Uh Oh: Rick Perry Gets Popped With The Dreaded Evolution Question. (Click For Answer)

[Woyzeck]

Right here is the biggest hole in evolution.

The question now of course is, how could such a system [the eye] evolve gradually? All the pieces must be in place simultaneously. For example, what good would it be for an earthworm that has no eyes to suddenly evolve the protein 11-cis-retinal in a small group or "spot" of cells on its head? These cells now have the ability to detect photons, but so what? What benefit is that to the earthworm? Now, lets say that somehow these cells develop all the needed proteins to activate an electrical charge across their membranes in response to a photon of light striking them. So what?! What good is it for them to be able to establish an electrical gradient across their membranes if there is no nervous pathway to the worm's minute brain?

Now, what if this pathway did happen to suddenly evolve and such a signal could be sent to the worm's brain. So what?! How is the worm going to know what to do with this signal? It will have to learn what this signal means. Learning and interpretation are very complicated processes involving a great many other proteins in other unique systems.

Now the earthworm, in one lifetime, must evolve the ability to pass on this ability to interpret vision to its offspring. If it does not pass on this ability, the offspring must learn as well or vision offers no advantage to them.

All of these wonderful processes need regulation. No function is beneficial unless it can be regulated (turned off and on). If the light sensitive cells cannot be turned off once they are turned on, vision does not occur. This regulatory ability is also very complicated involving a great many proteins and other molecules… all of which must be in place initially for vision to be beneficial.

The Evolution of the Human Eye​

Macro-evolution sounds plausible, until you apply logic.

I'll be happy to give you more examples after you explain the one outlined above^.

It is impossible for ALL those absolutely random mutation to occur at the exact same time to allow for a light sensitive spot.

There is also no reason for the random mutations individually to be passed on as by themselves, they give no advantage for natural selection.

Explain?

Darwin actually refuted this in the Origin of Species. He essentially surveyed all existing animals with eyes, and strung a hypothetical progression of the evolution of eyes from there. From basic light spots to our own complex eyes.

A pair of Swedish scientists made a mathematical model on how long it would take to evolve from one to the other. It would only take (with conservative estimates) about 400,000 years.

I'm gonna guess and say you have no idea how evolution works or what the theory says. I suggest a visit to your local library to pick some of the books written by biologists on the subject.

I suggest you read the article.

Now, if these 1,829 gradations really evolutionary steps that are in fact small enough to cross in fairly short order (a few generations each under selective conditions), it seems quite likely that such ranges in morphologic expression would be seen within a single gene pool of a single species.

But, they aren't.

Species that have simple flat light-sensitive eyespots only have flat light-sensitive eyespots. No individual within that species shows any sort of dimpled eye that would have any selective advantage with regard to increased visual acuity.

This fact alone suggests that these seemingly small steps probably aren't that simple when it comes to the coordinated underlying genetic changes that would be needed to get from one step to the next.
​

That just says something we've observed with eyespots only have eyespots and don't evolve anything else. And? Do you have anything else to shatter my point, or just point out the obvious? Do you not get the point of why something with an eye is not automatically destined to develop an eye like we have? Because that's what your article seems not to get.

I suggest you stop wasting my time and read a biology book.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

All of this is a load of crap.
And using bad science to refute good science doesn't much help your case.

You still have to rely on the same science that you are trying to refute for the metrics you are using as proof.

Great counter!

I'll use it next time one of you idiot clowns claim evolution is factual.

You could. But you'd be wrong.

And you have to rely on Darwin, essentially, to disprove his theories.

You know what a crackpot notion that is?

I rely on no man.

I simply used the science you hold so dear to disprove the "random process" of evolution.

 

[Ame®icano]

These liberals that proclaim intellectual superiority by insulting and denigrating Christians for maintaining their faith are simply demonstrating their utterly transparent hatred and bigotry.

They reserve these types of insults almost exclusively to Christianity. Leftists are so shallow and intellectually lacking that they can't comprehend how the belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive, nor do they acknowledge that many in the scientific community are Christians. No, they get their world view from television that continually reinforces their simplistic ideas that all scientists are atheists.

The evolution, natural selection and Darwinism exclude believe in god. Majority of elite scientists are not religious, while one third of them believe in "some sort of god" and attend religious services once or twice a month. That is statistical data.

What I don't understand is, if someone support Darwin's evolution, then he/she should support complete theory, not just part that suits the agenda. To those on the left, Darwinism is OK because it explains evolution and denies creationism, but it's not OK when explain natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Btw, those on the left keep saying how majority of scientists are on the left, and that's truth. It's also truth, that fact doesn't make them any smarter.

 

[Woyzeck]

For those who claim evolution is a myth. Please tell us how animals appeared on this planet. One day they weren't here and then God waved his wand and the next day they are running around. Is that it?

I've yet to receive an explanation on why certain species die out, and some arise. There very clearly isn't a universal shared starting point with all modern species with no evolution.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And this shows a profound ignorance of the Empirical.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of Science in general.

Must be more of your Lonestar Logic from the Republic of Texas.

Thanks for the help. There is no empirical evidence that life came from spontanious generation or some primordial soup.

There are no fossils of transitional life forms. Organisms have never been found to cross the boundaries between species.

Greater than 99% of mutations are is available defects. No mutant has been observed that has become a different species.

To suggest sexual reproduction came about by evolution is absurd. For that to happen two humans had to evolve at the same time and place, having complementary reproductive systems. If one system wasn't complete or compatible, the species would become extinct.

Evolutionist believe in "random process" that components combined in exactly the right way to form the first living organism. Mathematical probabilities show that for all practical purposes, it is impossible for complex living systems that consist of many inter-relating parts to come about through random processes.

The spelling and grammar appear to be correct in this post^. Other than those items, every single thing is wrong and based on incorrect assumptions.

Every piece.

I can only assume you never took biology and got your information about evolution from a creationist.

And just your saying so proves it.

 

[Sallow]

All the pieces must be in place simultaneously.

Why? Exactly.

Did you read the excerpt?

That's the whole theory of evolution...random mutation passed on via natural selection.

If a random mutation serves no purpose, it has no advantage.

No advantage, no selection.

So you're left with dumb luck...over and over again.

So it's not.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And this shows a profound ignorance of the Empirical.

Empirical - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And of Science in general.

Must be more of your Lonestar Logic from the Republic of Texas.

Thanks for the help. There is no empirical evidence that life came from spontanious generation or some primordial soup.

That's abiogenesis, not evolution.



That's false. We have. Have you ever heard of Tiktaalik roseae?

I'm gonna guess you haven't.



The rate is about 70%. Keep in mind, that's when mutations happen, that itself varies with the species. For the most part, evolution via mutation is a long slow process, which is what the theory of evolution states. It takes a long time for something to evolve. Mainly because generations of an organisms last years.

It doesn't take observation simply to make something fact. Otherwise stars were never born. You see where this line of thinking goes.



Thank you for not understanding how the fuck humans evolved. It's just aces. Look up something called geographic isolation in terms of speciation, and you'll see just how one species can evolve into another.

Evolutionist believe in "random process" that components combined in exactly the right way to form the first living organism. Mathematical probabilities show that for all practical purposes, it is impossible for complex living systems that consist of many inter-relating parts to come about through random processes.

Hm? It didn't just happened randomly. One minute basic single celled organisms the next BOOM multi-cellular organs. This stuff took a long time to evolve (we're talking billions of years) to get where we are.

It also isn't random. The mutations that cause a change in an organism randomly happen (also random is if they are beneficial or not). Natural selection filters the bad ones out (something with a negative mutation won't survive to pass on it's genes, that's why it's a negative mutation), that isn't random.

Probabilities show that random processes cannot create life.
The most basic type of protein molecule that can be called "living" has 400 linked amino acids, each composed of 4-5 chemical elements. Each chemical element consists of a unique combination of protons, electrons and neutrons. To simplify our calculations, let's look at the probability of chance formation of an even simpler system, one that would contain only 100 elements.

We'll assume that all the necessary components were readily available in the "soup" and that the components had to come together in the right order to form a functioning system. Let's call our 100 element system "Fred". All the elements that make up "Fred" would have to combine in the correct order to get a functioning "Fred". It's likely that most of the possible combinations of the components would have to be tried before "Fred" was formed. The section below describes the procedure for calculating probabilities. The probability of chance formation of "Fred" would be 1 in 100 factorial (or 1 x 2 x 3 x 4...x 99 x 100) or 1 in approximately 10158 (1 followed by 158 zeros). To get an idea of how large this number is, there are only 1080 (1 followed by 80 zeros) electrons in the universe.

And this math is relevant how? it proves.... what?

I suggest you also take a trip down to your local library and ask a librarian to direct you to the biology section, perhaps even the evolutionary biology section. I can recommend you one or two if you'd like.

A fossil of a fish. that's about all you got.

You're free to beleive as you wish. Just don't say it's fact.

 

[8537]

Thanks for the help. There is no empirical evidence that life came from spontanious generation or some primordial soup.

There are no fossils of transitional life forms. Organisms have never been found to cross the boundaries between species.

Greater than 99% of mutations are is available defects. No mutant has been observed that has become a different species.

To suggest sexual reproduction came about by evolution is absurd. For that to happen two humans had to evolve at the same time and place, having complementary reproductive systems. If one system wasn't complete or compatible, the species would become extinct.

Evolutionist believe in "random process" that components combined in exactly the right way to form the first living organism. Mathematical probabilities show that for all practical purposes, it is impossible for complex living systems that consist of many inter-relating parts to come about through random processes.

The spelling and grammar appear to be correct in this post^. Other than those items, every single thing is wrong and based on incorrect assumptions.

Every piece.

I can only assume you never took biology and got your information about evolution from a creationist.

And just your saying so proves it.

I was happy to see that others have demonstrated the errors, saving me the trouble.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That the Earth is billions, not thousands of years old is not theory, it is fact.

Therefore the Bible is immediately wrong on that relevant point.

Keep thinking that. I read somewhere one time, can not remember where, that the science used to date earth was flawed. Also that carbon dating was innacurate.

All dating methods are flawed. In order to know with any certainty is to know that the atmosphere and other factors has remained constant for billions of years. Changes in the atmosphere and other factors alters the rate of decay, so it is impossible to gauge how old something is.

Right. So scientific aging of the earth is off by about 4 billion plus years.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That the Earth is billions, not thousands of years old is not theory, it is fact.

Therefore the Bible is immediately wrong on that relevant point.

Keep thinking that. I read somewhere one time, can not remember where, that the science used to date earth was flawed. Also that carbon dating was innacurate.

All dating methods are flawed. In order to know with any certainty is to know that the atmosphere and other factors has remained constant for billions of years. Changes in the atmosphere and other factors alters the rate of decay, so it is impossible to gauge how old something is.

Can you carve out a Grand Canyon in 6000 years?

 

[Woyzeck]

Thanks for the help. There is no empirical evidence that life came from spontanious generation or some primordial soup.

That's abiogenesis, not evolution.



That's false. We have. Have you ever heard of Tiktaalik roseae?

I'm gonna guess you haven't.



The rate is about 70%. Keep in mind, that's when mutations happen, that itself varies with the species. For the most part, evolution via mutation is a long slow process, which is what the theory of evolution states. It takes a long time for something to evolve. Mainly because generations of an organisms last years.

It doesn't take observation simply to make something fact. Otherwise stars were never born. You see where this line of thinking goes.



Thank you for not understanding how the fuck humans evolved. It's just aces. Look up something called geographic isolation in terms of speciation, and you'll see just how one species can evolve into another.



Hm? It didn't just happened randomly. One minute basic single celled organisms the next BOOM multi-cellular organs. This stuff took a long time to evolve (we're talking billions of years) to get where we are.

It also isn't random. The mutations that cause a change in an organism randomly happen (also random is if they are beneficial or not). Natural selection filters the bad ones out (something with a negative mutation won't survive to pass on it's genes, that's why it's a negative mutation), that isn't random.

Probabilities show that random processes cannot create life.
The most basic type of protein molecule that can be called "living" has 400 linked amino acids, each composed of 4-5 chemical elements. Each chemical element consists of a unique combination of protons, electrons and neutrons. To simplify our calculations, let's look at the probability of chance formation of an even simpler system, one that would contain only 100 elements.

We'll assume that all the necessary components were readily available in the "soup" and that the components had to come together in the right order to form a functioning system. Let's call our 100 element system "Fred". All the elements that make up "Fred" would have to combine in the correct order to get a functioning "Fred". It's likely that most of the possible combinations of the components would have to be tried before "Fred" was formed. The section below describes the procedure for calculating probabilities. The probability of chance formation of "Fred" would be 1 in 100 factorial (or 1 x 2 x 3 x 4...x 99 x 100) or 1 in approximately 10158 (1 followed by 158 zeros). To get an idea of how large this number is, there are only 1080 (1 followed by 80 zeros) electrons in the universe.

And this math is relevant how? it proves.... what?

I suggest you also take a trip down to your local library and ask a librarian to direct you to the biology section, perhaps even the evolutionary biology section. I can recommend you one or two if you'd like.

A fossil of a fish. that's about all you got.

You're free to beleive as you wish. Just don't say it's fact.

LOL. Okay dumbfuck. That's just one of the many we have. I thought it was the most interesting, since if I recall correctly that's one of the first ones that went on land. Since I posted one, that must be the only one I have right?

Wikipedia has a list. You could find more I'm sure at your local library if you bothered to pick up a science book that didn't have the Bible labeled on the front.

By the way, no response to the rest of my post? What a surprise, you don't understand the thing you're criticizing. Move along please, people who actually understand science are talking.

 

[Woyzeck]

That the Earth is billions, not thousands of years old is not theory, it is fact.

Therefore the Bible is immediately wrong on that relevant point.

Keep thinking that. I read somewhere one time, can not remember where, that the science used to date earth was flawed. Also that carbon dating was innacurate.

All dating methods are flawed. In order to know with any certainty is to know that the atmosphere and other factors has remained constant for billions of years. Changes in the atmosphere and other factors alters the rate of decay, so it is impossible to gauge how old something is.

Rate of decay for what? Scientists use more than carbon-dating, in fact, they usually don't use carbon dating because they agree it's not very accurate. For long term stuff, they use uranium-lead dating.

 

[Sallow]

For those who claim evolution is a myth. Please tell us how animals appeared on this planet. One day they weren't here and then God waved his wand and the next day they are running around. Is that it?

I've yet to receive an explanation on why certain species die out, and some arise. There very clearly isn't a universal shared starting point with all modern species with no evolution.

Explanation? Or Explanation you like.

There are multiple reasons for extinction. Cataclysm, unable to deal with climate/geological changes, heck..even over hunting.

And we aren't talking about something that extremely exact. It's a process that happens over many years in nature.

 

[Woyzeck]

For those who claim evolution is a myth. Please tell us how animals appeared on this planet. One day they weren't here and then God waved his wand and the next day they are running around. Is that it?

I've yet to receive an explanation on why certain species die out, and some arise. There very clearly isn't a universal shared starting point with all modern species with no evolution.

Explanation? Or Explanation you like.

There are multiple reasons for extinction. Cataclysm, unable to deal with climate/geological changes, heck..even over hunting.

And we aren't talking about something that extremely exact. It's a process that happens over many years in nature.

Oh I know. But if creationists were right that everything were just created one day, then we shouldn't see such a varied rise and fall of species in the natural history. According to them, species would be forever constant. Since there's no evolution to change them.

 

[Sallow]

Great counter!

I'll use it next time one of you idiot clowns claim evolution is factual.

You could. But you'd be wrong.

And you have to rely on Darwin, essentially, to disprove his theories.

You know what a crackpot notion that is?

I rely on no man.

I simply used the science you hold so dear to disprove the "random process" of evolution.

And it doesn't work.

Unless you hold onto false logicals and a very warped interpretation of science.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Keep thinking that. I read somewhere one time, can not remember where, that the science used to date earth was flawed. Also that carbon dating was innacurate.

All dating methods are flawed. In order to know with any certainty is to know that the atmosphere and other factors has remained constant for billions of years. Changes in the atmosphere and other factors alters the rate of decay, so it is impossible to gauge how old something is.

Can you carve out a Grand Canyon in 6000 years?

Who said anything about 6000 years?

 

[Sallow]

I've yet to receive an explanation on why certain species die out, and some arise. There very clearly isn't a universal shared starting point with all modern species with no evolution.

Explanation? Or Explanation you like.

There are multiple reasons for extinction. Cataclysm, unable to deal with climate/geological changes, heck..even over hunting.

And we aren't talking about something that extremely exact. It's a process that happens over many years in nature.

Oh I know. But if creationists were right that everything were just created one day, then we shouldn't see such a varied rise and fall of species in the natural history. According to them, species would be forever constant. Since there's no evolution to change them.

My bad.

 

[rdean]

All dating methods are flawed. In order to know with any certainty is to know that the atmosphere and other factors has remained constant for billions of years. Changes in the atmosphere and other factors alters the rate of decay, so it is impossible to gauge how old something is.

Can you carve out a Grand Canyon in 6000 years?

Who said anything about 6000 years?

That's about how long most right wingers feel is the age of the earth.

 

[Missourian]

Darwin actually refuted this in the Origin of Species. He essentially surveyed all existing animals with eyes, and strung a hypothetical progression of the evolution of eyes from there. From basic light spots to our own complex eyes.

A pair of Swedish scientists made a mathematical model on how long it would take to evolve from one to the other. It would only take (with conservative estimates) about 400,000 years.

I'm gonna guess and say you have no idea how evolution works or what the theory says. I suggest a visit to your local library to pick some of the books written by biologists on the subject.

I suggest you read the article.

Now, if these 1,829 gradations really evolutionary steps that are in fact small enough to cross in fairly short order (a few generations each under selective conditions), it seems quite likely that such ranges in morphologic expression would be seen within a single gene pool of a single species.

But, they aren't.

Species that have simple flat light-sensitive eyespots only have flat light-sensitive eyespots. No individual within that species shows any sort of dimpled eye that would have any selective advantage with regard to increased visual acuity.

This fact alone suggests that these seemingly small steps probably aren't that simple when it comes to the coordinated underlying genetic changes that would be needed to get from one step to the next.
​

That just says something we've observed with eyespots only have eyespots and don't evolve anything else. And? Do you have anything else to shatter my point, or just point out the obvious? Do you not get the point of why something with an eye is not automatically destined to develop an eye like we have? Because that's what your article seems not to get.

I suggest you stop wasting my time and read a biology book.

You are evading.

If the steps can express themselves in one or two generation, as the 500,000 year theory implies, we should see some evidence of that today...yet we don't.

And evolutionist have box themselves in a corner by proclaiming the "convergent evolution" of the octopus eye.

So yes, I've shattered your point. Evolutionist claim that the two species eyes followed the almost exact evolutionary track for the camera eye, separated by millions of years.

Vertebrates and octopuses developed the camera eye independently. In the vertebrate version the nerve fibers pass in front of the retina, and there is a blind spot where the nerves pass through the retina. In the vertebrate example, 4 represents the blind spot, which is notably absent from the octopus eye. In vertebrates, 1 represents the retina and 2 is the nerve fibers, including the optic nerve (3), whereas in the octopus eye, 1 and 2 represent the nerve fibers and retina respectively.

​

 

[rdean]

I suggest you read the article.

Now, if these 1,829 gradations really evolutionary steps that are in fact small enough to cross in fairly short order (a few generations each under selective conditions), it seems quite likely that such ranges in morphologic expression would be seen within a single gene pool of a single species.

But, they aren't.

Species that have simple flat light-sensitive eyespots only have flat light-sensitive eyespots. No individual within that species shows any sort of dimpled eye that would have any selective advantage with regard to increased visual acuity.

This fact alone suggests that these seemingly small steps probably aren't that simple when it comes to the coordinated underlying genetic changes that would be needed to get from one step to the next.
​

That just says something we've observed with eyespots only have eyespots and don't evolve anything else. And? Do you have anything else to shatter my point, or just point out the obvious? Do you not get the point of why something with an eye is not automatically destined to develop an eye like we have? Because that's what your article seems not to get.

I suggest you stop wasting my time and read a biology book.

You are evading.

If the steps can express themselves in one or two generation, as the 500,000 year theory implies, we should see some evidence of that today...yet we don't.

And evolutionist have box themselves in a corner by proclaiming the "convergent evolution" of the octopus eye.

So yes, I've shattered your point. Evolutionist claim that the two species eyes followed the almost exact evolutionary track for the camera eye, separated by millions of years.

Vertebrates and octopuses developed the camera eye independently. In the vertebrate version the nerve fibers pass in front of the retina, and there is a blind spot where the nerves pass through the retina. In the vertebrate example, 4 represents the blind spot, which is notably absent from the octopus eye. In vertebrates, 1 represents the retina and 2 is the nerve fibers, including the optic nerve (3), whereas in the octopus eye, 1 and 2 represent the nerve fibers and retina respectively.

​

Funny, right wingers feel if they can just disprove one itsy bitsy tiny thing, then the entire theory of evolution falls apart. Only they can't prove even that one itsy bitsy tiny thing.