|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5572 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In response to Coyote:
I would venture to guess that your "evidence and reason" will never stray very far from strict creationism. When you accept an idea based on the evidence, you often have little problem modifying that idea as the evidence changes and improves. What I believe is derived from evidence and reason. They are still my beliefs, however - just derived from those sources. Your posts read more like religious apologetics than actual science, coming up with reasons that your beliefs must be true. Science, when properly applied according to the scientific method, works strictly from data to theory with no overriding goals or requirements to conform to a particular belief. Sorry, but I don't tend to see that in your posts. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
That is the nature of the framework of existence that everything is in. All matter, all atoms, all forms of energy, everything obeys laws. Those laws, through an evolutionary mechanism, would require that they be setup in such a way that over time benefits created by the random action of other mechanism at work (genetic drift, mutations, etc.) be weighed against other ones, resulting in a better adapted being for its environment. The laws could also just be inevitibilities of our Universe. And its not hard to see that the laws that wouldn't work, would fail to stick around. You seem to be in awe that the puddle perfectly conforms to the pothole and that the pothole must have been designed to fit around the water.
The system, the framework within which everything operates has information built in to it. That information had to come from somewhere, and this is what God is telling us: I did it. So then, where did the information that is built into God come from, hmm? If complexity requires design, and god is complex, the god requires design too. If God can be the exception to that rule, then why can't the Universe itself be the exception?
Is it less believable that God actually created us, and that everything we see with its infinite complexity and harmony came from God - than to believe we simply evolved from a bunch of pre-animate goo? The believability of an idea has nothing to do with its veracity.
Such a goo-to-man universe is not a place I would want to exist in. So you're just going to hide your head in the sand?
To state it again, there is nothing that we can look at where God is not revealed. If everything points to God, then really nothing is pointing to God. If you can't distinguish between whether or not two things point to God, then it makes no difference if they both do or niether do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I have seen scientific reports which claim there are more than 1 billion genes in a human's DNA. Over a billion nucleotides - only about 20,000 genes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5572 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
In response to Catholic Scientist:
(1) Yes, its call "Natural Selection". (2) Yes, its called "Random Mutation". (3) No, not necessarily. If the environment selected for non-better beings, then they would be what evolved. With regards to (3), the mechanisms of the environment would've selected whatever was better for the environment - meaning that there are still scales of some sort in operation which revealed the final being.
Or they (evolution as well as scientific laws) could simply be inevitabilities of our Universe. Our universe has information built in to it. That information either spontaneously came into existence with so many harmonies, or it was created. If you're willing to accept the possibility that the universe, with all of its infinite size, scope, complexity and mathematical harmony, just happened ... then there you go - evolution becomes possible.
You don't choose to not believe in an Intelligent Designer if you simply have a default of non-belief until evidence convinces otherwise. Lacking the convincing evidence of ID does not mean that someone chose to not believe it. According to my personal experience as a human being, and what I have (much later) learned from the Bible, that is exactly what happens. The Bible teaches that everything knows God implicitly. There is not a single created thing that does not know it is created, and who created it. However, with man He gave us free will. He gave us the ability to turn our back on belief, reason, etc., which is the whole story of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. God allows us to believe what we choose to believe. However, that does not negate His existence or His authority or His purposes for us and promises to us.
No, it isn't. I have faith in Jesus despite the lack of evidence. I accept evolution because of the positive evidence. When there's positive evidence, it is no longer faith. If you have truly accepted Jesus as your savior, then you have evidence of His existence. As you are born again, you know Him and He speak to you spiritually and you know implicitly of His existence. There is a great line in the TV show Deep Space Nine where Major Kira says regarding faith: "To those who don't believe, no explanation is sufficient. For those who do believe, no explanation is necessary." I have faith in Jesus Christ. I have no faith in anything in this world, including man's reasoning ability. I accept on faith what Jesus has said, that in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth ... and I leave it there. Still, even within that belief I am able to see the universe through His eyes and see His reason in its creation. I see no evidence whatsoever of evolution, outside of micro-evolution which is the variation within species from the genetic data already there (meaning no dog has ever produced a non-dog). The Bible teaches that God made all of the animals, and brought them to Adam for their name. Do you disagree with God's revelation of His creation in Genesis? I don't expect you to answer, but I do expect you to think about it. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5572 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
Response to Coyote:
I would venture to guess that your "evidence and reason" will never stray very far from strict creationism. Your posts read more like religious apologetics than actual science, coming up with reasons that your beliefs must be true. Science, when properly applied according to the scientific method, works strictly from data to theory with no overriding goals or requirements to conform to a particular belief. Sorry, but I don't tend to see that in your posts. I understand. The truth is I accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and without reserve. There is nothing in Heaven or on the Earth that He does not have authority over - having raised from the dead. The Bible is extremely clear, and it is confirmed with everything in my being, that God created the universe, and that everything that exists was created by His authority and upon His word. I accept that reality. And I can look at science and see God in it. I do not see what man often sees in it because it results in concepts like "Maybe it's the nature of the Universe," as if the universe could come into existence on its own with this level of perfection. There is some intelligent design at work. That intelligent design either came from a spontaneous existence with everything as it is today, or some alien, or from God. I believe with everything in my being that it is from God, and that is not just based on looking around, but also on God talking to me the way He does in everything around me. In short, I trust in Him and what He has revealed to us through the Bible. I do not trust in man because man has proven himself time and time again to be capable of lying, cheating, deceiving, presenting half-truths, ignoring real truths, embracing falsehoods, etc. God is incapable of those qualities, which is why the universe is perfect - because He is perfect. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Hi Rick.
I believe the need to sleep comes from our spiritual connection with God. Because we are in a science forum you need to support your belief with positive evidence. You sound like a good sort so please take this advice in the spirit it is given: You will get very short thrift in a science forum using 'I believe' as support for your assertion. Can you supply supporting evidence for your assertions?
There is no reason to think that evolution would not have created similar thermoreceptors or adpated photoreceptors in humans. There is no reason to think that evolution of such pits should have occurred in humans as this would violate ToE.
I refuse to accept the fact that it came from something like evolution. Can I ask you what evidence would evidence would make you accept it?
If you're willing to accept the possibility that the universe, with all of its infinite size, scope, complexity and mathematical harmony, just happened ... then there you go - evolution becomes possible. Here's the thing, Rick. You add an extraneous undetectable entity into the mix. If you take out your god it all falls into place and is supported by the evidence. Creationism just is not supported. You have stated what you believe but have provided no supporting evidence for your statements. Edited by Larni, : No reason given. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
There is no reason to think that evolution would not have created similar thermoreceptors or adpated photoreceptors in humans. We would not have to look like we do today, and if evolution were truly at work it seems very unlikely that we would look like we do today. Why would it? The need for thermoreceptors is far less in mammals; we already have advanced thermoregulation. Thermoreceptors in snakes, you see, are used more often for finding warm spots in which to bask than to catch mice, and it is doubtless this use that propelled their earlier evolution. Edited by Mr Jack, : Whoops! Had written photoreceptors when I meant Thermoreceptors.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
(1) Yes, its call "Natural Selection". (2) Yes, its called "Random Mutation". (3) No, not necessarily. If the environment selected for non-better beings, then they would be what evolved. With regards to (3), the mechanisms of the environment would've selected whatever was better for the environment - meaning that there are still scales of some sort in operation which revealed the final being.
and if the environment was one that only allowed for bacteria to survive, then all life would be bacteria.
Our universe has information built in to it. That information either spontaneously came into existence with so many harmonies, or it was created. If you're willing to accept the possibility that the universe, with all of its infinite size, scope, complexity and mathematical harmony, just happened ... then there you go - evolution becomes possible. First off, evolution doesn't have anything to do with cosmology. But lets explore your logic. You, yourself, are willing to accept the possibility that God, with all his "infinite size, scope, complexity and mathematical harmony," just happened, no? If not, who created God? If so, then why can't you give the same acceptance to the Universe itself.
There is not a single created thing that does not know it is created, and who created it. Why don't you ask the turd that I just created in the toilet? and if you mean living things, then that is just something that you cannot know. It is just your unsubstantiated assertion.
If you have truly accepted Jesus as your savior, then you have evidence of His existence. and if you have evidence of his existence, then you have no faith, you have knowledge. Jesus said that those who believe without seeing are the blessed.
As you are born again, you know Him and He speak to you spiritually and you know implicitly of His existence. How do you know that it is, in fact, Jesus? It could easily be the devil tricking you, no?
There is a great line in the TV show Deep Space Nine where Major Kira says regarding faith: "To those who don't believe, no explanation is sufficient. For those who do believe, no explanation is necessary." actually, that was Saint Thomas Aquinas....
I accept on faith what Jesus has said, that in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth Where did Jesus, the man who walked here with us on Earth, say that? Or is this some extension that Jesus = God so what is in Genesis was said by Jesus? You do know that Genesis was written by men, don't you?
I see no evidence whatsoever of evolution, outside of micro-evolution which is the variation within species from the genetic data already there (meaning no dog has ever produced a non-dog). Then you haven't looked hard enough. You can start here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Do you disagree with God's revelation of His creation in Genesis? Yes and no. I still believe god created eveything, I just don't think that Genesis accuratly (in a literal sense) describes how he did it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
That is the nature of the framework of existence that everything is in. All matter, all atoms, all forms of energy, everything obeys laws. Those laws, through an evolutionary mechanism, would require that they be setup in such a way that over time benefits created by the random action of other mechanism at work (genetic drift, mutations, etc.) be weighed against other ones, resulting in a better adapted being for its environment. In a sense it is. It is called survival of the fittest. Those best adapted to the environment survive those that don't become extinct.What may seem to be a totally neutral mutation today, may eventually become a positive trait should the environment change or it could be come a detriment for the same reason. There is no purpose. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Photoreceptors in snakes, you see, are used more often for finding warm spots in which to bask than to catch mice, and it is doubtless this use that propelled their earlier evolution. You know that never entered my head. Guess you live and learn, eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2541 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
And while we can't see heat, we can certainly feel it.
I get the feeling that Rick is thinking we would be able to see heat like we do through infrared cameras. I'm not sure that we would see the world like that. This picture, for example, is shown with false color:File:Infrared dog.jpg - Wikipedia Turns out, the original film is essentially monochromatic, and the differences in heat (or rather, black body radiation) are determined by changes in intensity. Further, it seems that these pit receptors visualize the heat much like a pin-hole camera, and simulations show that the resolution is really quite bad. The contrast itself isn't too great either. Fortunately for the snakes with these, the image is sharpened along the way, but still, you're not going to get anything like what a false-color infrared camera will show you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You are welcome to your beliefs, and I have no problems with that at all.
Where I have a problem is when folks confuse religious beliefs with scientific knowledge (hey, that might make a good tagline!). Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RickCHodgin Member (Idle past 5572 days) Posts: 44 From: United States Joined: |
In response to bluescat48:
In a sense it is. It is called survival of the fittest. Those best adapted to the environment survive those that don't become extinct. What may seem to be a totally neutral mutation today, may eventually become a positive trait should the environment change or it could be come a detriment for the same reason. There is no purpose. The universe is a system. It operates continuously obeying its laws. It cannot violate its laws, at least we haven't ever observed that it does. The fact that we look at an instance in time and see a particular mutation as neutral, but in fact that mutation has some far-future advantage, is no less an affirmation that the universe itself has purpose than if we were to see something which seems to us to be an advantage today, but in the long run proves otherwise. The universe, from the evolutionist's point of view, is constantly working toward that better thing. And if that requires everything going away and only microbes existing for a few billion years before then again creating an evolutionary effort? Then that's the way it would be - from an evolution's point of view. If it isn't like that, then by definition it's working toward something willy nilly or negative - and that's not what I believe the evolutionists believe as they constantly state that the most adapted being is the one which, over a long period of time, survives. The whole idea of evolution is a ridiculous argument. We are here today. What should we do? Stand opposed to one another arguing over semantics? Or do we look to each other, realize that we love each other and care about each other and then desire to help that other person? I choose the latter. In fact, I debated with someone named Jo H. about even coming here. I can see now that I made a mistake as I have no desires whatsoever to debate points which are ultimately pointless when I have neighbors who need help, and friends, and co-workers, and loved ones. I would rather spend time working with them, showing them I love them, than arguing over points that none of us will ever truly know the answer to (until after we die by my belief anyway). I apologize for wasting everybody's time. If you'd like to reach me, please do so at rick@tgdaily.com. Peace. Edited by RickCHodgin, : Clarifying the last bit of my statement. - Rick
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
The universe, from the evolutionist's point of view, is constantly working toward that better thing. I think you had better do a little studying of evolution before you make similar false statements about it. The universe isn't working toward anything, and has nothing to do with evolution. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So, hiding your head in the sand it is, then?
Willful ignorance. What a shame.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024