The dangers of Evolution

[webmaster]

http://www.radioforjesus.com/?cmd=liste ... lename.pls


http://www.radioforjesus.com/?cmd=liste ... lename.pls


Jesus is Lord!

[Aineo]

As Quammen points out at the beginning of his article, public opinion polls conducted over the past twenty years have consistently shown that only about 12% of Americans accept Darwin's theory that "humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a god." The reference to "god" is significant, because it shows that science is not the only thing at stake here: Darwinism also makes religious and philosophical claims. Most importantly, Darwinism is committed to naturalism, the philosophy that nature is all that exists and God is imaginary -- or at least unnecessary. It is not surprising, then, that many people reject Darwinism on religious grounds. Nevertheless, Quammen maintains, most Americans are antievolutionists only because of "confusion and ignorance," because "they have never taken a biology course that deals with evolution nor read a book in which the theory was lucidly described."

If Quammen's article had accurately presented not only the evidence for Darwin's theory, but also the problems with that evidence, it might have made a valuable contribution to scientific literacy in America. As it stands, however, the article is nothing more than a beautifully illustrated propaganda piece. The readers of National Geographic deserve better.
National Geographic Ignores The Flaws in Darwin's Theory

[Yehren]

Gallup has been asking this question for some time. This year, for the first time, a majority of Americans acknowledged that humans developed from other organisms. Most of them thought God was responsible. Only about 12% thought it was without God's action. Thirty-nine percent thought people evolved from other organisms with God's involvement, for a total of 51% who accepted that humans have developed from other organisms.

About 45% thought humans were created pretty much as they are.

[Joe Meert]

Gallup has been asking this question for some time. This year, for the first time, a majority of Americans acknowledged that humans developed from other organisms. Most of them thought God was responsible. Only about 12% thought it was without God's action. Thirty-nine percent thought people evolved from other organisms with God's involvement, for a total of 51% who accepted that humans have developed from other organisms.

About 45% thought humans were created pretty much as they are.

JM: Yes, but it should also be noted that science is not a democracy. If everyone in the US voted against gravity and then climbed up the Empire State Building and jumped off, gravity would not care. Science is about who has the most evidence to bring forth. Evolution won that battle handily over the past century and ID, for its braggadocio, has not brought any scientific evidence in support of its case. Thus, I think the polls are interesting, but irrelevant to the science involved.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

It should be noted that any human can "test" gravity for himself. However, science has yet to "test" evolution. Darwinism is a theory based on assumptions that have yet to be proven.

As to the shift in American's perspective what else can you expect when a differing view is excluded from the classroom only because if involves a theological view? This is academic censorship enforced by non-scientific mechanisms.

When honest research and differing conclusions are based on something other than science our society suffers.

[Aineo]

BTW, your poll figures are false unless you can link to the poll:

November 19, 2004
Third of Americans Say Evidence Has Supported Darwin's Evolution Theory
Almost half of Americans believe God created humans 10,000 years ago


by Frank Newport

Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don't know enough to say. Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107

EVOLUTION AND THE POLLS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public opinion polls have been repeatedly taken of parents, students, and teachers—and they have consistently responded that they want creation science taught in the schools of our land! This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/22sch02.htm

Driving a Stake into the Heart of Evolution

More Believe in Creation Than Evolution - Poll

[Joe Meert]

It should be noted that any human can "test" gravity for himself. However, science has yet to "test" evolution. Darwinism is a theory based on assumptions that have yet to be proven.

JM: Evolution is tested every day as well and you are living proof of evolution. What's interesting is that we still don't know why gravity exists nor can we explain gravity at the quantum level. Why are you not protesting against the teaching of gravitational theory which is just as tenuous as evolutionary theory?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Yehren]

In 2005, the Gallup Poll found 51% of Americans acknowledge that humans developed from other orranisms. Of these, only about 12% thought it happened without God being involved.

Only 45% thought that humans were created pretty much as they are today.

The rest offered no opinion.

You can find this at the Gallup site, but you have to register.

[Yehren]

Your point is well taken, Joe. We don't know why gravity occurs, but we know precisely how and why evolution works.

[Aineo]

Darwinian evolution has not been "tested" in the same manner gravity can be tested. My objections to Darwinian evolution are many and not the least of my objections is the lengths its advocates will go to in an attempt to suppress those who oppose it.

[Yehren]

Darwinian evolution has not been "tested" in the same manner gravity can be tested.

Undergraduates in biology do that regularly. Our present antibiotic protocols are based on evolutionary theory.

We are even working now to anticipate evolution in order to deal with antibiotic resistance by bacteria.
"Future Darwin
It's difficult enough to piece together the ghost of evolution past, but now Barry Hall from Rochester University has devised a model that predicts evolution in the future. Unfortunately it won't tell us whether we'll grow smarter; it's designed to forecast bacterial evolution. The model is accurate enough to show how bacteria are likely to evolve in response to a new antibiotic: the researchers can then attempt to design a drug to which bacteria are unable to evolve resistance. "It's an arms race," says Hall. "We make a drug and after a while, the bugs adapt to it, so we give them a variant of the drug. But if we can predict how they're going to get around our treatments, we can work out a way to make that route impossible for them."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Distribution/ ... 17,00.html

My objections to Darwinian evolution are many and not the least of my objections is the lengths its advocates will go to in an attempt to suppress those who oppose it.

I suppose that when scientists start demanding that textbooks have stickers denouncing creationism, that will be a reality. For the moment, the inquisition seems to be coming from the creationist community.

[Aineo]

If you expect me to believe that since November of 2004 the polls show a major shift in people's attitudes toward evolution I want to see the poll online.

Joe did not make a valid comparison between Darwinian evolution and gravity. This is just another attempt to obfuscate the issue. Science may be having difficulty in explaining gravity but we experience gravity on a daily basis. The proof as they say is in the pudding. If anyone rejects the law of gravity and jumps off a 10 story building they cannot change their mind unless they have a parachute. On the other hand Darwinian evolution has no significance to daily life and cannot be tested in the lab.

It is a theory put forth by a man with a socio-political agenda that is not dissimilar to ID, a method you seem to fear. And don’t try to tell me ID does not have a scientific basis as that is simply begging the question.

[Yehren]

"To assess public opinion on creationism, Gallup asked:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings?
1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,
2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process,
3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?
Polled in November 2004, 38% of respondents chose (1), 13% chose (2), 45% chose (3), and 4% offered a different or no opinion. These results are also similar to those from previous Gallup polls, which extend back to 1982."

It also points out:

"Demographically, the article reports, belief that evolution is well-supported by the evidence is strongest "among those with the most education, liberals, those living in the West, those who seldom attend church, and ... Catholics," and weakest among "those with the least education, older Americans ..., frequent church attendees, conservatives, Protestants, those living in the middle of the country, and Republicans."
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2 ... 9_2004.asp

The facts that it's strongest among the young, the well-educated, and Catholics would be an indicator evolution will be increasingly accepted. All these demographics are expected to increase.

The fact that it's weakest among frequent church-goers would work against that. Church attendence is up.

It appears that the advantage is slowly leaning toward science and against creationism.

[Joe Meert]

Joe did not make a valid comparison between Darwinian evolution and gravity. This is just another attempt to obfuscate the issue. Science may be having difficulty in explaining gravity but we experience gravity on a daily basis. The proof as they say is in the pudding. If anyone rejects the law of gravity and jumps off a 10 story building they cannot change their mind unless they have a parachute. On the other hand Darwinian evolution has no significance to daily life and cannot be tested in the lab.

JM: As Yehren pointed out, evolution is indeed tested everyday in the lab and the comparison to gravitational theory is valid. The problem is that gravity does not challenge the ego in humans in the same manner as evolution. For some, it just 'feels' denigrating to know that you share a common ancestry with the great apes. I don't know why that causes so much discomfort, but then again I suspect this is why evolution is so troubling to many.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[justforfun000]

JM: As Yehren pointed out, evolution is indeed tested everyday in the lab and the comparison to gravitational theory is valid. The problem is that gravity does not challenge the ego in humans in the same manner as evolution. For some, it just 'feels' denigrating to know that you share a common ancestry with the great apes. I don't know why that causes so much discomfort, but then again I suspect this is why evolution is so troubling to many.

I can point it out quite easily. Why is it troubling to so many? It invalidates the Biblical Inerrists. That's the simple answer.

If you AREN'T constrained by that unsupported idea, then it doesn't threaten Religion. Evolution has nothing to do with where we came from, or even if there is an intelligence behind our "creation". It's simply observing a measurable pattern of how life evolves. As in changes. As in adapts. It's so monkey simply (no pun intended), that I find it highly amusing to see such a vendetta against it.

[Aineo]

Hypocrisy will not make your case. Darwinian evolution is not tested in labs every day and you know it. Evolution within a family or species falls short of evolution from reptiles to mammals.

Yehren, as to the poll, if you took the time to read the whole story you linked to plus the links I posted the Gallup organization stated that attitudes have not changed since 1982. Remember I am familiar with playing numbers and that sir is all you are trying to do.

[justforfun000]

Hypocrisy will not make your case.

Spell out what you consider hypocrisy

Darwinian evolution is not tested in labs every day and you know it

So? It's been a testable theory when it's been examined for the purpose of verification. There is no need to do so on a "daily" basis.

Evolution within a family or species falls short of evolution from reptiles to mammals.

This is where you demonstrate your ignorance of evolution. I'm not even that schooled in it and I know the answer to this.

Evolution never SAID that reptiles evolve into mammals. The differentation into different species was done at a MUCH earlier point in the process.

[webmaster]

Hypocrisy will not make your case.

Spell out what you consider hypocrisy

HYPOC'RISY, n. [L. hypocrisis; Gr. simulation; to feign; to separate, discern or judge.]


1. Simulation; a feigning to be what one is not; or dissimulation, a concealment of one's real character or motives. More generally, hypocrisy is simulation, or the assuming of a false appearance of virtue or religion; a deceitful show of a good character, in morals or religion; a counterfeiting of religion.

Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Luke 12.

2. Simulation; deceitful appearance; false pretence.

Hypocrisy is the necessary burden of villainy.

I am curious do you not understand english 101?

[Aineo]

Sure, I will spell out why I used the word hyporisy.

1. Joe Meert refuses to address the science of ID scientists because they have not been published in scienific journals.
2. Joe Meert and the others call ID science psuedoscience.
3. Joe Meert and the others admit they have not read the science of ID scientists, yet label their science psuedoscience based on point 1.
4. Joe Meert and the others oppose ID because of its supposed socio-political agenda.
5. Joe Meert and the others ignore the fact that Darwin, Lyell, and Huxley had a socio-political agenda.
6. Joe Meert and others change the meaning of "evolution" at their convenience.
7. Joe Meert and others are using non-scientific sources to denegrate a movement they admit they have not read.
8. ID is not a "science"; ID is a method of approaching science in the same manner that all scientists approach science.

In other words Joe Meert and his cohorts have hit this board to denigrate the science of men without any intention of discussing science; there only goal is to disparage the socio-political basis of ID.

BTW, all life according to Darwin started with a one-celled animal and progressed to fish to reptiles and then to mammals so my statement although not perfect is accurate.

The evolutionary literature just makes the bold assertion that reptiles evolved
into mammals, which forces us to make assumptions about the details they must
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v6i5e.htm

The Ancestors of Mammals

Or you can pick and choose which of the 150,000 sites to read by checking on this link:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n ... to+mammals

[The Puppetmaster]

For those that dispute macorevolution, can they provide a good reason for the existence of Biarmosuchia, Haptodus, Procynosuchus, Varanops and others?

I also find it alarming that people consider evolution "a threat" when it is the religious right who seem to be pushing an agenda contrary to what science dictates.

[Aineo]

Would you care to be a little less technicle with your fossil names or is being elitist more important than communicating with the masses?

Why should ID cause atheists and evolutionists so much concern? If ID is not "science" then what do you fear?

[The Puppetmaster]

:D Would you care to be a little less technicle with your fossil names or is being elitist more important than communicating with the masses?

Why should ID cause atheists and evolutionists so much concern? If ID is not "science" then what do you fear?

How less technical would you like? A paragraph description of the organism or a drawn picture perhaps? Use Google.

I don't fear anything. It is merely a hobby of mine to discuss this subject. If ID and Creationism had any real ability to win the scientific community and the public over, then maybe I'd be worried. But they don't, and so I'm not.

[Joe Meert]

Sure, I will spell out why I used the word hyporisy.
[*] Joe Meert refuses to address the science of ID scientists because they have not been published in scienific journals.
[*] Joe Meert and the others call ID science psuedoscience.
[*] Joe Meert and the others admit they have not read the science of ID scientists, yet label their science psuedoscience based on point 1.

JM: Umm, if they haven't published their 'science' in science journals, then how can it be hypocritical to not read material that does not exist? Statements 1 and 3 make absolutely NO sense. Number 2 is not hypocritical, it is merely a statement of opinion.


[*] Joe Meert and the others oppose ID because of its supposed socio-political agenda.

JM: Again not hypocritical it is a statement of opinion.


[*] Joe Meert and the others ignore the fact that Darwin, Lyell, and Huxley had a socio-political agenda.

JM: Not hypocritical because I have never stated whether or not I thought any of these people had a socio-political agenda.

[*] Joe Meert and others change the meaning of "evolution" at their convenience.

JM: I've never once changed my definition of evolution.


[*] Joe Meert and others are using non-scientific sources to denegrate a movement they admit they have not read.

JM: I'm using statements made by ID people directly. If you say they are non-scientific sources, I agree 100%.

[*] ID is not a "science"; ID is a method of approaching science in the same manner that all scientists approach science.

JM: Nope, by your own admission (and Paul Nelson) ID is not yet scientific because they do not engage in scientific discourse. It's not hypocritical to state facts in evidence.

In other words Joe Meert and his cohorts have hit this board to denigrate the science of men without any intention of discussing science; there only goal is to disparage the socio-political basis of ID.

JM: Nope, I've said nothig bad about the science of any of the people you listed. I've simply agreed with your premise that they have not published ID in the scientific literature. Based on some of their credentials, their science is quite good. However, their science is NOT ID.

JM: Lastly, I've read plenty of material written by ID'ists. It's just that none of it is in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In fact, most of the material is just an attack on evolution rather than any rigorous development of ID as a viable alternative. As I mentioned before (and you conveniently ignore), ID is not dead in the water yet. ID'ists actually have to propose something in the normal scientific venues and quit fighting their battles in courts and school board meetings. Why not try and focus on meaningful discussion instead of incorrectly labeling me a hypocrite? Then again, if labeling me a hypocrite makes you feel better about your points, then go ahead but let's try to focus on a meaningful discussion. It seems that we can bang heads forever on non-existent scientific literature from the ID'ists (remember YOU told me that they had not published in the scientific literature....although I already knew that)

Cheers

Joe Meert

[webmaster]

For those that dispute macorevolution, can they provide a good reason for the existence of Biarmosuchia, Haptodus, Procynosuchus, Varanops and others?

I also find it alarming that people consider evolution "a threat" when it is the religious right who seem to be pushing an agenda contrary to what science dictates.

Well thank you for this comment the religious right.

Do you have but one arm and was born with such per evolution?

Wouldn't there also be then the religious left?

Faith can be called Evolution, because that is the mirror of the heart that reflects the realities of the World which they chose to see from within the dark cave that some chose to live within!

[Aineo]

:D Would you care to be a little less technicle with your fossil names or is being elitist more important than communicating with the masses?

Why should ID cause atheists and evolutionists so much concern? If ID is not "science" then what do you fear?

How less technical would you like? A paragraph description of the organism or a drawn picture perhaps? Use Google.

I don't fear anything. It is merely a hobby of mine to discuss this subject. If ID and Creationism had any real ability to win the scientific community and the public over, then maybe I'd be worried. But they don't, and so I'm not.

How less technical can you get? Are these fossil horses, cows, sheep, wolves, reptiles, or whatever I can think of lots of ways to make technicle terms understandable to the masses. If you insist on using technicle terms then give all three names of the animal and not just one; that will help identify it.

If you want to discuss ID then discuss the science of those you think are ID and dangerous to your agenda. If you can't then your hobby is a waste of time.

[The Puppetmaster]

How less technical can you get? Are these fossil horses, cows, sheep, wolves, reptiles, or whatever I can think of lots of ways to make technicle terms understandable to the masses. If you insist on using technicle terms then give all three names of the animal and not just one; that will help identify it.

If you want to discuss ID then discuss the science of those you think are ID and dangerous to your agenda. If you can't then your hobby is a waste of time.

Animals have more than three names, if you're referring to Linnean taxonomy.

Those creatures are mixed, for instance, the Varanops is a lizard with the beginnings of mammalian features.

[Aineo]

Joe my list of reasons for labeling you and yours hypocrits is far from nonsensical.

You label ID scientists as psuedoscientists, mantain you cannot discuss their science because they have not published in science journals, which is hypocritical because by opposing someone you have not read and judging the science of someone you have not read is a value judgment; not an opinion and is playing the hypocrite.

Darwinian evolution is not "evolving" from my father to me and therefore you change the meaning of "evolution" at your convenience.

Your playing games and I have played these types of games in the business world for 40 years and I played games in gay bars for over 30 years. I recognize your tactics and have used them myself before "integrity" became more important than being "right".

Darwinian evolution has not been tested in the lab or we would not be having this discussion.

[Aineo]

Animals have more than three names, if you're referring to Linnean taxonomy.

Those creatures are mixed, for instance, the Varanops is a lizard with the beginnings of mammalian features.

So we are speaking of lizards that look like mammals. I had a college professor who had the facial features of an angus cow; does that mean he evolved from a cow?

[The Puppetmaster]

Varanops (early Permian) -- Temporal fenestra further enlarged. Braincase floor shows first mammalian tendencies & first signs of stronger attachment to rest of skull (occiput more strongly attached). Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature (slight coronoid eminence). Body narrower, deeper: vertebral column more strongly constructed. Ilium further enlarged, lower-limb musculature starts to change (prominent fourth trochanter on femur). This animal was more mobile and active. Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".

And your point is what? That an extinct lizard with physiological similarities to mammals that are not "true ancestors" evolved into what?

BTW, if Darwinian evolution is true why don't we see new humanoids evolving now? Or has evolution ceased?

[Tiggy]

Aineo, I mean this as constructive criticism:

You are supposedly attempting an honest, scientifically accurate debate on a particular topic.

You chastise your opponent for using the correct, scientifically accurate technical terms instead of bothering to learn the scientific terms yourself.

If you can't be bothered to learn the basic terminology of that which you are arguing against, what does that say for the rest of your credibility on the topic?

Perhaps it would help if you listed the college level scientific classes and/or training you do have. Then we may tailor our answers down to your particular level.

- Tiggy

[The Puppetmaster]

Well, someone quite handily edited my post...

As to the "why humans aren't evolving now", what evidence do you have that evolution has stopped? Do you expect humans to sponteanously morph into birds over a fortnight?

I'm sorry, friend who edited my post, but evolution is not a fast process by any stretch and humans are beyond natural selection to an extent because of the size of our civilisation now which makes selective pressures rare given we don't suffer predation, have vast amounts of technology and are in large abundance.

[Aineo]

Twiggy, I am 61 years old entered college as a pre-med student changed to business and have absolutely no intent of learning a specialized language to accomodate Internet trolls whose only purpose is to disrupt this forum.

If our elitist members are truely interested in honest communication then they will take the time to communicate in terms the average person can understand or find a science forum where they can communicate in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or Latvian for all I care.

Now you people started this argument so you can bring yourselves down to our level or leave.

[Tiggy]

Well, someone quite handily edited my post...

Yes, I saw the before and after versions. Helen Setterfield used to do the same thing on the now defunct BaptistBoard. Looks like deja vu all over again.

- Tiggy

[Aineo]

Well, someone quite handily edited my post...

As to the "why humans aren't evolving now", what evidence do you have that evolution has stopped? Do you expect humans to sponteanously morph into birds over a fortnight?

I'm sorry, friend who edited my post, but evolution is not a fast process by any stretch and humans are beyond natural selection to an extent because of the size of our civilisation now which makes selective pressures rare given we don't suffer predation, have vast amounts of technology and are in large abundance.

I hit the edit instead of the quote. Its been a while since I goofed like that.

I would expect to see continual evolution of reptiles to mammals if evolution is indeed fact, and I don't mean "variations" from father to son to grandson.

[The Puppetmaster]

So because science and medicine uses a dead language for the benefits it has and because you're too lazy to actually look up the names (which are the common names that are taught in school in this country), that makes our arguments "elitist" and not worthy of your time?

Fair enough.

[webmaster]

Maybe it's all about pride with the big words!

Satan's downfall was???????

Makes you think doesn't it!

[Aineo]

Well, someone quite handily edited my post...

Yes, I saw the before and after versions. Helen Setterfield used to do the same thing on the now defunct BaptistBoard. Looks like deja vu all over again.

- Tiggy

One more comment like that and you are history. If you will get off your self-righteous horse and read my last post I admitted to goofing up.

[The Puppetmaster]

I hit the edit instead of the quote. Its been a while since I goofed like that.

I would expect to see continual evolution of reptiles to mammals if evolution is indeed fact, and I don't mean "variations" from father to son to grandson.

Apology accepted.

And the same goes for reptiles. They take millions of years to evolve new features that aren't on the molecular or very small level at least. It is hard, nigh, impossible to point to a species today and state what it will be in the future and then show how. Until someone can rapidly make time pass within an enclosed biosphere and witness selective pressures that take place over millions of years within a few minutes, there is not much we can show you other than fossils and vestigial organs and features. Sorry.

[The Puppetmaster]

Maybe it's all about pride with the big words!

Satan's downfall was???????

Makes you think doesn't it!

And this has what bearing on the discussion?

Attack the science, not the archaisms.

[Aineo]

So because science and medicine uses a dead language for the benefits it has and because you're too lazy to actually look up the names (which are the common names that are taught in school in this country), that makes our arguments "elitist" and not worthy of your time?

Fair enough.

I took 3 years of Latin and still have the textbooks. And if you read what I posted with any understanding I made myself clear.

I do not have the time to learn a specialized language so Internet trolls can disput this message board. If advancing our knowledge is your agenda you will learn to communicate effectively; a skill I had to learn after graduating from college so I could communicate with less educated people effectively to get a job done properly. I did not expect those less educated or knowledgable than I am to learn how to communicate at college level.

[Aineo]

And the same goes for reptiles. They take millions of years to evolve new features that aren't on the molecular or very small level at least. It is hard, nigh, impossible to point to a species today and state what it will be in the future and then show how. Until someone can rapidly make time pass within an enclosed biosphere and witness selective pressures that take place over millions of years within a few minutes, there is not much we can show you other than fossils and vestigial organs and features. Sorry.

So in other words you are making assumptions based on what might be true? You cannot show by testing your hypothesis that it is true. So I should put my intellect on hold and bow to a theory declared fact? Not hardly!!

[Tiggy]

Ainel,

You misunderstand; I meant no offense by my honest observation about the previous editing. I accept and forgive the fact that this time it was a simple human error.

Thanks for your honesty too in admitting your almost total lack of education on the technical topics you are attempting to discuss here. I will try to keep that in mind when answering. Understand, however, that the real science involved is deep, complex, and quite technical in nature, so it will be hard to present the concepts in any meaningful fashion unless you at least make an attempt to learn. The details mean everything when discussing scientific evidence.

- Tiggy

[The Puppetmaster]

So in other words you are making assumptions based on what might be true? You cannot show by testing your hypothesis that it is true. So I should put my intellect on hold and bow to a theory declared fact? Not hardly!!

Because one facet of the theory cannot be shown in real time does not invalidate the whole theory.

I have posted the transitional fossils that are most interesting to us.

[Aineo]

Ainel,

You misunderstand; I meant no offense by my honest observation about the previous editing. I accept and forgive the fact that this time it was a simple human error.

Thanks for your honesty too in admitting your almost total lack of education on the technical topics you are attempting to discuss here. I will try to keep that in mind when answering. Understand, however, that the real science involved is deep, complex, and quite technical in nature, so it will be hard to present the concepts in any meaningful fashion unless you at least make an attempt to learn. The details mean everything when discussing scientific evidence.

- Tiggy

First my screen name is A I N E O. I don’t usually make an issue of my screen name being misspelled but since you are making an issue over others lack of “education” I think it is appropriate since you don’t need special skills to read and duplicate a word in plain site.

Second I did not admit I have a lack of knowledge concerning the topic under discussion. I posted I do not have the desire or intent to learn, a better choice of words would have been relearn. The fact I entered college with a pre-med major should have told you something you ignored.

And third being condescending is a sign of arrogance and pride, which are two attitudes not welcome on this board.

And forth only elitists whose pride outweighs common sense would go to a non-scientific board and use terms the average person does not understand and use them with such a condescending manner. Or did you also miss what I shared about effective communication with those who were not fortunate enough to attend college?

[Aineo]

Because one facet of the theory cannot be shown in real time does not invalidate the whole theory.

I have posted the transitional fossils that are most interesting to us.

Teaching any theory as fact that cannot be demonstrated by testing invalidates it being taught as fact.

The truth concerning Darwinian evolution is it cannot be tested to demonstrate that reptiles can or did evolve into mammals. This is simply a hypothesis and is taught as fact because science cannot find any other rational explanation short of a creator and is therefore a socio-political theory with an agenda.

“Evolution within a family, species, or sub-species is both observable and testable. Darwinian evolution is neither observable nor testable and therefore lacks sufficient credibility to be forced into textbooks as a fact. And since we have the historical documentation from Darwin’s notes that reveal the agenda behind his writings we know his agenda was to disprove a creator and all religions and that also brings the credibility of his theory into question.

[justforfun000]

I am curious do you not understand english 101?

I'm curious, do you not understand I was asking him to point how I was being hypocritical? NOT the meaning of the word? That should have been obvious.

[justforfun000]

BTW, all life according to Darwin started with a one-celled animal and progressed to fish to reptiles and then to mammals so my statement although not perfect is accurate.

Sorry. you are correct. I posted without checking first. I went on my assumption that they were a different branch of the evolutionary beginnings of different species.

I found this out on another forum when I asked if that was a correct rebuttal.

They told me this:

synapsids are a branch of reptiles, technically. many mammal-like reptiles existed in the late Permian and Early Triassic.

of course, one should stay away from statements like, "reptiles turned into mammals" as this is not an accurate description of the process. reptiles branched off into anapsids, diapsids, archosaurs and synapsids. synapsids branched off into pelycosaurs and therapsids. cynodonts, a group of therapsids, are believed to be the ancestors of modern mammals.

[Tiggy]

the following messages posted by Aineo:

First

Twiggy, I am 61 years old entered college as a pre-med student...

Second

I used to have my own color darkroom Twiggy

finally we get

First my screen name is A I N E O. I don’t usually make an issue of my screen name being misspelled but since you are making an issue over others lack of “education” I think it is appropriate since you don’t need special skills to read and duplicate a word in plain site.

Now, what exactly was your point?

T I G G Y

[Aineo]

I am curious do you not understand english 101?

I'm curious, do you not understand I was asking him to point how I was being hypocritical? NOT the meaning of the word? That should have been obvious.

I don’t believe I said you were being hypocritical just in case you were thinking that remark was aimed at you.

Now, what exactly was your point?

T I G G Y

:D You were the one making condescending and sarcastic posts concerning my being lazy about taking the time to learn or relearn a vocabulary used in evolutionary biology and other sciences. So I pointed out that for a woman who chooses to be critical about others your own attention to detail is severely lacking.

As to twiggy vs tiggy, I occasionally compose responses in Word, spell check and then post my reply. Word 2000 corrected what it thought was a misspelled word and I did not catch that your screen name was changed from Tiggy to Twiggy. Since I have AIDS and the HIV virus penetrated my brain I frequently misspell words since the virus has affected my cognitive abilities, which why I am on disability and not longer able to work. You have your explanation.

Now do you think you can address my questions concerning the human eye and depth of field vs. a cephalopod’s eye and depth of field and how is the blind spot in the human eye is detrimental to us?

[doppelganger]

Twiggy, I am 61 years old entered college as a pre-med student changed to business and have absolutely no intent of learning a specialized language to accomodate Internet trolls whose only purpose is to disrupt this forum.

If our elitist members are truely interested in honest communication then they will take the time to communicate in terms the average person can understand or find a science forum where they can communicate in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or Latvian for all I care.

Now you people started this argument so you can bring yourselves down to our level or leave.

Trolls? Elitists?

oh dear....

[doppelganger]

So because science and medicine uses a dead language for the benefits it has and because you're too lazy to actually look up the names (which are the common names that are taught in school in this country), that makes our arguments "elitist" and not worthy of your time?

Fair enough.

I took 3 years of Latin and still have the textbooks. And if you read what I posted with any understanding I made myself clear.

I do not have the time to learn a specialized language so Internet trolls can disput this message board. If advancing our knowledge is your agenda you will learn to communicate effectively; a skill I had to learn after graduating from college so I could communicate with less educated people effectively to get a job done properly. I did not expect those less educated or knowledgable than I am to learn how to communicate at college level.

A helpful hint -

Labeling people 'trolls' will probably not make them any more civil, and it just makes you look desperate.

In science, terminology must be precise, for, among other reasons, a 'lay' term may have a different meaning in different fields of science. Take the word 'random', for example. To the average person, random probably means 'willy nilly' or 'haphazard.'
That is not the meaning in evolutionary biology.
So, you should make an effort to at leawst use the terms correctly. If you do not understand a term, say so, don't just label us elitist trolls for using the terminology we have been trained to use.

[justforfun000]

I don’t believe I said you were being hypocritical just in case you were thinking that remark was aimed at you.

Oh ok. In context it looked like you were talking to me. You must have been addressing two posts in one. lol.

No worries. I was truly confused.

[Aineo]

doppelganger, do a Google search using "internet troll" then review Joe Meert's post; a man who came here as a scientist to discuss science and has done nothing but denigrate other scientists through an elitist attitude that limits truth shared to publications in science journals. Just how more elitist can you get?

My description of you and your cohorts is accurate.

[Andreas]

doppelganger, do a Google search using "internet troll" then review Joe Meert's post; a man who came here as a scientist to discuss science and has done nothing but denigrate other scientists through an elitist attitude that limits truth shared to publications in science journals. Just how more elitist can you get?

May I help? From wikipedia:

An Internet troll is a person who sends duplicitous messages to get angry responses. The term derives from the phrase "trolling for suckers" and ultimately from trolling for fish. The term is frequently abused to slander opponents in heated debates and is frequently misapplied to those who are ignorant of etiquette.

[doppelganger]

doppelganger, do a Google search using "internet troll"

OK -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

"An Internet troll is a person who sends duplicitous messages to get angry responses. The term derives from the phrase "trolling for suckers" and ultimately from trolling for fish. The term is frequently abused to slander opponents in heated debates and is frequently misapplied to those who are ignorant of etiquette."

"Calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives that are impossible to determine, whereas using the verb (calling a post "trolling") describes the reception of a post without making assumptions about motives. Such assumptions would generally be an example of the fundamental attribution error; i.e. inferring that behavior results from a person's nature or personality rather than examining behavior in the context of events surrounding the behavior. In other words, trolling may have more to do with context than with personality. Also, it may be possible to troll unintentionally. Regardless, both users and posts are commonly labelled as trolls when their content upsets people.

The term troll is highly subjective, and some posts will look like trolling to some while seeming like meaningful contributions to others. For example, a so-called troll may be playing Devil's advocate by stating conservative opinions in a liberal forum. Behavior which might be considered a simple rampage or an emotional outburst in other environments is often tagged with the term troll in Internet discussion.

The term is frequently used to discredit an opposing position in an argument. This can amount to an ad hominem argument; a purported troll of this nature may actually hold an insightful but controversial position that is generating controversy precisely because it has successfully challenged entrenched opinions."


Ok, so what exactly was I supposed ot glean about the term by doing a Google search?

then review Joe Meert's post; a man who came here as a scientist to discuss science and has done nothing but denigrate other scientists through an elitist attitude that limits truth shared to publications in science journals. Just how more elitist can you get?

Well, who was it that declared ID/creationists to be great scientists because their 'science' was published?

My description of you and your cohorts is accurate.

Actually, I prefer the Wikipedia treatment of the term.

I have not tried to disrupt anything.

[doppelganger]

doppelganger, do a Google search using "internet troll" then review Joe Meert's post; a man who came here as a scientist to discuss science and has done nothing but denigrate other scientists through an elitist attitude that limits truth shared to publications in science journals. Just how more elitist can you get?

May I help? From wikipedia:

An Internet troll is a person who sends duplicitous messages to get angry responses. The term derives from the phrase "trolling for suckers" and ultimately from trolling for fish. The term is frequently abused to slander opponents in heated debates and is frequently misapplied to those who are ignorant of etiquette.

Beat me to it!

[Tiggy]

As to twiggy vs tiggy, I occasionally compose responses in Word, spell check and then post my reply. Word 2000 corrected what it thought was a misspelled word and I did not catch that your screen name was changed from Tiggy to Twiggy.

OK, so it's someone else's fault that you misspelled my name twice, then criticized me for typoing yours. Got it.

Since I have AIDS and the HIV virus penetrated my brain I frequently misspell words since the virus has affected my cognitive abilities

I am truly sorry you are thus afflicted. You seem like a woman who has led a hard, abused life. Your message explains much of your great anger towards a scientific community that has yet to find a cure for your problems.

Now do you think you can address my questions concerning the human eye and depth of field vs. a cephalopod’s eye and depth of field and how is the blind spot in the human eye is detrimental to us?

The cephalopod eye's depth perception has evolved to an adequate level for its environment. The mammalian eye and brain have co-evolved to minimize the detrimental effects of the blind spot flaw.

A bigger question for you is - why are there so many different kinds of eyes in the first place? Why would an all powerful Intelligent Designer purposely make a vision system with any flaws? Evolutionary theory provides a simple, direct explanation for the development of different vision systems, including corroborating evidence in the form of genetic and molecular similarities. What can ID offer besides personal incredulity?

- Tiggy

[Aineo]

Tiggy you are without a doubt the most self-centered, arrogant, person I have ever had the displeasure to engage. I gave you a reasonable explanation and you again get condescending and sarcastic.

Science has kept me alive and doing well since 1996. Unlike some I doubt science will ever find a cure for AIDS so your analysis is lame and just plain idiotic.

"Here we go round the mulberry bush" with tiggy and her cohorts coming back with double talk and no answer in response to a direct answer.

No wonder you people have jumped on Darwinian evolution; you can excuse your lack of real scientific information and knowledge with "well it evolved".

How is the "blind spot" in the human eye detrimental, and does a cephalopod have depth of field?

[Tiggy]

How is the "blind spot" in the human eye detrimental, and does a cephalopod have depth of field?

This was already answered. Now, are you going to make an attempt to answer the questions I posed?

"A bigger question for you is - why are there so many different kinds of eyes in the first place? Why would an all powerful Intelligent Designer purposely make a vision system with any flaws? Evolutionary theory provides a simple, direct explanation for the development of different vision systems, including corroborating evidence in the form of genetic and molecular similarities. What can ID offer besides personal incredulity?"

No wonder you people have jumped on Darwinian evolution; you can excuse your lack of real scientific information and knowledge with "well it evolved".

Well, you are the one who decided to ignore all the detailed scientific information on eye evolution you were provided to because it was "too technical", and you couldn't be bothered to learn. Sorry Girlfriend, but doesn't that smack of arrogance and unwarranted egotism? My offer to explain the parts you don't understand is still good, but you actually have to read the info first.

Tiggy

[Aineo]

Why should I accept what you want to consider evidence of evolution when you use the "blind spot" in the human eye as an example of poor design and then refuse to discuss why the human eye demonstrates poor design?

The question before us is the human eye and is the human eye poorly desgined for human beings. All you want to do is avoid this question. If a cephalopod's eye is better designed then why do camera's use the same principle as found in our eyes?

[The Puppetmaster]

The blindspot is not an optimal design. If the human eye were optimal, as a creator would allow, the design would be without the blindspot and other flaws mentioned. It is not whether the design works well or not, it is whether it is as good as it can be, and the human eye is not.

[Joe Meert]

The blindspot is not an optimal design. If the human eye were optimal, as a creator would allow, the design would be without the blindspot and other flaws mentioned. It is not whether the design works well or not, it is whether it is as good as it can be, and the human eye is not.

JM: Don't forget the central blind spot that may be responsible for some air crashes. Surely one can think of a better distribution of rods and cones if we were eventually 'designed' for figuring out how to fly.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Tiggy]

Why should I accept what you want to consider evidence of evolution when you use the "blind spot" in the human eye as an example of poor design and then refuse to discuss why the human eye demonstrates poor design?

First, I have never said the human eye is poorly designed. I said it is adequately designed and adapted for the environment it is in, but could certainly be better.

And you are free to refuse to learn about the multiple lines of independent evidence that support eye evolution, evidence that has been shown to you repeatedly. 'Ignorance is bliss' may work for you, but don't expect the rest of the world to follow suit.

Once again, you refuse to answer my questions which show the lack of support for your position

"A bigger question for you is - why are there so many different kinds of eyes in the first place? Why would an all powerful Intelligent Designer purposely make a vision system with any flaws? Evolutionary theory provides a simple, direct explanation for the development of different vision systems, including corroborating evidence in the form of genetic and molecular similarities. What can ID offer besides personal incredulity?"

Finally, your camera analogy is flat out wrong, as has also been shown to you already. You focus (no pun intended) on one particular aspect of image production, and ignore all the other problems with "human eye" camera design that camera designers consciously avoid.

I guess what they say is true - you can lead a creationist to the scientific data, but you can’t make him think.

Tiggy

[justforfun000]

I am truly sorry you are thus afflicted. You seem like a woman who has led a hard, abused life. Your message explains much of your great anger towards a scientific community that has yet to find a cure for your problems

I could simply answer this with a charge of "appeal to motivation" fallacy, but I am truly shocked you would say something so insensitive. His belief in something other than creation does NOT convinct him of an "anger towards the scientific community". That was extremely rude to say something like that in the context of a personal admission.

Unlike some I doubt science will ever find a cure for AIDS so your analysis is lame and just plain idiotic.

Hey, don't give up hope too easily. Smallpox was the scourge of the world for untold centuries, but we beat it. Exponentially the treatment of disease is getting better and better with each passing year. We simply didn't spend enough research time into truly understanding and countering viruses in the past. We are now.

Sorry Girlfriend, but doesn't that smack of arrogance and unwarranted egotism

I'm surprised he let this one by. "Girlfriend"? You're not talking to a buddy in a gay bar. This is again very condescending in this context.

I'm sure we all have something relevant to say to each other, but couching it in rude or taunting phrases is not necessary, and simply creates hard feelings which makes rational discussion much more difficult.

PLEASE try to be polite everyone.

[Aineo]

justforfun000, I let the girlfriend remark pass so it would not turn this thread into a b**** fight. Maybe tiggy would like to share some personal details of her (his ?) own? As to a cure for AIDS, I hope and pray a cure is found. The tragedy of the pandemic in 3rd world nations as well as developed countries is killing millions every year.

Evolutionist jump on the human eye as an example of poor design for their own agenda. Now since this subject was brought up and you defend Darwinian evolution others and I want an explanation of why the human eye demonstrates "poor design" since the "blind spot" does not interfere with either our vision or our ability to survive. If you don't like the camera analogy that is fine, however camera's are designed for optimum performance so if that is true why don't camera manufacturers model their designs after a better "designed" or "evolved" eye?

[Joe Meert]

justforfun000, I let the girlfriend remark pass so it would not turn this thread into a b**** fight. Maybe tiggy would like to share some personal details of her (his ?) own? As to a cure for AIDS, I hope and pray a cure is found. The tragedy of the pandemic in 3rd world nations as well as developed countries is killing millions every year.

Evolutionist jump on the human eye as an example of poor design for their own agenda. Now since this subject was brought up and you defend Darwinian evolution others and I want an explanation of why the human eye demonstrates "poor design" since the "blind spot" does not interfere with either our vision or our ability to survive. If you don't like the camera analogy that is fine, however camera's are designed for optimum performance so if that is true why don't camera manufacturers model their designs after a better "designed" or "evolved" eye?

JM: I did. Don't forget the central blind spot that may be responsible for some air crashes. Surely one can think of a better distribution of rods and cones if we were eventually 'designed' for figuring out how to fly.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Actually you have not and using airline crashes as an example of how the blind spot affects human vision is ludicrous. Do pilots fly with one eye closed and their noses less than 12 inches from their instruments?

[Joe Meert]

Actually you have not and using airline crashes as an example of how the blind spot affects human vision is ludicrous. Do pilots fly with one eye closed and their noses less than 12 inches from their instruments?

JM: The central blind spot is different than the one you are speaking of. It has to do with the distribution of rods and cones in the eye and has, indeed been linked to airline crashes.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Fine, then link to one such report so your information can be verified. As to the "central blind spot" you need to be more specific since this has not been brough up previous to your post. Also could a human with a cephalopod eye fly a 747?

[The Puppetmaster]

The blindspot can be found in any biological textbook with an optical segment, it is hardly an evolutionist conspiracy.

And yes, a human with a cephalopod eye could fly a 747. Why wouldn't they when the models are essentially identical bar the odd improvement by common ancestry in the squid eye?

[Aineo]

A squid does not see color or have depth perception. Also the intense light found in our environment would destroy a squid's eye according to the online articles I have read.

If the only blind spot in the human eye is the one in the textbooks then my original comment that pilots don't sit with their noses 12 inches from the instruments applies.

[The Puppetmaster]

A squid does not see color or have depth perception. Also the intense light found in our environment would destroy a squid's eye according to the online articles I have read.

What? Because it has an extra couple of layers of cells over the retina? If that was the case, our own eyes would be pretty useless in no time at all.

Colour is not completely necessary, though the squid has depth perception loss because of the position of the eyes for greater overall view, not because of the eye design itself.

If the only blind spot in the human eye is the one in the textbooks then my original comment that pilots don't sit with their noses 12 inches from the instruments applies.

As does mine about it still being a sub-optimal design. No one stated anything about this blindspot making everyday tasks next to impossible.

[Aineo]

Have you read anything concerning how cephalopod and human eyes differ; or are you "shooting from the hip"?

Inverted Human Eye a Poor Design?

You will probably simply reject this article out of prejudice however if you take the time to read it you will find an excellent discussion of the cephalopod eye. BTW, if humans had a cephalopod type eye we could not fly an airplane, we probably could not drive a car or do any activity that required the ability to see images in sharp detail.

Now I will again ask why the human eye is poorly designed as compared to a cephalopod’s and how does our blind spot affect our lives?

[Tiggy]

Aineo seems to be fond of double standards. He has on occasion been quite rude and condescending to others here, but cries when others return his language in kind. Looks like he never heard of the Golden Rule, i.e.

He misspelled my name twice, then b*tched when I accidentally typoed his

He referred to me twice as a woman, so I admit the 'girlfriend' remark was done to bring attention to his insulting comments.

OK, I'll let all that pass - let's ALL stay on topic

Here we find him STILL harping on the blind spot and cameras. For the last time, digital cameras ARE NOT designed like human eyes. They combine a mammalian-like lens arrangement (front end) with a cephalopod-like photosensor and wiring (back end). They use the BEST features of BOTH systems and DISCARD the sub-optimal ones (like wiring that causes a blind spot).

Aineo. I'll ask you for the fourth time - why would an all knowing Intelligent Designer come up with DIFFERENT eye designs, with the each have merely adequate but sub-optimal features? Science has quite a bit of evidence that explains how different vision systems evolved - You and the ID crowd have NONE - certainly you've presented none here.

You have shown zero interest in educating yourself on this topic despite being presented with detailed scientific data and research results. Instead, you continue to choose to base your arguments on ignorance and snide remarks. You DO realize that there are many lurkers watching your debacle, and seeing just how weak your position is. For that, I guess I should thank you. You are one of the best arguments illustrating the dangers of scientific illiteracy I could hope for.

Tiggy

[Joe Meert]

Fine, then link to one such report so your information can be verified. As to the "central blind spot" you need to be more specific since this has not been brough up previous to your post. Also could a human with a cephalopod eye fly a 747?

JM: The central blind spot is very well known and researched (especially in the flight industry both military and civilian). It arises due to the uneven distribution of rods and cones in our eye and has been linked to air crashes. The last time I linked to something, I was told not to so you'll have to search it out for yourself. Information is not hard to find on this well-known problem with the human eye.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Tiggy, I see you are still avoiding the issue and trying to get ID into this discussion. Evolutionists claim the human eye is poorly designed when compared to a cephalopod's eye. And tiggy you have shown zero interest in addressing the reasons why.

You and your obnoxious crowd invaded this message board for a reason now either address our questions or get off our board. The fact I want to address specifics and not allow this forum to become your pulpit for generalities does not indicate a lack of knowledge concerning Darwinain evolutionary theory. So you can take your judgmental attitude down the block.

BTW, who said anything about digital camera's? Ansel Adam's did not own one. Digital camera's have not totally replaced film camera's and I hope they never do.

[justforfun000]

This is kind of a tough argument here...

To whomever...Is there ANY reason to consider the human eye a superior design for the human being considering our atmosphere (air) that we live in?

That would be one question. In any case, this still would not really make a difference in the ultimate scheme of things. If the eye didn't develop along an ideal evolutionary design, this doesn't necessarily invalidate God. Is there anything in the Bible suggesting man's physicality is perfect?

I've always taken the verses saying he made man in his image to refer to the SOUL, not the physical body. It makes more sense anyway. It's the one part of us that is identified as being eternal and specifically suited for residency "with" God, whether you believe in a specific heaven or simply resonating with his spirit bearing witness to yours.

In any case, it's an interesting argument. Continue on.

[Aineo]

The only reason I am "hammering" on the human eye is that evolutionists point to our blind spot as "poor design" without an explanation of why our blind spot is "poor design".

I have read articles by experts in physiology and human vision in particular who have stated the blind spot in no way impedes our vision or is detrimental to humans and is in fact perfectly designed. Joe wants to use airline crashes as an example. However, I doubt Galileo was concerned with airplanes and neither were the billions of humans who lived prior to 1903. I can use boat and vehicle accidents to show that just being a human being in a powered vehicle is dangerous to our health so Joe is simply begging the question.

[Joe Meert]

The only reason I am "hammering" on the human eye is that evolutionists point to our blind spot as "poor design" without an explanation of why our blind spot is "poor design".

I have read articles by experts in physiology and human vision in particular who have stated the blind spot in no way impedes our vision or is detrimental to humans and is in fact perfectly designed. Joe wants to use airline crashes as an example. However, I doubt Galileo was concerned with airplanes and neither were the billions of humans who lived prior to 1903. I can use boat and vehicle accidents to show that just being a human being in a powered vehicle is dangerous to our health so Joe is simply begging the question.

JM: I'm not begging the question, I'm talking about a different blind spot that is referred to as the 'central blind spot'. If this was designed, then it is a poor design because it is dangerous for night vision. Why do you insist on changing the meaning of my post instead of researching the topic for yourself? The distribution of rods and cones in the eye is not a good design for night vision and particularly dangerous for night flying.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Then I will ask you again for a link to some informaton since The Puppetmaster stated the "blind spot" is the one found in textbooks. And BTW, since airplanes were invented in 1903 your appealing to airplane crashes is begging the question since Homo sapiens did not evolve so that all Homo sapiens would fly planes.

[Yehren]

The central blind spot is a very annoying defect in the eye for anyone who enjoys astronomy.

It exists because the central portion of the eye is loaded with cones, which are sensitive to color, but are unable to function in the dark.

At night, if you look directly at a faint object in the sky, you will not see it, but if you look slightly to one side of it, it will appear. This is not easy to do, because as soon as you put your attention to the object, you will tend to look directly at it again, and lose it.

[The Puppetmaster]

Then I will ask you again for a link to some informaton since The Puppetmaster stated the "blind spot" is the one found in textbooks. And BTW, since airplanes were invented in 1903 your appealing to airplane crashes is begging the question since Homo sapiens did not evolve so that all Homo sapiens would fly planes.

The blind spot.

[Joe Meert]

Then I will ask you again for a link to some informaton since The Puppetmaster stated the "blind spot" is the one found in textbooks. And BTW, since airplanes were invented in 1903 your appealing to airplane crashes is begging the question since Homo sapiens did not evolve so that all Homo sapiens would fly planes.

JM: Your post does not make sense to me. You claimed the eye was well-designed. I asked if it was well designed by God and since God knew we would eventually fly, then why did he make our eye with the distribution of rods and cones such as it is? Why did God design our eye so that we would have trouble flying at night? From an evolutionary perspective, the date of manned flight is totally irrelevant and the fact that we are not well equipped for night flight makes sense. Perhaps you have a point about this you'd like to clarify?

Cheers

Jo Meert

[Aineo]

Joe you are begging the question. God knew men would commit adultery, steal, murder, and etc. so why didn't God "design" us to avoid those moral conflicts? Flying is one human activity. I have reviewed the findings of what caused airline crashes in the last few years and the human blind spot was not even been mentioned. Night vision is a concern and some military flying accidents can be attributed to the use of night vision goggles that impeded peripheral vision and the pilot’s ability to view his instruments while wearing the goggles. So again I am asking you to furnish information concerning the blind spot and airline accidents.

Evolutionists are the ones who use the human eye as an example of bad design by an intelligent designer now all I am asking is why evolutionists see the "blind spot" as poor design.

[The Puppetmaster]

Evolutionists are the ones who use the human eye as an example of bad design by an intelligent designer now all I am asking is why evolutionists see the "blind spot" as poor design.

It's a matter of sub-optimal design. If a creator was going to give us perfect sight, then why not get rid of the blindspot like he did with the squids?

[Joe Meert]

Evolutionists are the ones who use the human eye as an example of bad design by an intelligent designer now all I am asking is why evolutionists see the "blind spot" as poor design.

It's a matter of sub-optimal design. If a creator was going to give us perfect sight, then why not get rid of the blindspot like he did with the squids?

JM: And why make us unable to see under low-light conditions? Why is the eye not desinged specifically for the benefit of man?

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Aineo]

Men can swim why don't we have webbed feet, hands, and gills? Rhetorical questions can be idiotic and a total waste of time. I did not ask for a theological debate; I asked why evolutionists see the human eye as poor design.

My question has nothing to do with ID.

You own agenda colors everything you post, which indicates a prejudice that interfers with the free exchange of ideas. I posted a link to a discussion on the human eye and so far none of you have bothered to comment on it. Why?

[Aineo]

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selections, seems, I feely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."

Charles R. Darwin, the Origin of Species…, fist edition reprint (New York: Avenel Books, 1979), p. 217 – (Chapter 6, Difficulties on Theory”, First Edition: 1859)

"I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over, but I have got over this stage of the complaint, and now trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock’s tail, whenever I gaze at it, make me sick!"

Charles Darwin in a letter to Asa Gray (April 3, 1860), as cited by Norman Macbeth, “Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Boston: Gambit, 1971), p. 101.

[Tiggy]

You own agenda colors everything you post, which indicates a prejudice that interfers with the free exchange of ideas. I posted a link to a discussion on the human eye and so far none of you have bothered to comment on it. Why?

Because others here, including myself, posted links before you with details of the scientific evidence for eye evolution, including references to the primary research literature, but with your typical arrogance you couldn't even be bothered to open them. That's why. And please, do lecture us on prejudice that interferes with the free exchange of ideas. I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selections, seems, I feely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." - Charles Darwin

I suppose no Creationist BB would be complete with the obligatory bit of dishonest Creationist quote mining. For those interested in honesty, here is the entire quote:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. - Charles Darwin" [/quote]

So Darwin predicted that gradual variations in eye development would be shown to exist which they were, and he predicted a mechanism for the inheritance of heritable traits would be found which it was. Pretty smart chap, eh?


A history of the dishonest use by other Creationists of the truncated version of this quote (and many others) can be found here

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html


Tiggy

[Yehren]

Odds are, Aineo wasn't being dishonest. He probably never read the original, but was misled by some creationist site that posted the edited quote.

[Aineo]

I would be careful with the use of the word hypocrisy. The ones who have demonstrated the most hypocritical arrogance on this forum are those who have stated (without offering any proof) that any scientist who is skeptical of Darwin's theory is using pseudoscience.

BTW, mining quotes is something both sides of this issue do, so to accuse those who disagree with you of being arrogant hypocrites is the pot calling the kettle black. Natural selection leading to complex organs such as the human eye is illogical to the extreme. In the writings of evolutionists I read the word “probability” quit often. “Probability” can also be used to show that evolution is a statistical impossibility.

[Tiggy]

“Probability” can also be used to show that evolution is a statistical impossibility.

Then by all means, please do so. I've seen numerous creationists trot out examples of this tired old canard too, and every one makes the same basic mistake.

Computing the probability of an event before its occurrence is only valid IF a) you can rigorously define every possible outcome, and b) you can prove that the individual outcome you’re trying to compute the odds for is the ONLY POSSIBLE SUCCESSFUL outcome. Since no Creationist has ever demonstrated these two things for a real world biological process, this whole exercise becomes a worthless rhetorical time waster.

Also, keep in mind that low probability events, when given enough repetitions, become virtual certainties.

So please, go C&P your probability argument from AIG, or ICR, or wherever you get your garbage pseudoscience, and I'll show why it fails the simple test above. Show us that your understanding of probability theory is on par with your understanding of evolutionary biological sciences, - NONE.

Tiggy

[Joe Meert]

Also, keep in mind that low probability events, when given enough repetitions, become virtual certainties.

JM: It's not just that, probability arguments depend on the input parameters. For example, I can show that the probability of meeting my wife was so low as to be impossible, yet here we are happily married for nearly 11 years.

Cheers

Joe Meert

[Yehren]

In fact, every time you shuffle a deck of cards, you get an order so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. And yet it happens.

[Aineo]

In fact, every time you shuffle a deck of cards, you get an order so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. And yet it happens.

And then there are people who can shuffle a deck of cards and "stack the deck". So your example is again self-serving.

[Yehren]

The point is, that even a fair shuffle produces a result so staggeringly unlikely that mathematicians consider it effectively impossible.

The likelihood of any particular order of shuffled cards in a 52 card deck is 1 divided by 52! or 1X2X3X... 52. It is about one divided by 8 followed by 62 zeros.

Such things happen every day, in many ways.

Does that suggest to you what's wrong with the improbability scam?

[Aineo]

The point is, that even a fair shuffle produces a result so staggeringly unlikely that mathematicians consider it effectively impossible.

The likelihood of any particular order of shuffled cards in a 52 card deck is 1 divided by 52! or 1X2X3X... 52. It is about one divided by 8 followed by 62 zeros.

Such things happen every day, in many ways.

Does that suggest to you what's wrong with the improbability scam?

Well then Yehren, when evolutionists refer to probability they are also pulling a scam by your own admission. This is simply another example of the hypocrisy of evolutionists.

Now, can we get back to why the human eye is poorly designed?

[Aineo]

What I have been attempting to accomplish with the human eye is that evolutionists would share a rational explanation of why the “blind spot” is poor design. So are all I have seen posted is rhetorical questions concerning an omnipotent creator who should have known that men would fly airplanes and such an omnipotent designer would have never “designed” a flawed organ. This is simply begging the question.

Now lets see what an M.D. has to say about evolution and the human eye and just how idiotic the evolutionists appeal to “poor design” really is:

The most advanced verted retinas in the world belong to the octopus and squid (cephalopods). An average retina of an octopus contains 20 million photoreceptor cells. The average human retina contains around 126 million photoreceptor cells. This is nothing compared to birds who have as much as 10 times as many photoreceptors and two to five times as many cones (cones detect color) as humans have. 4,5 Humans have a place on the retina called a “fovea centralis.” The fovea is a central area in the central part of the human retina called the macula. In this area humans have a much higher concentration photoreceptors, especially cones. Also, in this particular area, the blood vessels, nerves and ganglion cells are displaced so that they do not interpose themselves between the light source and the photoreceptor cells, thus eliminating even this minimal interference to the direct path of light. This creates an area of high visual acuity with decreasing visual acuity towards the periphery of the human retina. The cones in the macula (and elsewhere) also have a 1:1 ratio to the ganglion cells. Ganglion cells help to preprocess the information received by the retinal photoreceptors. For the rods of the retina, a single ganglion cell handles information from many, even hundreds of rod cells, but this is not true of cones whose highest concentration is in the macula. The macula provides information needed to maximize image detail, and the information obtained by the peripheral areas of the retina helps to provide both spatial and contextual information. Compared with the periphery, the macula is 100 times more sensitive to small features than in the rest of the retina. This enables the human eye to focus in on a specific area in the field of vision without being distracted by peripheral vision too much.6
The Evolution of the Human Eye

Dr. Pitman continues:

The Error of Presumption

To say then that the human eye is definite proof of a lack thoughtful design, is a bit presumptuous I would think. This seems to be especially true when one considers the fact that the best of modern human science and engineering has not produced even a fraction of the computing and imaging capability of the human eye. How can we then, ignorant as we must be concerning such miracles of complex function, hope to accurately judge the relative fitness or logic of something so far beyond our own capabilities? Should someone who cannot even come close to understanding or creating the object that they are observing think to critique not to mention disparage the work that that lies before them? This would be like a six-year-old child trying to tell an engineer how to design a skyscraper or that one of his buildings is “better” than the others. Until Dawkins or someone else can actually make something as good or better than the human eye, I would invite them to consider the silliness of their efforts in trying to make value judgments on such things… such things that are obviously among most beautiful and beyond the most astounding works of human genius and art in existence.

The good doctor then quotes Dawkins:

In his 1986 book, “The Blind Watchmaker,” the famous evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins posses this design flaw argument for the human eye:

“Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away, from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wire sticking out on the side nearest the light. The wire has to travel over the surface of the retina to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called ‘blind spot’) to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually, probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer). I don’t know the exact explanation for this strange state of affairs. The relevant period of evolution is so long ago.” 3

However:

Dawkins’s argument certainly does seem intuitive. However, the problem with relying strictly on intuition is that intuition alone is not scientific. Many a well thought out hypothesis has seemed flawless on paper, but in when put to the test, it turns out not to work as well as was hoped. Unforeseen problems and difficulties arise. New and innovative solutions, not previously considered, became all important to obtaining the desired function. Dawkins’s problem is not one of reasonable intuition, but one of a lack of testability of his hypothesis. However reasonable it may appear, unless Dawkins is able to test his assumptions to see if in fact “verted” is better than “inverted” retinal construction for the needs of the human, this hypothesis of his remains untested and therefore unsupported by the scientific method. Beyond this problem, even if he were to prove scientifically that a verted retina is in fact more reasonable for human vision, this still would not scientifically disprove design. As previously described, proving flaws in design according to a personal understanding or need does not disprove the hypothesis that this flawed design was none-the-less designed.
Since a designer has not been excluded by this argument of Dawkins, the naturalistic theory of evolution is not an automatic default. However true the theory of evolution might be, it is not supported scientifically without testability. This is what evolutionists need to provide and this is exactly what is lacking. The strength of design theory rests, not in its ability to show perfection in design, but in its ability to point toward the statistical improbability of a naturalistic method to explain the complexity of life that is evident in such structures as the human eye. Supposed flaws do not eliminate this statistical challenge to evolutionary theories. Dawkins’s error is to assume that the thinking, knowledge and motivation of all designers are similar to his thinking, knowledge and motivation.

My problem with teaching Darwinian evolution, macroevolution, or the origin of species by whatever name you choose to use is the lack of “testability” of what is taught as a scientific fact.

[The Puppetmaster]

*Snip unnecessary description of the eye*

To say then that the human eye is definite proof of a lack thoughtful design, is a bit presumptuous I would think. This seems to be especially true when one considers the fact that the best of modern human science and engineering has not produced even a fraction of the computing and imaging capability of the human eye. How can we then, ignorant as we must be concerning such miracles of complex function, hope to accurately judge the relative fitness or logic of something so far beyond our own capabilities? Should someone who cannot even come close to understanding or creating the object that they are observing think to critique not to mention disparage the work that that lies before them? This would be like a six-year-old child trying to tell an engineer how to design a skyscraper or that one of his buildings is “better” than the others. Until Dawkins or someone else can actually make something as good or better than the human eye, I would invite them to consider the silliness of their efforts in trying to make value judgments on such things… such things that are obviously among most beautiful and beyond the most astounding works of human genius and art in existence.

The good doctor then quotes Dawkins:

In his 1986 book, “The Blind Watchmaker,” the famous evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins posses this design flaw argument for the human eye:

What a weak argument. So we can't criticise something that is obviously flawed? How about whales? What kind of designer makes a marine lifeform that can drown? Either it was natural selection, or the creator'sa blithering idiot.

To say we haven't made something better than an eye is patently false. I assume you know what a camera is and UHDTV which achieves a resolution beyond that of the human eye. A pathetic argument which suspends disbelief to an amazing degree. And when we do create an eye, then what? Can we then laugh at the designer?

I also believe it was you, Aineo, that argued for simplicity being superior. Then why would we want to replicate a horribly complex organ like the eye when we can achieve better results with modern optical recorders?

Dawkins’s argument certainly does seem intuitive. However, the problem with relying strictly on intuition is that intuition alone is not scientific. Many a well thought out hypothesis has seemed flawless on paper, but in when put to the test, it turns out not to work as well as was hoped. Unforeseen problems and difficulties arise. New and innovative solutions, not previously considered, became all important to obtaining the desired function. Dawkins’s problem is not one of reasonable intuition, but one of a lack of testability of his hypothesis. However reasonable it may appear, unless Dawkins is able to test his assumptions to see if in fact “verted” is better than “inverted” retinal construction for the needs of the human, this hypothesis of his remains untested and therefore unsupported by the scientific method. Beyond this problem, even if he were to prove scientifically that a verted retina is in fact more reasonable for human vision, this still would not scientifically disprove design. As previously described, proving flaws in design according to a personal understanding or need does not disprove the hypothesis that this flawed design was none-the-less designed.
Since a designer has not been excluded by this argument of Dawkins, the naturalistic theory of evolution is not an automatic default. However true the theory of evolution might be, it is not supported scientifically without testability. This is what evolutionists need to provide and this is exactly what is lacking. The strength of design theory rests, not in its ability to show perfection in design, but in its ability to point toward the statistical improbability of a naturalistic method to explain the complexity of life that is evident in such structures as the human eye. Supposed flaws do not eliminate this statistical challenge to evolutionary theories. Dawkins’s error is to assume that the thinking, knowledge and motivation of all designers are similar to his thinking, knowledge and motivation.

Brilliant. Do you know what this argument is, ladies and gentlemen? Why, it's the unfalsifiability one, a.k.a. the "moving the goal posts" argument. So not finding a flaw means a designer, but when we do find a flaw, we can't rule out design either because we don't know the purpose of that flaw because the designer is so beyond human comprehension. Sounds like garbage to me. I'll ignore the fact that a verted retina would be superior because of lack of extra tissue to penetrate. Anyone that disputes that is just an idiot grasping at straws or someone that would argue a layer of Vaseline on a camera lens is somehow better suited to the thing.

My problem with teaching Darwinian evolution, macroevolution, or the origin of species by whatever name you choose to use is the lack of “testability” of what is taught as a scientific fact.

Guess what? You can't test for a designer either. Guess that makes us even then, oh wait, evolution is documented. Supernatural deities aren't.

EDIT: Additionally, this still doesn't explain why vertebrate fish have the same inverted eyes we have yet live in the same conditions as the cephalopods. The designer must have a bad memory too.