Intelligent design??There may be proof....

The theory of evolution relies completely on the fact that certain "things" were just laying around and then over a period of time formed togeather.But one thing evolution can't explain is the eye ball.There is no way that parts of the eye were seperated for a period of time and then just came togeather.This fact may hint at an intelligent designer.....What do you think?Edit:I just realized I clicked on the wrong discussion board and you can shut this thread down if need be.After all I am a newbie.------------------
The above statement was 99.9% likely to be entirely false.[This message has been edited by Number_ 19, 06-26-2003]

19, That's abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution starts at the point of mutable heritability, ie after abiogenesis. In fact, the first organism could have been created & evolution still be true. Origins & evolution are separate. It has already been explained. For an excellent account see Richard Dawkins "Climbing Mount Improbable", eye evolution, from a flat photosensitive sheet to lensed eye has also been simulated on computer.Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

quote:

---

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

​

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

​

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

---

Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

That's interesting,I always thought that evolution was a constant from even before life began.This post totally crushed that thought.If only it were as easy to convince other people to believe that as I did.

Evolution, as in 'things change', covers everything. The word is used many times, in many differenct theories, simply to indicate that things changed. The Theory of Evolution only deals with life, however, many people seem to think that whenever you mention evolution (change) if falls under the heading of the ToE and many then insist that the ToE must explain these things. This is not the case.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Number_19 writes:

quote:

---

But one thing evolution can't explain is the eye ball.

---

Question: Have you read Origin of Species?Seems that Darwin could explain the evolution of the eye and that was 150 years ago.I find it very interesting that many creationists specifically use the example of the eye as something that evolution cannot explain since the father of modern theories of evolution actually used the eye as an example of something that evolved....------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

The theory of evolution relies completely on the fact that certain "things" were just laying around and then over
a period of time formed togeather.

​

That's abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution starts at the point of mutable heritability, ie after
abiogenesis. In fact, the first organism could have been created & evolution still be true. Origins &
evolution are separate.

---

That's not even abiogenesis ... it's just a complete lack
of understanding of the concepts.

I was talking about the different names for the different phases of evolution.I didn't think there was another name for it before it started mutating.And I am neither an evolutionist a creationist (In fact I'm leaning more towards being a cartoonist! )I am in a stage of my life where I am so lost I am searching for any answer,I'm just posting different arguements from the differnt viewpoints on the issue.[This message has been edited by Number_ 19, 06-26-2003][This message has been edited by Number_ 19, 06-26-2003]

Thread copied to the Intelligent design??There may be proof.... thread in the Intelligent Design forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.