Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[Dr.Drock]

Darwin himself said his theory of evolution was absurd ...That the human eye alone is so complex it could never evolve naturally ... Somehow Darwinist continue to find a way to ignore this fact ... If Darwin were alive today would consider believers in evolution morons...

Your statement is absurd. There's plenty of evidence that the eye did evolve.

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really, Who said this ?


"...it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations."

It is totally absurd to believe the eye didn't have a designer.

Wikipedia provides 32 sources for their evolution of the eye page, I'd love to see you go through all 32 and scientifically break down why they're all wrong.

 

[Woyzeck]

Are you not listening to us both,we believe in evolution within a species but not Macro-evolution.

I have shown you where scientist on your side admit there are no documented observations of Macro-evolution.

I have looked at what you posted and it's not Macro-evolution. You can call it Micro-evolution or Micro- adaptations, but not Macro.

There's other evidence indicating macro-evolution besides observations y'know. And I have in fact posted such evidence.

I'm still not sure why you say you accept speciation, but not macro-evolution.

No i don't know of any and nor does any scienctist.

Any documentation covered it.

Now you're just being purposely thick to avoid actually have to talk about the evidence I posted.

Fossil records? Vestigial parts from previous species? Naw, that's not evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Another quote for you fellas.

"The Blind Watchmaker." For those who wish to propose a naturalistic mechanism to explain complexity, the burden of proof cannot be relieved by appealing to supposed design "flaws." The best that evolutionist can do to disprove the theory of design is to demonstrate some real examples of evolution in action where a purely naturalistic mechanism actually works to form a comparably complex function of interacting parts. I have yet to see this done."

 

[Youwerecreated]

I've been very impressed by cbirch throughout this thread, you can tell he's very well versed on biology and other sciences. He can so quickly and easily squash all the evolution denier arguments that YWC has provided by using science.


Well done all around sir.

Dream on,by the way you really don't know enough about biology to understand that cbirch only answered the questions with a theory. He didn't give any explanation that has been proven or ever been obsered which is usually the case with evolutionist.

Did he offer proof that complex structures evolved from less complex structures ? no he only offered an explanation according to theory. Nothing that can be proven.

Cbirch might know the theory well but he can't prove anything he said.

He can't drive over to your house and give observational evidence of what he's saying, which even if he did do that you'd still claim your eyes were wrong and not change your opinion.

He's provided proof throughout this thread, for people who's minds aren't closed to new information, sadly yours is.

Really,now you're gonna spin ? no i have given plenty of reason for people to be excited about science, but be real and take your theory as it is, absurd.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your statement is absurd. There's plenty of evidence that the eye did evolve.

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really, Who said this ?


"...it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations."

It is totally absurd to believe the eye didn't have a designer.

Wikipedia provides 32 sources for their evolution of the eye page, I'd love to see you go through all 32 and scientifically break down why they're all wrong.

Oh i trust wiki ask cbirch what he thinks of wiki.

 

[Woyzeck]

Darwin himself said his theory of evolution was absurd ...That the human eye alone is so complex it could never evolve naturally ... Somehow Darwinist continue to find a way to ignore this fact ... If Darwin were alive today would consider believers in evolution morons...

Could we have a source? Because Darwin says otherwise in The Origin of Species.

Eyes are a particularly fascinating point of evolution. They're hardly proof for the existence of an intelligent designer any more than your own left arm is. Now what Darwin did to rebut this argument about eyes is particularly interesting. He surveyed existing species with functional and useful eyes and tried to see if he could string them into a hypothetical sequence that would produce the complex eyes we have today. And he did it.

You can start with simple eyespots that detect light in flatworms. From there, you can see how it would fold in, making a cup that protects this eyespot, and better localize the light source. Limpets have these sort of eyes. In chambered nautilus, you see the cup's opening narrowing which produces an improved image. In ragworms, the cup is covered by a transparent cover, in abalones, fluid in the eye forms a lens to help focus light. In mammals, nearby muscles help with focus and with moving the lens. And so on and so forth until you reach the current eye we ourselves have.

If that wasn't proof, there's a pair of Swedish scientists by the names of Dan-Eric Nilsson and Susanne Pelger who made a mathematical model concerning the evolution of eyes, similar to the path I just described. Starting with the basic eyespot, they allow the tissues to deform themselves randomly, limiting the change to about 1% of size or thickness at every step. To imitate natural selection, the model only accepted the mutations that would benefit the organism, as any that didn't would allow that organism to die off.

Well, the model worked, much like the progression that Darwin described. It went through 1,829 tiny adaptive steps. And how long did it take? Nilsson and Pelger calculated it, and it would take, using conservative numbers, less than 400,000 years. That's more than enough time for an eye to evolve in organisms, especially considering the earliest eyes started to arise more than 550 million years ago.

So, how is this proof of an intelligent designer again?

Do you know who said this ?

"...it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations."

Darwin does in fact say that saying natural selection evolving the eye sounded absurd. But as the section I linked shows he understood how the eye evolved very well, leading that sentence to be misquoted by creationists.

At any rate, a Google search turns up Ernst Mayr as the source (in a bunch of creationist websites too, nary an actual source of where he said it), but at this point it's an irrelevant distraction. The evolution of the eye has been observed and proved. It's not the product of intelligent design.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There's other evidence indicating macro-evolution besides observations y'know. And I have in fact posted such evidence.

I'm still not sure why you say you accept speciation, but not macro-evolution.

No i don't know of any and nor does any scienctist.

Any documentation covered it.

Now you're just being purposely thick to avoid actually have to talk about the evidence I posted.

Fossil records? Vestigial parts from previous species? Naw, that's not evidence.

Oh boy the cycle continues.

By the way i'm not thick i ride my mountain bike atleast 10 miles a day.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My research? No it's your job to prove what you say.

I've seen works that show Darwin saying and doing the exact opposite of what you say, so I'm going to need proof that he said the crazy stuff you claim.

Since you can't, I'll dismiss it as crazy, which is what I figured the first time you said it I just figured I'd give you a chance to prove what you said.

So what, he is just one of many that created this rediculous theory. Just some of them finely admit how absurd it is.

No, 1% of fundamentalist religion types who call themselves scientists deny evolution. Normally the main reason they do is money and fame, and secondary to that is religion.

99% of biologists don't deny evolution, you'll always have a crazy fringe of people no matter the subject.

So what wasn't the proper reply, the proper reply would be giving me evidence that Darwin said his life's work was absurd, otherwise the person who said he said that is just a flat out liar.

No, no ,and no again. We do not deny adaptations or small scale evolution called micro-evolution. The eye and the brain are not small scale evolution. One organism evolving in to another group of organism's like dinosaur's into birds are not small scale, that is macro-evolution.

 

[Woyzeck]

Another quote for you fellas.

"The Blind Watchmaker." For those who wish to propose a naturalistic mechanism to explain complexity, the burden of proof cannot be relieved by appealing to supposed design "flaws." The best that evolutionist can do to disprove the theory of design is to demonstrate some real examples of evolution in action where a purely naturalistic mechanism actually works to form a comparably complex function of interacting parts. I have yet to see this done.

There's no scientific evidence for the theory of design, only rhetoric based on someone's beliefs and misunderstandings of the actual evidence for evolution. There's no reason to even bother disproving it, given the fact that's it not a credible scientific theory.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now are you guy's gonna tell me who made those quotes ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Could we have a source? Because Darwin says otherwise in The Origin of Species.

Eyes are a particularly fascinating point of evolution. They're hardly proof for the existence of an intelligent designer any more than your own left arm is. Now what Darwin did to rebut this argument about eyes is particularly interesting. He surveyed existing species with functional and useful eyes and tried to see if he could string them into a hypothetical sequence that would produce the complex eyes we have today. And he did it.

You can start with simple eyespots that detect light in flatworms. From there, you can see how it would fold in, making a cup that protects this eyespot, and better localize the light source. Limpets have these sort of eyes. In chambered nautilus, you see the cup's opening narrowing which produces an improved image. In ragworms, the cup is covered by a transparent cover, in abalones, fluid in the eye forms a lens to help focus light. In mammals, nearby muscles help with focus and with moving the lens. And so on and so forth until you reach the current eye we ourselves have.

If that wasn't proof, there's a pair of Swedish scientists by the names of Dan-Eric Nilsson and Susanne Pelger who made a mathematical model concerning the evolution of eyes, similar to the path I just described. Starting with the basic eyespot, they allow the tissues to deform themselves randomly, limiting the change to about 1% of size or thickness at every step. To imitate natural selection, the model only accepted the mutations that would benefit the organism, as any that didn't would allow that organism to die off.

Well, the model worked, much like the progression that Darwin described. It went through 1,829 tiny adaptive steps. And how long did it take? Nilsson and Pelger calculated it, and it would take, using conservative numbers, less than 400,000 years. That's more than enough time for an eye to evolve in organisms, especially considering the earliest eyes started to arise more than 550 million years ago.

So, how is this proof of an intelligent designer again?

Do you know who said this ?

"...it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations."

Darwin does in fact say that saying natural selection evolving the eye sounded absurd. But as the section I linked shows he understood how the eye evolved very well, leading that sentence to be misquoted by creationists.

At any rate, a Google search turns up Ernst Mayr as the source (in a bunch of creationist websites too, nary an actual source of where he said it), but at this point it's an irrelevant distraction. The evolution of the eye has been observed and proved. It's not the product of intelligent design.

Do you know what Ernst Mayr is famous for ?

 

[Woyzeck]

Do you know who said this ?

"...it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations."

Darwin does in fact say that saying natural selection evolving the eye sounded absurd. But as the section I linked shows he understood how the eye evolved very well, leading that sentence to be misquoted by creationists.

At any rate, a Google search turns up Ernst Mayr as the source (in a bunch of creationist websites too, nary an actual source of where he said it), but at this point it's an irrelevant distraction. The evolution of the eye has been observed and proved. It's not the product of intelligent design.

Do you know what Ernst Mayr is famous for ?

Evolutionary biologist known for his theory of how species develop.

By the way this is entirely irrelevant, he was wrong at this count if the quote is true or to be believed. The eye DID evolve, and we've known this since Darwin's time.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Another quote for you fellas.

"The Blind Watchmaker." For those who wish to propose a naturalistic mechanism to explain complexity, the burden of proof cannot be relieved by appealing to supposed design "flaws." The best that evolutionist can do to disprove the theory of design is to demonstrate some real examples of evolution in action where a purely naturalistic mechanism actually works to form a comparably complex function of interacting parts. I have yet to see this done.

There's no scientific evidence for the theory of design, only rhetoric based on someone's beliefs and misunderstandings of the actual evidence for evolution. There's no reason to even bother disproving it, given the fact that's it not a credible scientific theory.

The correct term rhetoric,applies to your post. The same is easier said for your side.

Can't you see what you and cbirch are doing,you're are regurgitating what the theory say's you don't even realize the difference between theory and fact. You don't understand the difference between what has been proven and reality and speculation.

Someone willing to eliminate the possibility of design has an agenda. Especially since they have no proven mechanism of how it could of happened.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Darwin does in fact say that saying natural selection evolving the eye sounded absurd. But as the section I linked shows he understood how the eye evolved very well, leading that sentence to be misquoted by creationists.

At any rate, a Google search turns up Ernst Mayr as the source (in a bunch of creationist websites too, nary an actual source of where he said it), but at this point it's an irrelevant distraction. The evolution of the eye has been observed and proved. It's not the product of intelligent design.

Do you know what Ernst Mayr is famous for ?

Evolutionary biologist known for his theory of how species develop.

By the way this is entirely irrelevant, he was wrong at this count if the quote is true or to be believed. The eye DID evolve, and we've known this since Darwin's time.

No if it really has been proven i would not be here arguing against it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Darwin does in fact say that saying natural selection evolving the eye sounded absurd. But as the section I linked shows he understood how the eye evolved very well, leading that sentence to be misquoted by creationists.

At any rate, a Google search turns up Ernst Mayr as the source (in a bunch of creationist websites too, nary an actual source of where he said it), but at this point it's an irrelevant distraction. The evolution of the eye has been observed and proved. It's not the product of intelligent design.

Do you know what Ernst Mayr is famous for ?

Evolutionary biologist known for his theory of how species develop.

By the way this is entirely irrelevant, he was wrong at this count if the quote is true or to be believed. The eye DID evolve, and we've known this since Darwin's time.

By the way the other quote was Dawkins.

 

[Woyzeck]

Another quote for you fellas.

"The Blind Watchmaker." For those who wish to propose a naturalistic mechanism to explain complexity, the burden of proof cannot be relieved by appealing to supposed design "flaws." The best that evolutionist can do to disprove the theory of design is to demonstrate some real examples of evolution in action where a purely naturalistic mechanism actually works to form a comparably complex function of interacting parts. I have yet to see this done.

There's no scientific evidence for the theory of design, only rhetoric based on someone's beliefs and misunderstandings of the actual evidence for evolution. There's no reason to even bother disproving it, given the fact that's it not a credible scientific theory.

The correct term rhetoric,applies to your post. The same is easier said for your side.

Can't you see what you and cbirch are doing,you're are regurgitating what the theory say's you don't even realize the difference between theory and fact. You don't understand the difference between what has been proven and reality and speculation.

Someone willing to eliminate the possibility of design has an agenda. Especially since they have no proven mechanism of how it could of happened.

Bullshit and you know it. I've provided various examples of biological interest and evidence and you haven't posted evidence to support your side. All you can offer is "the eye is too complex to evolve" which is true for someone who doesn't understand modern biology at all. Which very clearly you don't given your notions on what natural selection is, and how things evolve.

 

[Woyzeck]

Do you know what Ernst Mayr is famous for ?

Evolutionary biologist known for his theory of how species develop.

By the way this is entirely irrelevant, he was wrong at this count if the quote is true or to be believed. The eye DID evolve, and we've known this since Darwin's time.

No if it really has been proven i would not be here arguing against it.

I gave you proof two pages ago!

 

[Dr.Drock]

Really, Who said this ?


"...it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations."

It is totally absurd to believe the eye didn't have a designer.

Wikipedia provides 32 sources for their evolution of the eye page, I'd love to see you go through all 32 and scientifically break down why they're all wrong.

Oh i trust wiki ask cbirch what he thinks of wiki.

I didn't say you had to trust wiki, there's 32 sources on the page having no connection to wiki. Go through and prove the 32 sources wrong, I'll wait patiently.

 

[Woyzeck]

Do you know what Ernst Mayr is famous for ?

Evolutionary biologist known for his theory of how species develop.

By the way this is entirely irrelevant, he was wrong at this count if the quote is true or to be believed. The eye DID evolve, and we've known this since Darwin's time.

By the way the other quote was Dawkins.

There was only one quote that you replied to me with unless I missed it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Dream on,by the way you really don't know enough about biology to understand that cbirch only answered the questions with a theory. He didn't give any explanation that has been proven or ever been obsered which is usually the case with evolutionist.

Did he offer proof that complex structures evolved from less complex structures ? no he only offered an explanation according to theory. Nothing that can be proven.

Cbirch might know the theory well but he can't prove anything he said.

He can't drive over to your house and give observational evidence of what he's saying, which even if he did do that you'd still claim your eyes were wrong and not change your opinion.

He's provided proof throughout this thread, for people who's minds aren't closed to new information, sadly yours is.

Really,now you're gonna spin ? no i have given plenty of reason for people to be excited about science, but be real and take your theory as it is, absurd.

The biggest issue we have on this subject, is I take evolutionary biologists research and findings on evolution more seriously than I take philosophy majors and bible bloggers, the people you subscribe to.