Posted on 10/22/2007 9:07:09 PM PDT by LibWhacker
You are reading these words right now because 600 million years ago, an aquatic animal called a Hydra developed light-receptive genes—the origin of animal vision.
It wasn't exactly 20-20 vision back then though.
Hydras, a genus of freshwater animals that are kin to corals and jellyfish, measure only a few millimeters in diameter and have been around for hundreds of millions of years.
Scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara studied the genes associated with vision (called opsins) in these tiny creatures and found opsin proteins all over their bodies.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
These findings, detailed in a recent issue of the online journal PLoS ONE, counter arguments by anti-evolutionists that evolution can only eliminate traits and cannot produce new features, the authors say.
“Our paper shows that such claims are simply wrong,”
I couldn’t get past the first statement—as if anyone was around 600 million years ago to see this......
It’s only for those who have eyes to see...
As if you need an eye witness to prove everything that's ever happened.
Of course they weren’t there 600 million years ago to see this, because if they were, they wouldn’t have had eyes to see it with, since the creature with the light-sensitive gene was just coming into being.
I’ve always thought a security camera would be a good featuer for my house, but I didn’t want to spend the money. Now I am holding out hope that my outdoor lamp’s photo-cell will evolve into at least a black-and-white security camera. Then I just have to run some wires.
Any suggestions on how I can speed up the process? I suppose I could just use the original process, and design and build a camera myself, but this evolution thing sounds so much easier.
Yep, God said, let there be light, Jesus said, give them eyes to see, and the Holy Spirit said, may that “sight” lead them back to God.
No, you just need an eyewitness to know HOW it happened.
On CSI, no matter how much they get the physical evidence, they always seem to end by getting the perp to CONFESS to the crime, thus providing the eyewitness testimony.
BTW, anybody catch the CSI where at the end, the woman who killed the scientist is given a pass because she THOUGHT the guy, and obvious environmentalist whacko, had killed her son?
When they figured out who really did it, and didn’t think they’d get him, I wondered why they didn’t just tell the woman who the real killer was, and let her go off and kill the guy, since apparently the CSI folks don’t think it’s their job to put killers in jail if they did it for the “right” reason.
Yes, have your security camera reproduce sexually, and apply selective pressures to the offspring.
That isn't possible? Then maybe you need to find yourself a more suitable strawman.
No problem. Give it a few million years, be sure to weed out ones with worse image detection (i.e. those with uniform sensitivity), and select ones with better imaging detection.
OK, that went random on me, sorry.
If you find a pencil on the floor, you can assert that there is a pencil on the floor. If you find 11 other pencils on the table above the pencil on the floor, and an empty package that says “12 #2 pencils”, you could assert factually that there are 11 pencils on the table. If they have the same serial number, you could assert as fact they came from the package.
But you can’t assert as fact that the one pencil rolled off the table and onto the floor. Sure, it looks like it, but what if I placed the pencil on the floor? It would look JUST like some natural process caused the pencil to be on the floor, but in fact it was a creative act.
Which is why CSI is a television drama, not real life.
In real life, people are convicted every day of the week for crimes for which there was no eye witness and no confession. The idea that we can't know anything if there wasn't a witness is really kind of strange, certainly 100 years after the discovery of modern fingerprinting. Fingerprinting works to solve crime scenes; likewise genetic "fingerprinting" can help us unravel the past.
So I got eyeballs because some slimy paramecium had opsins. This is fantasy land
Yet the case you mentioned, the dead boy, was solved without the help of any eyewitness.
OK, that went random on me, sorry.If you had the slightest clue about evolution you would have understood his argument.
What’s a hydra’s vision like now?
As good as it needs to be, why?
So I got eyeballs because some slimy paramecium had opsins. This is fantasy landNot really. But given the level of understanding on this board(with a few notable exceptions) you couldn't be expected to understand.
Except hydra are animals and paramecia are protists, suggesting you don't know what the heck you're talking about.
Take even an intro bio course and you might be a little more able to avoid making yourself look like an under-informed dingbat.
A really big Die Hard battery is a cinch to speed up the evolutionary process.
Oh, and really good jumper cables are a must;)
But...but... they couldn’t have been around 6000 million years ago. The earth was a red hot ball of fire back then, waiting for that inter-stellar rain cloud to come rain on it for a few million years and create life, or rather, premadoral soup from which life magically formed...
Of course all these evolutionary “steps” require incredible odds, well beyond 600,trillions of billions to one. Not just once either, but many millions of times. But they happened, because evolutionists say so.
See if you can get the kind that are coiled into a double helix...
Well, ya gotta admit that it is pretty dark where she has it wedged...
No, but you do need someone who was around at the time to document that it actually occured.
Have you tried putting it in a spot where it gets lots of rain? alternatively, you can hook up a garden hose and have it drip constantly on it. Seems to do the trick for life on earth.
Good one!
I always thought that double helix DNA was one of the Creator’s more unique inventions.
Soooooo, nothing before Adam counts?
In the endless world of unguided happenstance that allowed matter to spring forth form the complete absence of matter - extreme complexity to spring forth from the complete absence of complexity - and life to spring forth from the complete absence of life....this is possible. To deny this is to deny the base foundation on which scientific evolution of something-from-nothing is based. Take this security camera and an endless amount of years....you know, monkey's with typewriters creating Shakespeare.
BTW: nothing applies "selective pressures" to the offspring - that would be a force guiding evolution which is absolutely contrary to Darwinian Orthodoxy. If something is "applied" - it implies an applier....so to speak.
It certainly works better than the circular plasmids.
Or take an educated guess and call it irrefutable absolute scientific truth...not that anybody actually does that....wink, wink
Not true. If lightning strikes a tree we can tell lightning struck the tree even if nobody was around to document it. And if we dig up the fossilized stump millions of years later, we can still tell lightning struck it.
But...but... they couldn’t have been around 6000 million years ago. The earth was a red hot ball of fire back then, waiting for that inter-stellar rain cloud to come rain on it for a few million years and create life, or rather, premadoral soup from which life magically formed...My money's on the flying spaghetti monster.
Of course all these evolutionary “steps” require incredible odds, well beyond 600,trillions of billions to one. Not just once either, but many millions of times. But they happened, because evolutionists say so.
I'm calling BS on this one. That's what predators do. They pick off the misfits. Just like Darwin said.
You've never actually read Darwin, have you?
Yes—even though some circular plasmids come with a patent number.
Any idea or conclusion, without documentation from people who lived at the time is conjecture and/or theory which makes it subject to the whim of the established orthodoxy and thus subject to constant change an thus cannot be relied upon.
You are reading these words right now because 600 million years ago, an aquatic animal called a Hydra developed light-receptive genes—the origin of animal vision.
It wasn’t exactly 20-20 vision back then though.
____________________________________________________
What rubbish, I can see because God created me to see His marvelous creation.
Amazing isn't it? Yet those slimey paramecium's never developed any. They just remained slimy paramecium for 600 million more years, never changing into anything. I still say the eyeball was the first living thing on earth, and just developed the opropriate body and apendages suitible for it's location and needs. a pair of eyeballs crawled out of the ocean and turned into mankind. The key to it all is rain. Lots and lots of rain.
In the endless world of unguided happenstance that allowed matter to spring forth form the complete absence of matter - extreme complexity to spring forth from the complete absence of complexity - and life to spring forth from the complete absence of life....this is possible. To deny this is to deny the base foundation on which scientific evolution of something-from-nothing is based. Take this security camera and an endless amount of years....you know, monkey's with typewriters creating Shakespeare.:rolleyes: This has been done to death. Complexity doesn't arise at once. If you had actually read a biology textbook you'd have a much better perspective. As it stands you're just another brainwashed creationist drone.
BTW: nothing applies "selective pressures" to the offspring - that would be a force guiding evolution which is absolutely contrary to Darwinian Orthodoxy. If something is "applied" - it implies an applier....so to speak.
Therefore the first six days are subject to the whim of the established orthodoxy and thus subject to constant change and thus cannot be relied upon.
Now see here!
Forty days and forty nights?
WHERE?!?!??!???
Or perhaps it was a forest fire of some kind? In any case it is a huge difference to tell how lightning struck a tree versus how eyes somehow eveolved.
Yeah, right, this is proof.
He who planted the ear, does he not hear?
He who formed the eye, does he not see?
He who disciplines the nations, does he not rebuke?
He who teaches man knowledge—the LORD—knows the thoughts of man,
that they are but a breath.
Psalm 984 8-11
Chocolate, little girl?
Guess T-Rex got it wrong. EYES of the hydra upon you.
Nice try but don't change the subject.
“You are reading these words right now because 600 million years ago, an aquatic animal called a Hydra developed light-receptive genes—the origin of animal vision.”
Bingo - amazing how “scientists” can make such statements with such certainty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.