." Do you know that we have absolutely NO real idea how gravity works? We know how to calculate it's effects, and how to predict many things with these calculations, but we don't KNOW how it works.

This is an appeal to ignorance... the claim that whatever hasn't been proved true must be false, and is based on the idea that absence of evidence is not absence of evidence.

If I was claiming falsehood you would be right, I am just pointing out it has not been proven and that there are other ways to interpret the known information.

So what would constitute proof, for you?



Care to provide a link for that statement?



Tigers are more closely related to lions than humans are to chimpanzees.



You're basing that on what, exactly?

Photons can trigger chemical isomerization. Then all you need to be able to do is detect the isomer.

1. I'm not going to address this post in-depth since you're becoming more of a troll now than anything in my opinion.. (Correcting the only small grammatical error in a post of hundreds of words?)
2. On the topic of theology, I was turning it into a theological argument because we both know that's where your bias against evolution comes from. Are you trying to say you are in the position to call thousands of scientists wrong on this topic? It's bad science because Iam'sSon says so? If it were bad science, it would not still be researched, tested, taught in schools, etc. And the only scientists who deny evolution from what I've observed are those who believe God made us, thus having a conflicting view and being predisposed to deny any contradictory theory that is without absolute proof.
3. The complexity of a photo receptor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoreceptor_cell

Have you ever seen one of those solar system models that kids make for school projects? What do you think of them? Judging by your recent posts, I would guess that you think they are poorly made because they have not accurately scaled the distance between bodies, they rarely illustrate ovular orbits, they fail to take into consideration the rotation of the planets, they do not automatically show the orbit path and are not used on an accurate time scale. If someone were to come across one and they didn't know about the solar system.. they'd take all these downfalls to be truths.. and that's bad science! They are so heavily simplified that they become fiction.. not demonstrating a concept at all.. Right?