Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Logical account of creation
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 150 of 173 (548375)
02-27-2010 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by traste
02-27-2010 2:32 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Hi traste,
Poor. very poor.
You start out with the hoariest and most pathetic quote mine in the whole of creationist propaganda. Really, correcting this is tedious in the extreme. Perhaps you should concentrate on this bit;
quote:
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.
It is a pathetic spectacle to watch creationists abuse this quote yet again.
You then go on to a lengthy and unattributed copy-and-paste effort from Creation.com. You should know that this is not accepted here.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : See cavediver's post below.

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 2:32 AM traste has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by anglagard, posted 02-27-2010 7:24 AM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied
 Message 152 by cavediver, posted 02-27-2010 8:10 AM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 156 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 9:44 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 153 of 173 (548383)
02-27-2010 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by cavediver
02-27-2010 8:10 AM


Re: Scientific laws
Thanks! Clearly not paying enough attention. It's still pretty pointless bringing up the quote though. Darwin has been dead a long time and it no longer really matters what he thought.
Melnick? Who the f'ck is Melnick???
Yeah, I did notice that and I'm none the wiser as to who Melnick is than you are. When employing an argument from authority it is usually a good idea to know who you're quoting. I wonder if tratse can provide us with Melnick's first name?
Mutate and Survive

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by cavediver, posted 02-27-2010 8:10 AM cavediver has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 165 of 173 (548574)
02-28-2010 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by traste
02-27-2010 9:44 PM


Re: Scientific laws
Hi traste,
Is this rating due to psychological reason, or belief system?
Just an opinion. You provide nothing but a copy-and-paste effort. It's not exactly impressive.
As I told you, and your co supporters that if reason really tell Darwin that the eye evolved, then we can observed the following evolutionary stages which Darwin though necessary to prove his theory.
Just out of interest, where did he say this?
Since you have only presented a copy of a creation.com article, I don't really see why I should put in much more effort, so here are a couple of links that detail the kinds of intermediate stages you ask about.
quote:
* Simplest of all we have the mere eyespot, as sported by the limpet Patella: a flat collection of pigmented cells and nerves with nerve fibers leading to whatever Patella has resembling a brain. This allows sufficient vison for phototaxis.
* In the slit shell mollusc Pleurotomaria, the eyespot has been deformed into a cup. This allows the mollusc to tell in which direction light or shadow lies, according to which side of the cup it falls on.
* In Nautilus, the far end of the cup has nearly closed off, leaving a "pinhole" aperture. This has the effect of reducing the amount of light entering what we might now call an "eye", but it improves acuity of vision, since now the view of each photoreceptor is confined to light passing in a straight line that passes through the pinhole and terminates at the photoreceptor.
* The eye fills up with a thick fluid: we have not been able to find out whether this has happened in Nautilus, as our sources conflict on this issue.
* A transparent layer of skin grows over the pinhole opening. A primitive spherical lens develops in the fluid in the eye. We should emphasize that the acquisition of a lens is not an all-or nothing step: the refraction of light is caused by differences in density between the media that the light has to pass through, and density is a property capable of almost infinitely fine gradations. This stage is represented by the eye of Murex. The focus provided by the primitive lens is sufficient that the pupil can get bigger again, allowing more light into the eye.
* Finally, we have the lens-shaped lenses of octopods and squid such as Loligo. Note that the ability to change focus, either by moving the lens backwards and forwards, as cephalopods do, or by stretching and contracting it, as we do, is certainly advantageous; and any small ability to do so, or small improvement on this ability, must therefore be favored by natural selection.
Source; Page not found – Skeptic Wiki
I suggest you take a close look at the Skepticwiki page, it has a lot of good information. Alternatively, take a look at this page on mollusc eyes;
http://www.weichtiere.at/english/mollusca/eyes.html
cavediver writes:
Melnick? Who the f'ck is Melnick??? And where did he say this?
traste writes:
Congratulations!! You have a very primative way of thinking.
Is this rating due to psychological reason, or belief system?
In all seriousness, you need to answer this question. You are the one who cited this Melnick character. You should know who he or she is, otherwise how are we to know how seriously to take Melnick's opinion? Who is J Melnick? Is he or she a biologist? A scientist? A road sweeper? A burger flipper? Without this kind of information, your appeal to Melnick's authority falls a touch flat.
Of course, you don't know any of this, because you just copied and pasted an article without the least attempt to demonstrate that you understand it.
AbE; Oh, one other thing; it doesn't really matter what Darwin thought. Darwin is not some kind of all-knowing, infallible prophet, whose every pronouncement is law. You might be getting him a bit mixed up with Jesus there. Darwin's work was pioneering, but it has been superseded. Modern evolutionary biology does not depend on what Darwin did or did not think. Creationists on the other hand seem veritably obsessed with the man. Maybe it's the beard...
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by traste, posted 02-27-2010 9:44 PM traste has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024