A response follows in 5 parts. I used to believe this argument and others like it that support Evolution. But then I decided to study the arguments in closer detail. What I found was that there are gaping holes which are just glossed over by those proposing the arguments. People who really want to believe Evolution are happy to accept these arguments as being “scientific and therefore valid”. The fact that there are animals today with eyes varying from simple to highly complex, does not prove
You are asking really simple questions that will take many different explanations. You can ask all day and say that you looked into all the facts and researched this, but your argument is honestly very naive and doesn't really give some kind of antithesis. All that you are doing is saying that you looked up the facts, but never stated any.
Part 2 that one has, or even could, evolve from the other.
Let me ask you a question: How does the change from a fixed eye, consisting of a spherical indentation lined with light sensitive cells, into a swivelling eye consisting of a ball in a socket, take place by natural selection? The changes involved are huge. This alone would take countless generations and each minute development would be meaningless to the animal concerned. Consider what is necessary.
You seem to not understand that this does take generations. The video isn't saying "hey, this eye was made in two weeks." It's more of a general overview of how an eye develops through evolution. This happened of millions and millions of years, so it's not even happening in a short span of time as you are implying.
Part 3.Muscles need to develop within the eyeball to control the lens; an iris needs to evolve to control light levels; muscles must develop outside of the eyeball, to make it swivel; a bone structure needs to develop to which these muscles can attach; tear glands are needed to lubricate the eyeball; tear ducts are needed to drain the eye; eyelids are needed to keep it clean. And all of these need to be connected via nerves to the brain, which must be capable of involuntary actions such as
Part 4. controlling the lens and iris. All this must happen before the swiveling eye can function. And not only that, it has to happen twice, because I don’t know of any animal with a single complex eye!
So I challenge you, Evolutionists, to explain to me how this can happen, bearing in mind that each small step must be an improvement in itself.
Please don’t just barrage me with insults. I’ve heard them all before and they don’t mean anything.
Part 5 What I am looking for is a reasoned answer to a reasoned question. Prove to me that Evolutionists can think for themselves and not just swallow some half-cocked story with no substance. I now know I did that for many years, but now, it seems to me that the thinking person’s only option is to reject Evolution, based on the arguments provided to support it
@blackadderthe4 The Retina that has to grow Optic nerves, while these Optic nerves has to Grow to the Visual Cortex ? And this Coded information that goes through the Optic nerves is so Incredibly complex you can't fathom it. Just 1 second of vision time with your eyes have more data then the best computers in the world could process in a 100 years.
take out the Optic nerves then the Retina is useless, take out the Visual Cortex and the Retina then the Optic nerves are useless
@blackadderthe4 How did The Retina, Optic Nerves, Visual Cortex Create itself ? The Extremely advanced and complex Coded information that is recieved through the Retina, through the Optic nerves and then Decoded in The visual Vortex, How did these things create it self ?
How did they know that if it combined these 4 Super Advanced Biological High tech Devices and Connected them in Just the right way it would produce eye sight, that would be a sense in your brain ?
@blackadderthe4 You dont see with your eyes ( Retinas ) The image you see through your eyes are Displayed in your Visual Cortex, You seem to be unaware of this Fact. The image is displayed in your brain, Not in the Retina, The Retina are just Receivers of the coded information in the Photons. The Optic Nerves are just the cables ( it's not an ordinary nerve ) These cables Lead to the Visual Cortex where it's decoded in Produces an image inside your brain.
@blackadderthe4 People will never be able to Produce Retinas, Optic Nerves, and Visual Cortex's You claim to be intelligent ? Like your Science gurus claims to be, They have figured it all out, But they are Simple Cavemen Compared to The Science of Living entities.
evolutionist only talk about the Retina, & only the Retina, Just because some simple celled living entities have Light receivers. It has nothing to do with Complex eyes.
@blackadderthe4 The only explanation is that it all had to be created at once, A retina wont give you vision. not even light sensing ability, It's like a Toaster without an On / off switch isn't much help huh ?` A car without a motor ? A Computer without a CPU, you get the point i guess.
How did these things know to Grow into existence and interconnect in ways State of the Art science will never replicate ? talk about Intelligent design.
@blackadderthe4 even if you randomly Mutated " evolved " Eyes on your Legs, with Retina And Optic Nerves that got connected to your kidney, it would NOT give you vision. The Visual Cortex is a extremely advanced part of the brain ( like all of them ) where the information passing through the Optic Nerves is being Decoded at real time speed. with so little delay / and so high Frames per second. So high Resolution.
@blackadderthe4 It's so funny how All these Random Mutations Fall together so Perfectly that it's mind bugling ? Did you know how Experts of Mutation and DNA all State that in Nature Mutated animals are always weaker, Always DNA depletion, Never an Advantage, ALWAYS an Disadvantage.
There have never been found 1 Example of a advantageous Mutation, But Endless of Disadvantageous. Have you ever seen a human that were Mutated ( deformed ) where it were good ?
@blackadderthe4 Their had to be a beginning, so at one point their were no life, Also Stated in Darwinism / Neo-Darwinism, Then After Matter and Energy Magically created itself ( big bang ) Then Non living matter turned itself into living matter, since it rained down on some rocks ( also stated in the theory )
You know that in State of the art labs they cant Replicate this event ? They try and try, But you cannot turn Non living matter into living matter.
'They try and try, But you cannot turn Non living matter into living matter' correct, but there can create the building blocks of life and all that is needed after that is a few billion years!
@blackadderthe4 They have been able to Produce one Chemical compound found in Living matter, in their years of research and billions of billions of dollars invested in research and Equipment, The design is so intelligent That even the Brightest heads on the planet Are nowhere near Creating living matter out of non-living matter. You cant argue against this.
You think Billions of years is the Secret Recipe to Bend and Break All natural laws, its laughable ... ?
And you think the eye was created by intelligent design? Well it's not that intelligent is it? Seen as babys are born blind! How does your designer explain that? As he is supposed to be perfect!
@blackadderthe4 Just take a look at the video ? If you were blindfolded would your Light sensitive Skin Pigment be able to See the light ? are your Skin Eyes ?
He claims that The skins Light sensitive pigment were the first Eyes ? And then it created a Shallow pit.. If you have a Shallow pit on your arm a small hole in your leg or Arm, Will you be able to tell Where the Light is Coming from, due to the Pit and the Light sensitive pigment ? Dawkin is a Joke ..
@blackadderthe4 I don't avoid the question, i simply didn't think about answering it, since i don't have an answer, unlike Darwinist and All their Hypothetical Guessing games.
What i talk about is things that we know, Unlike Darwinist.
What you feel in your skin from the Sun light is the Heat sensing nerve system, you don't feel the light, your skin doesn't feel cold light or See it. No matter how many light sensitive Skin pigment cells you have. Not even in your arm pit ^^
You said it, 'i don't have an answer', because there is no supernatural answer! The only answer is the proven science of Darwin! And by the way there are many more myths in those old books!
The only thing i stated were, that The Retina, Optical Nerves, And the Visual Cortex could'n have evolved over time, and that they had to be their at the same time to have worked. And that Dawkins Point in this Video is Absolutely rubbish as i also Proved.
From these Facts, it's almost given that Something special have had to occur. Like when Non living matter transformed itself into Living matter. Or when Energy popped into existence.
@blackadderthe4 My personal and Your personal Conclusions of the Unknown is up to you and up to me.
According to Evolutionist, They are proposing that sheer Randomness and Mistakes in the end is So Much more Intelligent and perfect Then What we Simple Human beings are able to create out of our Enlightened bright minds.
They cant even create a Retina in the lab. Nor connect it with the Optical nerves. Only a version that's so poor it can't even be called vision. This flawed eye huh
@blackadderthe4 But We can look at an Eye now. And see it, And try to Replicate it, Not even invent anything, Just Replicate a thing we can Watch and Study.
Not only Did this Natural selection Invent The Retina, Optic Nerve system and the Visual Cortex, It also Created it out of Nothing.
But we cannot even Fathom the Retina, The simplest piece of the Whole, And could never dream about Creating Optic Nerves, or NOT AT ALL the Visual cortex which is by far the most Advanced.
@blackadderthe4 Natural Selection And Millions of years Doesn't have a mind of it's own like you seem to Think.
Micro Evolution ( adaptation ) is a fact, Darwinian " Macro Evolution " is merely a stupid theory, you cannot draw forth ONE single evidence of Macro Evolution, But Endless of proof of Micro Evolution " kind's Bringing forth The same kinds "
Mutation of Cells and DNA has Never been an Advantage in nature or in Society.
'Natural Selection And Millions of years Doesn't have a mind of it's own like you seem to Think' never said it did! There seems to be a gap in your education, so this is a good place to start!
@blackadderthe4 kk i watched your links, it's good info, i'm not suggesting your stupid but that Science today cant explain everything, and sometimes go to far with Guessing.
Also i would like you to watch a video i posted here on youtube, i want to know your opinion " illuminati in 15 minutes " search here on youtube please sir.
@blackadderthe4 It will also explain why the US government were willing to Sacrifice so many Civil people on 9 / 11 Who's controlling the US / EU and the rest of the world.
Why they have waged war Day and night for the past 60 years non stop. and a great deal more " illuminati in 15 minutes " search here on youtube.
@blackadderthe4 Can you believe That Randomness Over many years will produce Unfathomably deeply complex things That we cannot even dream about Creating under Controlled attempts ? But Just give it some time and it will happen by accident in nature.
@blackadderthe4 Don't Get to Locked on your Evolution ideas, keep an open mind, I know you have been taught something in school, and the common and Accepted ideology is Darwinism, but really' Take a look around, Think for your self, don't just jump in line with all the other people's thought patterns.
Just because all people stated that the earth were flat, didn't mean they were right.
This video perfectly points out how causality, one action leading to another, gets us to where we are today. Creationism, on the other hand, says that humans were created out of nothing. One minute they didn't exist, the next they did. That view throws causality out the window, it insists that no process or mechanism was necessary, and that all that was required was a little magic, or pixie dust, or what have you. This is a fairy tale. Evolution is the only rational explanation.
not being funny but doesn't the big bang theory state that from nothing came something? one minute nothing existed then the next, EVERYTHING existed? just to throw a spanner in the works.. sorry!
@EllaGrace93: This is also true at the Quantum level. Quantum particles appear, disappear, teleport, and so on. It doesn't make much sense. But on our level, in the universe as it exists, theories need to explain and be testable. Saying God created it doesn't explain anything, and isn't testable.
For a scientist he is talking total crap, he might as well have be telling us the Mickey Mouse built the eye.
If Dawkins is so good at creating an eye from scratch; why does he not cure all blind people in the world.
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
'; why does he not cure all blind people in the world' because he is a person! And as such can't influence EVOLUTION
'There is, it appears, a conspiracy of scientists a foot. Their purpose is to break down religion, propagate immorality, and so reduce mankind to the level of the brutes. They are the sworn and sinister agents of Beelzebub, who yearns to conquer the world, and has his eye especially upon Tennessee' -H.L. Mencken's beautiful sarcasm regarding the Scopes Trial
@blackadderthe4 Since you in the mode for quotes consider this:
NASA Director Wernher von Braun said, (1972)
“For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design....
Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye.”
'without invoking the necessity of design....' well he is not a bioligist or an evolutionist, but he was a former NAZI and war criminal, although he got away with it! So anything he says has to be treated with suspicion.
Dawkins' hypothetical animal and hypothetical process are cute. His cartoon is also cute. However it contradicts the actual scientific evidence. Australian researchers have discovered complex eyes in the early Cambrian. three thousand lenses and excellent resolution.l
evolution cannot account for such complex vision at such an early stage. Even the evolutionists that found the fossils are now claiming super evolution which happens in the twinkling of an eye. That is not science that is men making up stories to support their belief.
And to top it off its not just the eye that has to work, you have an optic nerve, rod and cone cells, an optic chism, a primary and secondary visual cortex, and to end it an occipital lobe, I forgot to mention the mind boggoling chemical cascade that needs to fire for ever picosecond that you see.
So you believe in fairy tales then? What about the tooth fairy and santa, etc. "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." - House
This is the worst explaination of how the eye evolved I have ever seen in my life. Mutations need to take place in the parents gametic cells, then passed down to their offspring, but the mutations have to happen in just the right way, the codes have to be phased into the DNA in the just the right order each time a mutation happens step by little step without mistakes until you get a fully functional eye. Its impossible. THE EYE NEVER EVOLVE.
That is because you are foolish to reject a science fact! If you visit the doctor you'll take the drugs he gives you, which have on many times been developed with evolutionary techniques. Or do you reject them and visit the local witch doctor for his homoepathic 'medicine' and then end up dead! Because there is no science supporting them! Typical creationist, non are so blind as those who will not open their eyes and see the truth!
@blackadderthe4 I don't see a fact, I see a very poor explaination of how it could have happened according to evolution, You need to understand the difference between a theory and a full blown fact.
He doesn't go into the deeper level of what needs to happen to the DNA in order for these steps to happen. Its a very poor explaination and as a science major I'm not satisfied.
Well if you're not satisfied, then you must be right. I mean we can't have you not satisfied, with you being a science major and all! So what we'll do is inform all organisations and scientists that they have to ignore Darwin's FACT, because you say so, with no evidence what so ever. Then when you have overturned the world of science, you will no doubt get a Nobel prize. How lucky you are!
@TheNordbjerg Why don't you build a biological eye and prove me wrong then
Listen to what he said "now grow some skin over our eye, and let the lens harden a bit" LOL WHAT like you can just do that. He takes no time to explain what happens to the DNA. This is a piss poor explaination, you can probably fool a 1st grader with it, PROBABLY.
@blackadderthe4 millions and millions of years of random mutations, that are just right, in just the right place on the DNA, making mistakes and miraculously repairing those mistakes, over and over again to create something as beautiful and complex as a biological camera, OH WHAT FAITH YOU HAVE IN THE RELIGION OF EVOLUTION.
@TheNordbjerg I believe in adaptation, where animals can adapt to certain environments, but never can one species completely change into something else. NEVER.
I'm dumb? people fall for explainations like this in the video. When man builds a fully functional biological eye from scratch, or is able to create a completely different form of life from scratch, that uses an information storage system other than DNA, then you come back to talk to me.
Lets get down to reality here, and ignore the doltish viewers who somehow have managed to take an interest in the is fantastic info. I already know most of this and it still blows me away. If I was inclined to believe in a god I coild see him, she, or it in all of evolution. This shows, to me, the blind asskissing, god or die, stupidity of these witless gadflies, with their asses ears. But, like I said elsewhere, natural selection will weed them out, one by one.
HEY EVERYONE! I GOT A GREAT IDEA! FIND SOMEONE WHO IS OPPOSED TO YOUR BELIEFS WHETHER YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN OR RELIGIOUS FOLLOWER OR AN EVOLUTIONIST THEN ARGUE WITH THEM!!!
"and this proves what" it proves that evolution can "design" an eye and therefore anything is possible, given long periods of time combined with small steps of improvement each time!
@blackadderthe4 Listen here little buddy, Would anyone here know how to build a plane? NO, because a plane didn't build itself, nothing builds itself you fucking penass, Someone has the codes for it. Read the Book "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature by Francis Crick". Francis Crick who won the Nobel Prize for the Double Helix Molecular Structure said DNA did NOT evolve on Earth But from a planet far away.
1st of all I'm not your "little buddy" I'm fussy who calls me buddy! " because a plane didn't build itself" correct because it is made up of METAL not organic material, which has the properties of mutating into more complex organisms, It wouldn't be a good idea to have a plane that suddenly mutates into a submarine in mid flight LOL. Read Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker". " DNA did NOT evolve on Earth But from a planet far away." even if it did it would have to follow evolution rules!
" I mean God of the Holy Bible" which is full of mistakes and has been edited through out history! So which version do you believe? In one there are unicorns, so where are they now? Just a myth like most of the bible.
@peruface What Crick is talking about is the panspermia theory, which has nothing to do with evolution. It's a posited explanation for how life may have originated in the first place; evolution is what takes place over time, once life has occurred. Demonstrably, evolution has occurred on earth, whether the common ancestor was extraterrestrial or not. (And actually, yes we can witness it, when for example we watch natural selection make bacteria resistant to antibiotics.)
@peruface It proves that it isn't a valid objection to say the eye can't have evolved because it's too complex. It didn't 'suddenly appear by accident' as creationists like to suggest; rather, it's been formed over long periods of time from simple components.
The real question is: even if evolution were disproven, how would that prove a god exists?
@peruface Well, as it would happen I did understand natural selection before I watched this video. You though were the one who asked what it proved, so perhaps laying it all out isn't that effective after all.
@PlainlyUnbelievable Listen here little buddy, Would anyone here know how to build a plane? NO, because a plane didn't build itself, nothing builds itself you fucking penass, Someone has the codes for it. Read the Book "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature by Francis Crick". Francis Crick who won the Nobel Prize for the Double Helix Molecular Structure said DNA did NOT evolve on Earth But from a planet far away.
You old guys get bored much too quickly. Think of your blood pressure. You know, your ol' ticker ain't what it used to be! Here's a little something to calm your nerves.....a quote!
"When the Paris Exhibition closes, electric light will close with it and no more be heard of"
- Erasmus Wilson (1878) Professor at Oxford University
"a technological quote that is over 100 years old!"
"Sir William James Erasmus 'Orgasmus' Wilson FRCS FRS (25 November 1809 7 August 1884), generally known as Sir Erasmus Wilson, was born in London, studied at Dartford Grammar School before St Bartholomew's Hospital in London, and at Aberdeen, and early in life became known as a skillful surgeon."
Granted, he was about 25 years before you. So I guess you wouldn't know much about him.
This simply demonstrates the stupidity of the evolutionary theory.
Where are the nerves to take the signal to the brain? Where is the brain? Where is the software to make sense of the signals being transmitted to it? They ALL had to exist simultaneously for the image to be of any benefit.
Macro Evolution is NOT science. It only exists in the imagination. You simply must believe it occured because it is NOT observed.
"demonstrates the stupidity of the evolutionary theory" No this demonstrates that complex elements can be produced over long periods of time by using small advances many times! "You simply must believe it occured because it is NOT observed" so no doubt you think the moon just occurred because it wasn't observed. When the evidence is that it is made up of material that congregated over millions of years! "You simply must believe it occured because it is NOT observed" no I don''t!
A man who does not admit to making mistakes can't recognize when other people are making them. So what are your mistakes then, oh yes falling for the ETFO myth! Now careful because I'm the thread owner here and you may find yourself blocked from this thread. As you are acussing Shermer of, but he can't have because he hasn't log on in two weeks! Get it now! Do you?
"THESE ALL HAD TO BE THERE SIMULTANEOUSLY" that is your assumption! And to assume something makes a "ASS" of "U" and "ME". "the thing Dakins hates - faith" I have faith there is an invisible dragon on my spare bedroom, does that mean it's true! So what do you have faith in? "a vivid imagination but poor science" so what is your science then?
My science says that unless something is proven beyond reasonable doubt, it should not be called a "fact".
Science demands observation, measurement and hopefully repeatability.
Dawkin's fancifull, fictitious depiction of how the eye "evolved" is pure faith. Just because he has some scientific qualifications does not make it scientific.
Again i assert, The visual system has multiple components - they MUST ALL EXIST SIMULTANEIOUSLY
"MUST ALL EXIST SIMULTANEIOUSLY " BOLLARDS! For instance take whales, they developed from land animals. So one day an animal was roaming around and the next day it was a whale! I think not! It developed over a long period of time and due to small changes it became the animal we now know. If fact the fossil record proves this and early whales have remains of identifiable limbs, etc! "Science demands observation" Well in fact it is! In the fossil record! Big fail.
Dear blackadderthe4, if you are a scientist we are in deep trouble.
Again I assert that the visual system has many component which are all needed SIMULTANEOUSLY for vision to be effective. Any one piece missing renders the visual system inoperative.
Evolution does NOT explain how all the peices evolved AT THE SAME TIME.
"many component which are all needed SIMULTANEOUSLY" yet again wrong! Explain why we have a whale? You can't without evolution. "AT THE SAME TIME" not necessary. You have driven down a cul-de-sac come to a dead end and are chanting your propaganda hoping that will make it true. without any example of evidence! "My science says that unless something is proven beyond reasonable doubt, it should not be called a "fact". so that applies to your beliefs then? Pseudoscience I suspect!
@theot58 I think you are gravely missing the point. These systems do not all need to be in place at the same time. For an eye to function as ours does today, yes it does. But you make the mistake of presuming a function upon a process that is only being guided by selective pressures. There is no end-goal in mind.
There are several stages en route to what we would call a foundation of vision that don't even require a brain (as with eyespots in unicellular organisms). You're presuming a product.
"They are not facts" well they are worthless then! What about the belief of the invisible dragon in my bedroom? "There is evidence for all these assertions but not "proof". evidence is proof, you are seriously confused. The bible is full of contradictions and myths,says so many things that are oposite to each other and is therefore worthless. Which is more likely: That the natural order is suspended or that a jewish minx should tell a lie? And have a virgin birth?
Created to evolve :)) yo men , would to bother to creat something only to evolve , if u are allmighty , couldnt you just created it at the last step of evolution where its perfect or what???
I get the idea here, but doesn't this follow either the slippery slope or the A begat B fallacy (either way it's still fallacious)? Showing how the steps COULD have happened does not mean that is indeed how they happened. I could look at a man-made lake (unbeknownst to me the real origin) and explain how rain had fallen over vast amounts of years, and ran downhill to erode out a deeper hole, water collected, and a lake formed eventually. Crude example, but I hope it makes the point.
Hey look at this, a video on evolution, ratings not disabled, comments not disabled.
Just like all of them are. Can't say the same for creationist vids...
technicallyabsurd 4 weeks ago
@technicallyabsurd
'ratings not disabled, comments not disabled' way to go!
blackadderthe4 4 weeks ago
A response follows in 5 parts. I used to believe this argument and others like it that support Evolution. But then I decided to study the arguments in closer detail. What I found was that there are gaping holes which are just glossed over by those proposing the arguments. People who really want to believe Evolution are happy to accept these arguments as being “scientific and therefore valid”. The fact that there are animals today with eyes varying from simple to highly complex, does not prove
stevew1904 1 month ago
@stevew1904
'I decided to study the arguments in closer detail' buit are qualified? If so what makes you so?
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
@stevew1904
You are asking really simple questions that will take many different explanations. You can ask all day and say that you looked into all the facts and researched this, but your argument is honestly very naive and doesn't really give some kind of antithesis. All that you are doing is saying that you looked up the facts, but never stated any.
hampoofegg 2 days ago
Part 2 that one has, or even could, evolve from the other.
Let me ask you a question: How does the change from a fixed eye, consisting of a spherical indentation lined with light sensitive cells, into a swivelling eye consisting of a ball in a socket, take place by natural selection? The changes involved are huge. This alone would take countless generations and each minute development would be meaningless to the animal concerned. Consider what is necessary.
stevew1904 1 month ago
@stevew1904 You may well be right, the changes involved are huge. You seem to forget that life has been around for quite sometime.
Alphacaliber 1 month ago
@stevew1904
You seem to not understand that this does take generations. The video isn't saying "hey, this eye was made in two weeks." It's more of a general overview of how an eye develops through evolution. This happened of millions and millions of years, so it's not even happening in a short span of time as you are implying.
hampoofegg 2 days ago
Part 3.Muscles need to develop within the eyeball to control the lens; an iris needs to evolve to control light levels; muscles must develop outside of the eyeball, to make it swivel; a bone structure needs to develop to which these muscles can attach; tear glands are needed to lubricate the eyeball; tear ducts are needed to drain the eye; eyelids are needed to keep it clean. And all of these need to be connected via nerves to the brain, which must be capable of involuntary actions such as
stevew1904 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 4. controlling the lens and iris. All this must happen before the swiveling eye can function. And not only that, it has to happen twice, because I don’t know of any animal with a single complex eye!
So I challenge you, Evolutionists, to explain to me how this can happen, bearing in mind that each small step must be an improvement in itself.
Please don’t just barrage me with insults. I’ve heard them all before and they don’t mean anything.
stevew1904 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 5 What I am looking for is a reasoned answer to a reasoned question. Prove to me that Evolutionists can think for themselves and not just swallow some half-cocked story with no substance. I now know I did that for many years, but now, it seems to me that the thinking person’s only option is to reject Evolution, based on the arguments provided to support it
stevew1904 1 month ago
A poor explanation, much wishful thinking. Evolutionists are bunch of hypocrites if they said this video is one good explanation.
hisham031170 1 month ago
@hisham031170
So what is your explanation?
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 Not like this definitely. So do you think the explanation was good?
hisham031170 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 The Retina that has to grow Optic nerves, while these Optic nerves has to Grow to the Visual Cortex ? And this Coded information that goes through the Optic nerves is so Incredibly complex you can't fathom it. Just 1 second of vision time with your eyes have more data then the best computers in the world could process in a 100 years.
take out the Optic nerves then the Retina is useless, take out the Visual Cortex and the Retina then the Optic nerves are useless
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@mukkohaha
Well what is your answer then?
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 How did The Retina, Optic Nerves, Visual Cortex Create itself ? The Extremely advanced and complex Coded information that is recieved through the Retina, through the Optic nerves and then Decoded in The visual Vortex, How did these things create it self ?
How did they know that if it combined these 4 Super Advanced Biological High tech Devices and Connected them in Just the right way it would produce eye sight, that would be a sense in your brain ?
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 You dont see with your eyes ( Retinas ) The image you see through your eyes are Displayed in your Visual Cortex, You seem to be unaware of this Fact. The image is displayed in your brain, Not in the Retina, The Retina are just Receivers of the coded information in the Photons. The Optic Nerves are just the cables ( it's not an ordinary nerve ) These cables Lead to the Visual Cortex where it's decoded in Produces an image inside your brain.
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 People will never be able to Produce Retinas, Optic Nerves, and Visual Cortex's You claim to be intelligent ? Like your Science gurus claims to be, They have figured it all out, But they are Simple Cavemen Compared to The Science of Living entities.
evolutionist only talk about the Retina, & only the Retina, Just because some simple celled living entities have Light receivers. It has nothing to do with Complex eyes.
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 The only explanation is that it all had to be created at once, A retina wont give you vision. not even light sensing ability, It's like a Toaster without an On / off switch isn't much help huh ?` A car without a motor ? A Computer without a CPU, you get the point i guess.
How did these things know to Grow into existence and interconnect in ways State of the Art science will never replicate ? talk about Intelligent design.
Now be gone !
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 even if you randomly Mutated " evolved " Eyes on your Legs, with Retina And Optic Nerves that got connected to your kidney, it would NOT give you vision. The Visual Cortex is a extremely advanced part of the brain ( like all of them ) where the information passing through the Optic Nerves is being Decoded at real time speed. with so little delay / and so high Frames per second. So high Resolution.
it will never be replicated Kapishe
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 It's so funny how All these Random Mutations Fall together so Perfectly that it's mind bugling ? Did you know how Experts of Mutation and DNA all State that in Nature Mutated animals are always weaker, Always DNA depletion, Never an Advantage, ALWAYS an Disadvantage.
There have never been found 1 Example of a advantageous Mutation, But Endless of Disadvantageous. Have you ever seen a human that were Mutated ( deformed ) where it were good ?
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 Their had to be a beginning, so at one point their were no life, Also Stated in Darwinism / Neo-Darwinism, Then After Matter and Energy Magically created itself ( big bang ) Then Non living matter turned itself into living matter, since it rained down on some rocks ( also stated in the theory )
You know that in State of the art labs they cant Replicate this event ? They try and try, But you cannot turn Non living matter into living matter.
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@mukkohaha
'They try and try, But you cannot turn Non living matter into living matter' correct, but there can create the building blocks of life and all that is needed after that is a few billion years!
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 They have been able to Produce one Chemical compound found in Living matter, in their years of research and billions of billions of dollars invested in research and Equipment, The design is so intelligent That even the Brightest heads on the planet Are nowhere near Creating living matter out of non-living matter. You cant argue against this.
You think Billions of years is the Secret Recipe to Bend and Break All natural laws, its laughable ... ?
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@mukkohaha
And you think the eye was created by intelligent design? Well it's not that intelligent is it? Seen as babys are born blind! How does your designer explain that? As he is supposed to be perfect!
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 Just take a look at the video ? If you were blindfolded would your Light sensitive Skin Pigment be able to See the light ? are your Skin Eyes ?
He claims that The skins Light sensitive pigment were the first Eyes ? And then it created a Shallow pit.. If you have a Shallow pit on your arm a small hole in your leg or Arm, Will you be able to tell Where the Light is Coming from, due to the Pit and the Light sensitive pigment ? Dawkin is a Joke ..
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@mukkohaha
I notice you have have avoided the question!
I repeat, considering all the mistakes your designer makes, although he is supposed to be infallible, how/why do they happen? I think he is the joke!
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 I don't avoid the question, i simply didn't think about answering it, since i don't have an answer, unlike Darwinist and All their Hypothetical Guessing games.
What i talk about is things that we know, Unlike Darwinist.
What you feel in your skin from the Sun light is the Heat sensing nerve system, you don't feel the light, your skin doesn't feel cold light or See it. No matter how many light sensitive Skin pigment cells you have. Not even in your arm pit ^^
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@mukkohaha
You said it, 'i don't have an answer', because there is no supernatural answer! The only answer is the proven science of Darwin! And by the way there are many more myths in those old books!
watch?v=9o35clBMjYE
ROFL!
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
Comment removed
mukkohaha 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blackadderthe4 Don't Put something on me i haven't said.
The only thing i stated were, that The Retina, Optical Nerves, And the Visual Cortex could'n have evolved over time, and that they had to be their at the same time to have worked. And that Dawkins Point in this Video is Absolutely rubbish as i also Proved.
From these Facts, it's almost given that Something special have had to occur. Like when Non living matter transformed itself into Living matter. Or when Energy popped into existence.
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 My personal and Your personal Conclusions of the Unknown is up to you and up to me.
According to Evolutionist, They are proposing that sheer Randomness and Mistakes in the end is So Much more Intelligent and perfect Then What we Simple Human beings are able to create out of our Enlightened bright minds.
They cant even create a Retina in the lab. Nor connect it with the Optical nerves. Only a version that's so poor it can't even be called vision. This flawed eye huh
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@mukkohaha
'They cant even create a Retina in the lab' because that would take natural selection millions of years! Of trail and error!
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 But We can look at an Eye now. And see it, And try to Replicate it, Not even invent anything, Just Replicate a thing we can Watch and Study.
Not only Did this Natural selection Invent The Retina, Optic Nerve system and the Visual Cortex, It also Created it out of Nothing.
But we cannot even Fathom the Retina, The simplest piece of the Whole, And could never dream about Creating Optic Nerves, or NOT AT ALL the Visual cortex which is by far the most Advanced.
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 Natural Selection And Millions of years Doesn't have a mind of it's own like you seem to Think.
Micro Evolution ( adaptation ) is a fact, Darwinian " Macro Evolution " is merely a stupid theory, you cannot draw forth ONE single evidence of Macro Evolution, But Endless of proof of Micro Evolution " kind's Bringing forth The same kinds "
Mutation of Cells and DNA has Never been an Advantage in nature or in Society.
now go Watch X-man Evolution ^^
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@mukkohaha
'Natural Selection And Millions of years Doesn't have a mind of it's own like you seem to Think' never said it did! There seems to be a gap in your education, so this is a good place to start!
watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 Save your soul, and search for the truth, Stop believing the lie, that's the only advice i can give you.
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 The road your taking will only lead you to more lies.
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@mukkohaha
And a continuation of your education
watch?v=EEKqqrfWevc
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 I feel truly sorry for you :(
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 kk i watched your links, it's good info, i'm not suggesting your stupid but that Science today cant explain everything, and sometimes go to far with Guessing.
Also i would like you to watch a video i posted here on youtube, i want to know your opinion " illuminati in 15 minutes " search here on youtube please sir.
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 It will also explain why the US government were willing to Sacrifice so many Civil people on 9 / 11 Who's controlling the US / EU and the rest of the world.
Why they have waged war Day and night for the past 60 years non stop. and a great deal more " illuminati in 15 minutes " search here on youtube.
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@mukkohaha
Oh, it figures, you're a deluded truther!
watch?v=X5NGx4zxUFM
blackadderthe4 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 Can you believe That Randomness Over many years will produce Unfathomably deeply complex things That we cannot even dream about Creating under Controlled attempts ? But Just give it some time and it will happen by accident in nature.
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 We can also produce Water, Water is found in the human body, So we have created humans out of non living matter ?
your argument is so flawed .. The theory belongs in the 1800's and not side by side with modern science.
mukkohaha 1 month ago
@blackadderthe4 Don't Get to Locked on your Evolution ideas, keep an open mind, I know you have been taught something in school, and the common and Accepted ideology is Darwinism, but really' Take a look around, Think for your self, don't just jump in line with all the other people's thought patterns.
Just because all people stated that the earth were flat, didn't mean they were right.
mukkohaha 1 month ago
This video perfectly points out how causality, one action leading to another, gets us to where we are today. Creationism, on the other hand, says that humans were created out of nothing. One minute they didn't exist, the next they did. That view throws causality out the window, it insists that no process or mechanism was necessary, and that all that was required was a little magic, or pixie dust, or what have you. This is a fairy tale. Evolution is the only rational explanation.
athabascka 3 months ago
@athabascka
Thumbs up!
blackadderthe4 3 months ago
@athabascka
not being funny but doesn't the big bang theory state that from nothing came something? one minute nothing existed then the next, EVERYTHING existed? just to throw a spanner in the works.. sorry!
EllaGrace93 2 months ago
@EllaGrace93: This is also true at the Quantum level. Quantum particles appear, disappear, teleport, and so on. It doesn't make much sense. But on our level, in the universe as it exists, theories need to explain and be testable. Saying God created it doesn't explain anything, and isn't testable.
athabascka 2 months ago
THIS VIDEO IS TOTAL FICTION.
For a scientist he is talking total crap, he might as well have be telling us the Mickey Mouse built the eye.
If Dawkins is so good at creating an eye from scratch; why does he not cure all blind people in the world.
Do a YouTube search on “kansas evolution hearings” to hear real, credible scientists, present powerful arguments which debunk Darwinian/Macro evolution.
theot58 5 months ago
@theot58
'; why does he not cure all blind people in the world' because he is a person! And as such can't influence EVOLUTION
'There is, it appears, a conspiracy of scientists a foot. Their purpose is to break down religion, propagate immorality, and so reduce mankind to the level of the brutes. They are the sworn and sinister agents of Beelzebub, who yearns to conquer the world, and has his eye especially upon Tennessee' -H.L. Mencken's beautiful sarcasm regarding the Scopes Trial
blackadderthe4 5 months ago
@blackadderthe4 Since you in the mode for quotes consider this:
NASA Director Wernher von Braun said, (1972)
“For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design....
Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye.”
theot58 5 months ago
@theot58
'without invoking the necessity of design....' well he is not a bioligist or an evolutionist, but he was a former NAZI and war criminal, although he got away with it! So anything he says has to be treated with suspicion.
blackadderthe4 5 months ago
Dawkins' hypothetical animal and hypothetical process are cute. His cartoon is also cute. However it contradicts the actual scientific evidence. Australian researchers have discovered complex eyes in the early Cambrian. three thousand lenses and excellent resolution.l
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2
'three thousand lenses and excellent resolution' and there must be a reason of it. And that would be evolution!
blackadderthe4 7 months ago
@blackadderthe4
because?
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2
Because that's how life has developed!
blackadderthe4 7 months ago
@blackadderthe4
evolution cannot account for such complex vision at such an early stage. Even the evolutionists that found the fossils are now claiming super evolution which happens in the twinkling of an eye. That is not science that is men making up stories to support their belief.
mejc2 7 months ago
@mejc2
'that is men making up stories to support their belief' no. I think it's you who is making up stories to support your beliefs!
blackadderthe4 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blackadderthe4
Me? I got it from these guys
# Lee, M. S. Y. et al. 2011. Modern optics in exceptionally preserved eyes of Early Cambrian arthropods from Australia. Nature. 474 (7353): 631-634.
mejc2 7 months ago
And to top it off its not just the eye that has to work, you have an optic nerve, rod and cone cells, an optic chism, a primary and secondary visual cortex, and to end it an occipital lobe, I forgot to mention the mind boggoling chemical cascade that needs to fire for ever picosecond that you see.
EVOLUTION?
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate
So what;s your answer then? ID?
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
@blackadderthe4 DAMN RIGHT.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate
So you believe in fairy tales then? What about the tooth fairy and santa, etc. "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." - House
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
This is the worst explaination of how the eye evolved I have ever seen in my life. Mutations need to take place in the parents gametic cells, then passed down to their offspring, but the mutations have to happen in just the right way, the codes have to be phased into the DNA in the just the right order each time a mutation happens step by little step without mistakes until you get a fully functional eye. Its impossible. THE EYE NEVER EVOLVE.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate
Oh foolish creature, what ignorance is this which torments you? - Dante Alighieri
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
@blackadderthe4 Yeah Its so much easier to just call me foolish, because you can't you can't defend yourself otherwise. typical evolutionist.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate
That is because you are foolish to reject a science fact! If you visit the doctor you'll take the drugs he gives you, which have on many times been developed with evolutionary techniques. Or do you reject them and visit the local witch doctor for his homoepathic 'medicine' and then end up dead! Because there is no science supporting them! Typical creationist, non are so blind as those who will not open their eyes and see the truth!
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
@blackadderthe4 I don't see a fact, I see a very poor explaination of how it could have happened according to evolution, You need to understand the difference between a theory and a full blown fact.
He doesn't go into the deeper level of what needs to happen to the DNA in order for these steps to happen. Its a very poor explaination and as a science major I'm not satisfied.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate
Well if you're not satisfied, then you must be right. I mean we can't have you not satisfied, with you being a science major and all! So what we'll do is inform all organisations and scientists that they have to ignore Darwin's FACT, because you say so, with no evidence what so ever. Then when you have overturned the world of science, you will no doubt get a Nobel prize. How lucky you are!
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate typical religious guy.
TheNordbjerg 1 year ago
@TheNordbjerg Why don't you build a biological eye and prove me wrong then
Listen to what he said "now grow some skin over our eye, and let the lens harden a bit" LOL WHAT like you can just do that. He takes no time to explain what happens to the DNA. This is a piss poor explaination, you can probably fool a 1st grader with it, PROBABLY.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate
You numpty, evolution takes hundreds if not thousands of years, so be away with your strawman argument!
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
@blackadderthe4 millions and millions of years of random mutations, that are just right, in just the right place on the DNA, making mistakes and miraculously repairing those mistakes, over and over again to create something as beautiful and complex as a biological camera, OH WHAT FAITH YOU HAVE IN THE RELIGION OF EVOLUTION.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate Yes, it's a poor explaination, but seriously, you are dumb to say that evolution is not real.
TheNordbjerg 1 year ago
@TheNordbjerg I believe in adaptation, where animals can adapt to certain environments, but never can one species completely change into something else. NEVER.
I'm dumb? people fall for explainations like this in the video. When man builds a fully functional biological eye from scratch, or is able to create a completely different form of life from scratch, that uses an information storage system other than DNA, then you come back to talk to me.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate What the fuck does man have to do with this video? Man don't have no shit in the process of evolution. Dude, you suck.
TheNordbjerg 1 year ago
Lets get down to reality here, and ignore the doltish viewers who somehow have managed to take an interest in the is fantastic info. I already know most of this and it still blows me away. If I was inclined to believe in a god I coild see him, she, or it in all of evolution. This shows, to me, the blind asskissing, god or die, stupidity of these witless gadflies, with their asses ears. But, like I said elsewhere, natural selection will weed them out, one by one.
briscocreek 1 year ago
you are all morons, religion is useless
cuddlehead1 1 year ago
trolls trolling trolls
tomua 1 year ago
HEY EVERYONE! I GOT A GREAT IDEA! FIND SOMEONE WHO IS OPPOSED TO YOUR BELIEFS WHETHER YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN OR RELIGIOUS FOLLOWER OR AN EVOLUTIONIST THEN ARGUE WITH THEM!!!
SpacePigeon5 1 year ago
and this proves what
peruface 1 year ago
@peruface
"and this proves what" it proves that evolution can "design" an eye and therefore anything is possible, given long periods of time combined with small steps of improvement each time!
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
@blackadderthe4 Listen here little buddy, Would anyone here know how to build a plane? NO, because a plane didn't build itself, nothing builds itself you fucking penass, Someone has the codes for it. Read the Book "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature by Francis Crick". Francis Crick who won the Nobel Prize for the Double Helix Molecular Structure said DNA did NOT evolve on Earth But from a planet far away.
peruface 1 year ago
@peruface
1st of all I'm not your "little buddy" I'm fussy who calls me buddy! " because a plane didn't build itself" correct because it is made up of METAL not organic material, which has the properties of mutating into more complex organisms, It wouldn't be a good idea to have a plane that suddenly mutates into a submarine in mid flight LOL. Read Dawkins "The Blind Watchmaker". " DNA did NOT evolve on Earth But from a planet far away." even if it did it would have to follow evolution rules!
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
Evolution rules? Which is what? You both are retarded. God is the only legit answer. And by God, I mean God of the Holy Bible
BTek4 1 year ago
@BTek4
" I mean God of the Holy Bible" which is full of mistakes and has been edited through out history! So which version do you believe? In one there are unicorns, so where are they now? Just a myth like most of the bible.
blackadderthe4 1 year ago
@BTek4 You can't possibly be serious.
yggdrasil89 1 year ago
@peruface What Crick is talking about is the panspermia theory, which has nothing to do with evolution. It's a posited explanation for how life may have originated in the first place; evolution is what takes place over time, once life has occurred. Demonstrably, evolution has occurred on earth, whether the common ancestor was extraterrestrial or not. (And actually, yes we can witness it, when for example we watch natural selection make bacteria resistant to antibiotics.)
PlainlyUnbelievable 1 year ago
@peruface It proves that it isn't a valid objection to say the eye can't have evolved because it's too complex. It didn't 'suddenly appear by accident' as creationists like to suggest; rather, it's been formed over long periods of time from simple components.
The real question is: even if evolution were disproven, how would that prove a god exists?
PlainlyUnbelievable 1 year ago 2
@PlainlyUnbelievable Its easy to say once its all laid out in front of you..idiot
peruface 1 year ago
@peruface Well, as it would happen I did understand natural selection before I watched this video. You though were the one who asked what it proved, so perhaps laying it all out isn't that effective after all.
PlainlyUnbelievable 1 year ago
@PlainlyUnbelievable Listen here little buddy, Would anyone here know how to build a plane? NO, because a plane didn't build itself, nothing builds itself you fucking penass, Someone has the codes for it. Read the Book "Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature by Francis Crick". Francis Crick who won the Nobel Prize for the Double Helix Molecular Structure said DNA did NOT evolve on Earth But from a planet far away.
peruface 1 year ago
For all you YouTuber's out there wondering what those words mean. Well...they're British slang. More or less they mean "idiot".
dahur 2 years ago
Well you should know, because you'll be used to been called it now!
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
lackabladder says:
"Well you should know, because you'll be used to been called it now! "
?? Anyone understand that?
Here let me translate:
Well you should know, because you've been used to being called it now.
or version two:
Well you should know, because you'll be getting used to being called it now.
Take your pick. Either one makes more sense than the original.
NOW, who's the numpty?!
dahur 2 years ago
Good Benny Hill stuff in here
dahur 2 years ago
@'Dahur
'Benny Hill's ghost sent me here' just goes to show what I've been saying all the time, you ufofreaks are not to be trusted when you state something.
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
Benny Hill's ghost sent me here to get a good laugh. And he was right!
dahur 2 years ago
Removed by error
You are exactly right regarding beliefs. They are not facts
I believe that Jesus walked the dusty roads of Galilee 2000 years ago, I also believe that he was who he claimed - the son of the living God.
There is evidence for all these assertions but not "proof". Religion/faith comes in where science cannot go.
By faith I believe that Jesus has died for my signs to reconcile me to the living God.
Evolution is also a religion - I cannot be scientifically verified. You must believe.
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
@blackadderthe4 says:
"I cannot be scientifically verified".
lackabladder, you are most definitely the head CUCKOO from Cuckooland.
dahur 2 years ago
@dahur the cur
"@blackadderthe4 says:
"I cannot be scientifically verified""
YOU plonker as you well know that was a message I replaced because I accidently removed it. LOL
Notice what is says at the start?
"Removed by error" you double plonker!
ROLF again!
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
lackabladder says:
"ROLF again! "
Hmmmm. Rolling on the laughing floor?!
That must be a jolly good time guv'na.
dahur 2 years ago
@ The CUR
Cut the Dick van Dyke act, it's boring now! But then again you are boring, so you're just living up to your standards!
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
@ lackabladder:
You old guys get bored much too quickly. Think of your blood pressure. You know, your ol' ticker ain't what it used to be! Here's a little something to calm your nerves.....a quote!
"When the Paris Exhibition closes, electric light will close with it and no more be heard of"
- Erasmus Wilson (1878) Professor at Oxford University
dahur 2 years ago
@ The Cur
"Erasmus Wilson (1878) Professor at Oxford University" a technological quote that is over 100 years old! Come on up your game you plonker!
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
@ lackabladder:
"a technological quote that is over 100 years old!"
"Sir William James Erasmus 'Orgasmus' Wilson FRCS FRS (25 November 1809 7 August 1884), generally known as Sir Erasmus Wilson, was born in London, studied at Dartford Grammar School before St Bartholomew's Hospital in London, and at Aberdeen, and early in life became known as a skillful surgeon."
Granted, he was about 25 years before you. So I guess you wouldn't know much about him.
Stay tuned for more history lessons!
dahur 2 years ago
@ lackabladder says"
"you plonker! "
Yeah, well you wazzock! Or should I say numpty?
dahur 2 years ago
This is pure fiction!!!
This simply demonstrates the stupidity of the evolutionary theory.
Where are the nerves to take the signal to the brain? Where is the brain? Where is the software to make sense of the signals being transmitted to it? They ALL had to exist simultaneously for the image to be of any benefit.
Macro Evolution is NOT science. It only exists in the imagination. You simply must believe it occured because it is NOT observed.
It is a religion.
See
theot58 2 years ago
"demonstrates the stupidity of the evolutionary theory" No this demonstrates that complex elements can be produced over long periods of time by using small advances many times! "You simply must believe it occured because it is NOT observed" so no doubt you think the moon just occurred because it wasn't observed. When the evidence is that it is made up of material that congregated over millions of years! "You simply must believe it occured because it is NOT observed" no I don''t!
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
This doesn't prove anything. Yes it could have evolved without design and yes it could have been created to evolve.
stockdam 2 years ago
Yes it evolved! Who/what would have designed it? It proves that Darwin was right.
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
Blacky, sorry.... but to religulous antibrains, there can only be one excuse, "god did it, hur hur"...
it's kinda sad, but unavoidable, when they're raised to mental slavery.
is it Dawkins, anyhow? could sound like his voice
Sutskoen 2 years ago
"is it Dawkins, anyhow?" yes.
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
blackadder says:
"on occasion I am wrong"
On that he is right.
dahur 2 years ago
A man who does not admit to making mistakes can't recognize when other people are making them. So what are your mistakes then, oh yes falling for the ETFO myth! Now careful because I'm the thread owner here and you may find yourself blocked from this thread. As you are acussing Shermer of, but he can't have because he hasn't log on in two weeks! Get it now! Do you?
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
You must be joking blackadderthe4 "It proves that Darwin was right".
This is pure fiction which proves that Dawkins has a vivid imagination but poor science.
Regarding the video.
- Where are the complex nerves which transmit the vision information to the brain?
- Where is the brain?
- Where is the intelligence to make the brain of any use?
THESE ALL HAD TO BE THERE SIMULTANEOUSLY
This video is pure fiction. Macro evolution is built on fiction, on the thing Dakins hates - faith.
theot58 2 years ago
"THESE ALL HAD TO BE THERE SIMULTANEOUSLY" that is your assumption! And to assume something makes a "ASS" of "U" and "ME". "the thing Dakins hates - faith" I have faith there is an invisible dragon on my spare bedroom, does that mean it's true! So what do you have faith in? "a vivid imagination but poor science" so what is your science then?
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
My science says that unless something is proven beyond reasonable doubt, it should not be called a "fact".
Science demands observation, measurement and hopefully repeatability.
Dawkin's fancifull, fictitious depiction of how the eye "evolved" is pure faith. Just because he has some scientific qualifications does not make it scientific.
Again i assert, The visual system has multiple components - they MUST ALL EXIST SIMULTANEIOUSLY
theot58 2 years ago
"MUST ALL EXIST SIMULTANEIOUSLY " BOLLARDS! For instance take whales, they developed from land animals. So one day an animal was roaming around and the next day it was a whale! I think not! It developed over a long period of time and due to small changes it became the animal we now know. If fact the fossil record proves this and early whales have remains of identifiable limbs, etc! "Science demands observation" Well in fact it is! In the fossil record! Big fail.
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
Dear blackadderthe4, if you are a scientist we are in deep trouble.
Again I assert that the visual system has many component which are all needed SIMULTANEOUSLY for vision to be effective. Any one piece missing renders the visual system inoperative.
Evolution does NOT explain how all the peices evolved AT THE SAME TIME.
Please consider.
Happy Day
theot58 2 years ago
"many component which are all needed SIMULTANEOUSLY" yet again wrong! Explain why we have a whale? You can't without evolution. "AT THE SAME TIME" not necessary. You have driven down a cul-de-sac come to a dead end and are chanting your propaganda hoping that will make it true. without any example of evidence! "My science says that unless something is proven beyond reasonable doubt, it should not be called a "fact". so that applies to your beliefs then? Pseudoscience I suspect!
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
@theot58 I think you are gravely missing the point. These systems do not all need to be in place at the same time. For an eye to function as ours does today, yes it does. But you make the mistake of presuming a function upon a process that is only being guided by selective pressures. There is no end-goal in mind.
There are several stages en route to what we would call a foundation of vision that don't even require a brain (as with eyespots in unicellular organisms). You're presuming a product.
deRoyLight 2 years ago
@deRoylight
Very well said, in fact better than I did. And by the way the comment was directed to my inbox.
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
"They are not facts" well they are worthless then! What about the belief of the invisible dragon in my bedroom? "There is evidence for all these assertions but not "proof". evidence is proof, you are seriously confused. The bible is full of contradictions and myths,says so many things that are oposite to each other and is therefore worthless. Which is more likely: That the natural order is suspended or that a jewish minx should tell a lie? And have a virgin birth?
blackadderthe4 2 years ago
Created to evolve :)) yo men , would to bother to creat something only to evolve , if u are allmighty , couldnt you just created it at the last step of evolution where its perfect or what???
Are you a lazy GOD?
:))
WhoracIe 2 years ago
I get the idea here, but doesn't this follow either the slippery slope or the A begat B fallacy (either way it's still fallacious)? Showing how the steps COULD have happened does not mean that is indeed how they happened. I could look at a man-made lake (unbeknownst to me the real origin) and explain how rain had fallen over vast amounts of years, and ran downhill to erode out a deeper hole, water collected, and a lake formed eventually. Crude example, but I hope it makes the point.
Sickopath333 3 years ago
Yes but it is the most logical reason how the eye developed, when you consider ALL the stages were represented in other species!
blackadderthe4 3 years ago