Posted on 05/09/2010 4:25:11 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
THE eye has long been an evolutionary battleground. Ever since William Paley came up with the watchmaker analogy in 1802 - that something as complex as a watch must have a maker - creationists have used it to make the "argument from design". Eyes are so intricate, they say, that it strains belief to suggest they evolved through the selection and accumulation of random mutations.
Recently, evolutionary biologists have turned this argument on its head. They say that the "inside out" vertebrate retina - curiously structured so that its wiring obscures the light sensors and leaves us with a blind spot - can be described as one of evolution's "greatest mistakes".
The anatomy of the retina is indeed good evidence that eyes were cobbled together bit by bit. Surely a creator would never have chosen to construct an eye in this way. In return, creationists have argued that the backwards retina clearly has no problems providing vertebrates with excellent vision - and even that its structure enhances vision.
This week, a study by (non-creationist) neurophysicists in Israel has found just that (see "Optical fibre cells transform our weird, 'backward' retinas"). Their simulations showed that Müller cells, which support and nourish the neurons overlying the retina's light-sensitive layer, also collect, filter and refocus light, before delivering it to the light sensors to make images clearer.
Of course, findings that coincide with the claims of creationists do not mean they have a point - although they may well quote this study. Intelligent design proponents have shown themselves to be adept at speciously quoting peer-reviewed studies that appear to support their claims.
Sure, sending light through Müller cells enhances vision, but that is not an argument for choosing to put the wiring in front of the sensors.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
Are we to believe that God would behave the way that people who don’t believe in Him say He would? That’s just silly.
Are you saying that you believe life has always been? What would this belief be based upon?
No, I would not say I believe life has always been. I don’t know. I do know all the life I know about can only come from life, and without evidence of a beginning, there is no reason to belive in one. So, until someone can demonstrate that life has a beginning, or can have, I’m not buying that it does.
Hank
Darwin had no answer as to how the phenomenon we call “life” came into existence. Fortunately, for him, he also was not faced with explaining how the DNA molecule invented itself, or how it is able to replicate itself.
The “purposeful” sorting of optical isomers of amino acids comes into play here, if I remember correctly.
I found the non-polemical, very readable “The End of Darwinism,” by Eugene G. Windchy, to be instructive. 2009, Xlibris Corp (www.Xlibris.com)
In a way that is the same as what I was saying (science cannot prove the beginning of life) except that I have gotten to the point that I believe that God is the Life Giver based on His own testimony found in the bible. That is something that has to enter into the area of faith.
When you take a Peripheral Vision test, you focus on a fixed target directly in front of your eyes.
Eye movement capability renders the “blind spot being a mistake” theory irrelevant. The Brain figures it all out.
These scientists. They should go back and read Chapter 6 of On the Origin of Species by Darwin, entitled “Limitations of Theory.” He states right there that the complexities of the eye are enough to break the theory of evolution. But, I’m sure some evo will pounce all over me (like they always do) claiming Darwin didn’t mean what he said. Whatever.
One fine day believers will never again be vexed by these antichrist people claiming to tell us how the universe was really made. They will be in torment and we will be with the God who made everything!
re: “Since there cannot be “non-existence” how could existence have a beginning.”
How do you know that there cannot be “non-existence”? Second, I’m sure you are aware that the universe is expanding, growing older and ultimately will run down. A universe that is expanding throughout its history has to have had a beginning. Check out Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin on this topic (just google them and you’ll come up with stuff about them).
Also, the second law of thermodynamics implies an ultimate “heat death” of the universe - that is, given enough time, all the energy in the universe will spread itself out evenly thourghout the universe. The universe will become a featureless soup in which no life is possible. It will be at a state of equilibrium, in which the temperature and pressure are the same everywhere.
If the universe if infinite, as you say, then why, if the universe has existed forever, is it not now in a state of equilibrium? Given infinite past time, it should by now already be in a state of heat death/equilibrium.
The truth is the universe is in a state of disequalibrium, where energy is still available to be used and the universe still has an orderly structure. This implies a finite universe - because it has not yet run down.
As to “life”, even Darwinian evolutionists would say that life had to have a beginning some where. Just because a gum-ball machine has gum-balls in it today doesn’t mean it’s always had gum-balls. Somebody had to make the gum-balls in the first place.
That’s correct. Also notice that almost all creatures, from the tiniest of insects to giant reptiles, have two eyes. Exactly two. No randomness there. And that’s because two is the right number required for stereoscopic vision. Two is not too few, not too many.
It’s fascinating how everything in the biological world has been so meticulously thought out. I wonder how these stupid “evolutionary scientists” would explain the “evolution” of a circulatory system. We have an electro-mechanical pump with perfectly synchronized valves and chambers that pumps away non stop and a vast network tubes that reach almost every nook and cranny of the body. And working in sync with the circulatory system is another system, the respiratory system which filters out the air and blood. And the respiratory system wouldn’t be complete without the digestive system to provide it with energy, and the digestive system without the excretory, or the excretory without the... And all these systems work in perfect harmony despite all the abuse they put up with during the life of .. say a human.
What is breathtaking is not just the wonder of creation, but also the stupidity of people who think all this came about by chance.
The most amazing thing of all is - without a sensing ability to interpret light waves, there is nothing to see. And without a sensing ability to interpret sound waves, there is nothing to hear.
In a bizarre twist, we are not there to see OR hear. Only by curiously developed functions do we have presence.
Which begs the question...
...do we really exist?
Of course, the biggest irony is that the writer of this dreck had to use the language of creation in order to write his headline.
Some of us have had a personal encounter with Someone Who was there. And of course He revealed the how in Genesis chapter one.
And in John chapter one:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Any deity worthy of a graven image can cobble up a working universe complete with fake fossils in under a week -- hey, if you're not omnipotent, there's no real point in being a god. But to start with a big ball of elementary particles and end up with the duckbill platypus without constant twiddling requires a degree of subtlety and the ability to Think Things Through: exactly the qualities I'm looking for when I'm shopping for a Supreme Being.-- Lee DeRaud
That’s DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY, and he says,
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.
... you see, “seems absurd”, it’s a rhetorical anticipation.
“...Just because somebody says the origin of life is a science question does not make it so...”
Just because you don’t see the origin of life as one of the greatest mysteries of the universe doesn’t make it an ‘historical event’. Reading Genesis does not answer that mystery. It merely lays out a creation story easy for children to ponder.
Evolution is quite clearly evident in the fossil record. The one sticking point is us. Human beings do not fit into the evolution meme. Our abilities extend far beyond mere survival, to seeking, contemplating the divine, understanding His methods and goals. We are empowered with intelligence and burning curiosity for a reason. We are, after all, his image on earth.
Can you not see God as the ultimate scientist? He operates in a realm we can not fathom with methods we can not grasp. One day we will know.
Are you saying that if something is easy to understand that it then cannot be true? Last time I checked 2+2 still = 4...this is both easy to understand even for a child and is yet true.
The only thing clearly evident in the fossil record is that a lot of things died and were trapped in sediment...interesting that we find these fossils all over the earth even were there is no current large bodies of water. We both are looking at the same fossils but are coming to different conclusions...again we reach the hypothesis stage and yet can not finish the test...
As you stated, we as humans do not fit into the evolution meme...so why try to force everything else on earth into it?
As the Creator, God would be the ultimate scientist...and since He is a lot more intelligent then His creation (us) I still will take Him at His word...or do you think He is lying to us?
I debated Duane Gish, back in the day, and he admitted much more than this. I was harping on the sequence of the fossil record, and in his rebuttal he said that "it didn't matter" if they were in a sequence. In my turn, I stated that his concession that there was a fossil sequence was remarkable, and I further stated that I was proud of myself for having elicited it.
I dont and we know operates by deception.
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.