Creation / Evolution.

[Theland]

What can you say that you know one thing about evolution?

[pixie374]

I have never understood the argument about the eye, OP. Could you please explain it more?
As far as I can see... an eye can be evolved. Starting off with a few cells that can differentiate between light and dark, then movement, then better detail, and eventually colour.
Clearly, I am not scientific... but could you explain simply, why, please? Xx

[pixie374]

Pp, not op...

[Peter Pedant]

.// Evolution is a continuous process.//

erm not really Jim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

and can I say in a balanced fashion that all this talk of Abers being dogs and cats - I am really feeling quite stalked? just saying - and squealing of course

oh er and yes before anyone says it
evolutionary theory has evolved since 1859

uni courses are called evo devo - god know what the long words are - and not that popular

[jim360]

Perhaps I should say quasi-continuous, then.

[pixie374]

Jim, I think I cross-posted with pp. Please, what is meant to be the problem with the eye? It is so well-known, but has never made sense to me xx

[Peter Pedant]

// I have never understood the argument about the eye, PP. Could you please explain it more?//

I am a great one for - it is explained because it exists
( actually that is called an existential argument)

there may be an evolutionary biologist out there - AB has an astounding spectrum of talents - Jim as a theoretic physicist and Barmaid as a lawyer -

a formal zoology course is a good starter - you dont just get a cows eye and a cocktail stick and jan it - he course will cover how organisms perceive light

there are light sensitive spots on jelly fish eg

you get a single light pereiving spot ( oops cant remember which one)

and then the complex eye of insects - ommatidia grouped together

( I really used to enjoy zoology but now there is a lot of behavioral zoo which I find less inspiring)

the eye of the bird I think has a coloured oil drop and a simple receptor - which allows colour perception

and then there is the mammalian eye which seems to start again. starts off as a golf ball (neuro) and then indents to an egg cup - and in the rim of the cup there develops the pupil - those bits are derived fro, mesectoderm and not neuro

so there is a redesign from scratch even tho there were working models of a different design which werent bad

and even Darwin worked out that the inferior designs would not allow the eventually superior design to develop - as it has to go thro inferior low functioning prior forms and should get die from lack of fitness

and then Darwin said - I dont know, too hard for 1860

[Peter Pedant]

and the crayzies say there you are you see it must have been created by intelligent design !
( can only have)

[pixie374]

Thank you, pp xx but all those examples, surely, could just increase? Why not?

[Peter Pedant]

I dont know - perhaps the answer is - they didnt
a bit like - why do we have four legs and not six?
(erm we dont)

[Old_Geezer]

Something which appears to have "steps" of rapid change, most likely due to rapid environment change, doesn't necessarily stop in between. It still continues with the mutations, beneficial ones getting distributed though the populous even if the present environment doesn't weed out those without it. So it's still continuous.

It's no good railing about folk not wanting to use their time sitting through videos posted. Whatever is in the video still has to be posted here to be discussed, and the onus is on the link poster not those they are debating. Using links to show support of something aready claimed/posted, fine, but don't just post and expect everyone to go look. Links are reference only in a debate. They aren't the debate itself.

[pixie374]

No, but why shouldn't the smaller changes, we can actually see, not be able to turn into more over time?

[pixie374]

That was what I was trying to say, og. I'm interested in what people here think- or more, why...- but no so much in biased strangers. If somebody else can give your views better than you can... that doesn't say much, does it?

[Old_Geezer]

The Big Bang did not COME from nothing, the Big Big simply IS.
Is as much use as an explanation. And probably true if time is an emergent quality of the universe, experienced by beings inside the universe.

[Old_Geezer]

Despite umpteen proof checks and a couple of dozen corrections, still something only appears the very moment "answer now" is pressed >:-(

...Big Bang...

[Theland]

Dogs? Where is that please?

[pixie374]

Hi theland xx that is maybe the least important question to answer. Could you try some of the others please? (No YouTube links!!) Xx

[Theland]

Old Geezer - Yes I have faith in God, but I am following the science.
The videos I posted explain it far better than I can.
Thank you for your contribution.

[pixie374]

They don't, theland. Please answer with your own words. I can't interact with a video x

[mibn2cweus]

Evolution offers an explanation of the mean and process by which complexity arises (evolves) from simpler forms. Creation, posing as an alternative 'explanation', offers no explanation whatsoever for how complex systems came to be. Failure or refusal to fully understand and accept one explanation is no justification for accepting 'another' that explains nothing at all.

[pixie374]

I also don't agree that even if you can convince yourself that evolution doesn't really exist, that the next "obvious" answer would be an omnipotent spirit... who has no first cause... but just a desire to invent humans.