Creationist Friendly Q&A

The eye is one of the most widely discussed of such questions. The common question is "what good is half an eye?". The answer is "about 2% better than 49% of an eye", and that's what evolution works with; slight advantages. There's your mistake. A few cells that react to light can be an advantage over not having such cells. A few cells that react to lightplaced in slight pit can be an advantage over a few cells that just react to light, because they provide more directionality. A few cells that react to light in a definite recess with a small opening provide more directionality. Then a transparent membrane over the opening, to protect the cells, is a good thing. That membrane might get a little thicker in the center, and start focusing. Muscles around the edges of the membrane could form, opening and closing a primitive iris to adjust to light level; first only a little bit, but that's good, and later with an iris evolved to open and close a alot, thaast's even better.We see almost all these stages in organisms existing today. The exact paths (eyes have evolved several independent times) are unknown, but many of the steps along the way have been seen.The connections to the brain would arise in a somewhat similar way.For more detail: Life's Grand Design, The Evolution of Eyes, and The Intermediate Stages Of The Fish Eye.

One of the things often forgotten is that we can see many examples today of things without eyes but that have sight. Plants are a great example. They have no eyes, no brain to process the information, no nervous system, yet they can sense the light, move towards it and turn to face it.It's a beginning.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

And so they should. Think of it as a nudge on the back for them to realize that there is a much bigger world out there.

---

Carrots and sticks.When I was little, I asked my pharmacist father why all the medicines had such funny sounding names.He said; "They aren't funny sounding."That's all he said. He didn't try to explain that which I figured out on my own much later; that the names often referred to the chemical compounds of the drug or the action of what the drug was supposed to do.Now, when I asked that question, it was an honest question, and he made me feel silly and stupid and that it was simply wrong of me to have asked it.He should have taken it as an opportunity to teach me something, but instead made me much less likely to ask him any more questions at all.(Of course, this was the same man who bitterly complained that none of his children wanted to go into pharmacy)If people already feel intimidated, they need patience and gentleness, not snottiness or any kind of "nudge", as you put it.

quote:

---

t is the people you belittle and classify as dumb who hold many a purse string you care to tap for the sake of science.

​

Do you see now how unscientific it is to treat them poorly?

---

I really don't get where all of this righteous indignation is coming from.This thread is meant for people who feel scared of asking questions to be assured that they will be treated gently.Is that wrong?

quote:

---

Even tho I love science and the wonders it has discovered,I'll not give another pluck nickel for research regardless of how it may benefit man.

​

It is here I learned to think that way. From folks like you.

---

Looking to send us back to the Dark Ages, PG?

For shame. An effort is being made to educate people who want it. You dont, that's fine. Stay out of the way and let those who do get what they want.By the way, the following shows a good deal of ignorance about the subject at hand: What you're talking about isn't science at all. It's more public relations or public policy, I think. Not only are you telling people they shouldn't ask questions about science from those who are likely more knowledgable on the subject, you're also giving out bad information about it.How can you love a thing, as you claim to, and not know what it is?

Having thought this over for a day I am in agreement that it might be nice to be extra careful and see how it works.Can anyone track down why PG is so upset? I thought at first it was my post but can't see how he could take it personally. I didn't say he was lying just that he had been lied to. But I guess even that isn't "friendly" enough.

I don't understand what the big mystery is. At the early stages of multicellular life there would be a range of not too distantly related organisms. In the many empty niches they would diversify pretty quickly.Each of these new branchs would branch further. Once the branches were established they would be the base for groupings -- phyla if early enough.If these different groups diversified enough they might not leave any open niches for a brand new basal group to diversify into. So you have the original set and no room for more.From then on all you can get is pruning. Given all of that what we see doesn't strike me as surprising or odd at all.The emergence of muliticellular life after a couple plus billion years needs an explanation but once that gets kicked off the pattern we see makes sense to me.We make a big deal of the "sudden" emergence of new phyla. However, look at the little buggers. The chordates were only a teeny (by todays standards) different from the others. If isn't like comparing the farthest out modern branches of the phyla today.I think when we use the modern names for the phyla it conjures up pictures of the extant examples. You need to look at the pictures, fossils and reconstructions. You would not, I think, see nearly as much as the diversity we see in much more closely related groups today (like mammals for example). The diverity is hidden away in there but it is more subtle than the names suggest.The explosion appears that way because for some 10's of millions of years the early diversification wasn't well preserved and when it was it was still only part way ( not a big part) to the split that there is today.

As far as plants go, saying "they move toward the light" just kind of sounds wrong. Someone lacking basic plant biology/physiology might get the wrong impression. That and saying that they are an example of something that has "sight". They 'know' which way to grow when they're a seed because of gravities effect on their root cells and they turn toward light because the light triggers hormones that effect the turgor pressure of the plant cells.Not trying to be pedantic, just didn't want someone to get the wrong impression.

quote:

---

Looking to send us back to the Dark Ages, PG?

---

You haven't left them yet, Schraf. You need a good PR man, especially here, to get you out of them.Trigger words, such as 'righteous indignation', are your method of suggesting I should feel naughty?So, you have made 'a thread' where people will get treated GENTLY when they ask a question about something they do not know. By this you admit that they do not at any other time and will not again once this thread closes.I reject science as a legitimate alternative to Christian, or other faith.That I can do that is what you people don't seem to get, that I am doing it, is right to me.

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

Can anyone track down why PG is so upset? I thought at first it was my post but can't see how he could take it personally. I didn't say he was lying just that he had been lied to. But I guess even that isn't "friendly" enough.

---

I'm not upset, Ned. This very minute I'm rolling on the floor laughing my ass off at your pomposity. I have been lied to, and swallowing the lie hook line and sinker, that is very friendly of you, Ned.

---

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

quote:

---

You haven't left them yet, Schraf.

---

Uh, what?I am not superstitious, I don't believe in hexes or heresy, and I don't think I've burned anyone at the stake lately.I asked that question in responst to your statement that you are going to refuse to contribute funds to any scientific research ever again.If science and rational inquiry goes away, the ignorance and superstition of the Dark Ages fills the vacuum.I was simply asking if that was what you really wanted.So, is it?

quote:

---

You need a good PR man, especially here, to get you out of them.

​

Trigger words, such as 'righteous indignation', are your method of suggesting I should feel naughty?

---

It was the phrase that I thought best described the attitude of your posts.You appear to be insulted and outraged. Thus "righteous indignation."

quote:

---

So, you have made 'a thread' where people will get treated GENTLY when they ask a question about something they do not know. By this you admit that they do not at any other time and will not again once this thread closes.

---

Well, there are some posters for whom patience is not their strongpoint. They wouldn't be likely to enjoy this thread.OTOH, there are plenty of Creationist posters who are not at all interested in learning anything.This thread is not for them, either.

quote:

---

I reject science as a legitimate alternative to Christian, or other faith.

---

Yeah, me too.Where did you get the idea that science was a faith?

You have been lied to; you have taken it hook, line, and sinker; and then you have the rank arrogance to say that such gullibility is superior to not being decieved. Sorry if that bothers you.Your unprovoked venom is unneeded and unwanted, but should not go unanswered.

Yes, yes I understand your position. Don’t misunderstand me NosyNed, I’m not trying to debate you. I was merely pointing out that there are experts in the field who maintain that recent research indicates there are other explanations. I was curious as to what those other explanations were.I suppose I could go out and research the subject myself, but in light of the OP, Creationist friendly Q&A, I was looking for a quick synopsis. I have no doubt that once these theories are presented, you would be intereseted in debating the salient points.

It is worth mentioning that in any area of active research older books may be out of date. In fact one of the Amazon customer reviews mentions that the treatment of the Burgess Shale was out of date even at the time of publication.Prehistoric Life: The Rise of the Vertebrates.In his book Trilobite Richard Fortey discusses some of the evidence. First the Burgess Shale fossils - famous from Gould's Wonderful Life were wrongly classified. Fortey is one of the paleontologists who have shown that the Burgess Shale fossils did not represent as wide a diversity as was once thought. Hallucigenia, for instance, turns out to be a representative of an obscure phylum - the velvet worms - that still exists. Fortey also discusses the genetic evidence which indicates that significant divergences preceded the fossil evidence known at the time. He puts forward the idea that an increase in size is an important factor, as very small life forms rarely fossilise.Fortunately there are unusual modes of fossilisation which can preserve very small animals. And scientists are now taking advantage of this fact with significant results. For instance this fossil: Pre-Cambrian Coelomate

Not sure if the theme is pre-Cambrian or Cambrian, but my impression is that the quality of discussion, at the moment, far excedes that of the (IMO) dubious topic in general.Is there a better existing topic, or is a new topic needed?Moose (non-admin mode)