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
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.
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
Even if eye ball exist, how can the brains tell the signals from the optic nerve is image, not cold,heat, smell or pain?
Before eye evolved (if evolution is true), the brain only receive sense of touch, temp., smell and pain, how can the brain tell the signals is an image. Even the brain can, how can it tell what part of the image is an object, and what is the object?
@AbeleWong Oh come on, you have to do better than that!
Wheb we accept evlution, no one is claiming to KNOW for certain how some things evolved, none of us were there at the time right? So, we try to understand, through years of discovery, analysis and conclusion...MOST every living thing really does fit the theory.
Just because it might seem difficult to explain the eye, for example, does not mean the whole theory is wrong! That would be irrational thinking. Not wise.
"MOST every living thing really does fit the theory." so, 99% human body was from evolution but the eyes ball are not? You know that there are exceptionst, why you believe/consider it is true?
Evolution not yet proven by experiments, people still believe it because evolutionist claim evolution take million years to make evolution seems possible.
Evolution cannot explain the eye evolve, means the theory is wrong.
I am talking about science and logic, not religion.
First the brain peoples. But how can the human body exist unless all fuctions are working. The eye is awesome but blind people survivie. No one can exist without a brain. Evolution is a mascarade, a distraction from the truth that all life need life as God made it all together to reproduce after their kind. Its so clear.
people here really need to study before they start commenting on shit that they clearly know NOTHING about and if they dont want to dedicate their lives to the study of science and how the REAL WORLD WORKDS and actually start being intelligent then they should SHUT UP -_-
how people can try and dispute something like natural selection (evolution) is beyond me, evolution doesnt even have anything to do with disproving god, even if there was a god who created animals etc etc, natural selection happens, like people breeding dogs and horses, thats natural selection, and it is real and exists, its just man made natural selection vs non man made (geographical whatever) natural selection, thats all evolution is really
Anyone who believes we evolved are not as smart as they think. Of course it's good we have these ( psuedo ) scientists around to try and prove that there is no God it only makes the existence of God more credible. Bring it on Darweenians.
Once again, they start with the optic nerve intact. How did the optic nerve evolve? What about all the supporting structures like the lens, tear ducts, larger cranial opening to accomodate the larger eye, the control muscles that position the eye, the eye lids etc.
Using this simplistic model I could evolve anything with enough imagination. I could construct a just-so story to evolve a grand piano if so desired. Evolution of the eye happened, but we need more evidence to conclude exactly how.
this route of evolution is heavily supported because there are organisms which have eyes that fall into all of these stages.
In the grand scheme of things a patch of light sensative tissue isnt a particularly complex first step (though almost certainly had in itself many steps, with more and more effecient light sensing mechanisms)
everything starts of pretty inefficient, the optic nerve wouldnt have been as complex as you know it today
@haz020190 The optic nerve is a conduit of information between the eye and the brain. How did it evolve before there were light sensetive patches and brains? it had to have evolved along with the evolution of the eye and the brain at the same time. Even a light sensetive patch of cells would be useless to the organism if there wasn't a way to act upon the information that it could provide for the organism. even in brainless jellyfish the eyes have to give feedback somehow.
@haz020190 so the point im making is why do they skip the optic nerve and multitude of other complimentary parts that *had* to evolve at the same time such as tear ducts, control muscles, iris, lens etc?. And let's not forget the eye has evolved multiple times for multiple different species.
@RTyp06 ok so in the beginning it was a light sensative patch of skin. it already had nerves running to it that were previously used for touch. because initially the information processed was merely 'light or dark' then little modification of the nerves were needed.
tear ducts didnt need to be there untill animals evolved to live on land. marine animals dont cry =P
also the others u mention can be evolved at their own pace seperately, they are not required for the first eyes.
@RTyp06 The eye hasnt evolved seperately that many times. key examples being arthropods and vertabrates (who inherited the beginnings from worms).
it has been imroved upon may times in different ways by different species yes. Thankfully some didnt need to improve further which gives us a snapshot of the steps along the way
At the beginning of the video, there seemed to already be an optical nerve present before the eyeball even evovled. How did that get there? The orange stuff,?
@pussylumpessru There are nerves travelling to the skin enabling a sense of touch. If the skin developes a light sensing capability it is already linked up to a nerve.
the evvolution of nervous systems is another, way older story =]
@haz020190 So basically, this nerve cell links up to light sensitive cells? How did evolution know that they would be needing a nerve cell if the end result of these mutations were unknown? Did they randomly put these two things together and luckily recieved a working eye bal that transmitted images to the brain? How was the brain able to decode the images that passed through these "light sensitive cells?"
@pussylumpessru it didnt 'know' that they would need a nerve cell. they were already linked to a nerve cell because they are part of the skin, and used to convey a sense of touch.
the mutation to make cells light sensative was random yes, but natural selection could kick in from here.
the first organisms with eyes didnt have brains (e.g. see jellyfish, flatworms and other marine worms.) just simple nervous systems.
@pussylumpessru the original 'code' would have conveyed no more than whether it was light or dark (because thats all the first eyes could do). this is a simple message to code, no more complicated than 1 or 0, or on or off. this requires very little (if any) adaptation to process for a nerous system that can already process touch signals (basic touch signals are also touch or no touch, basic messages).
@haz020190 And also, if they were simple sensory nerves, The big problem here is the fact that the optic nerve is ensheathed in all three meningeal layers (dura, arachnoid, and pia mater) rather than the epineurium, perineurium, and endoneurium found in peripheral nerves. Which means the it could not have evolved from sensory nerves, unless an amazingly large change evolved.
@pussylumpessru ok first of all the minengeal layers are a purely vertebrate trait (covering only the brain and the spinal chord). and as such 1) they would not have been present on the early pre-vertabrates on which the eye evolved 2) the early eye-evolving organisms wouldnt have had brains (true brains, see worms jellyfish etc), so these layers are doubly pointless to apply.
@pussylumpessru you must understand that the eye and associated nerves didnt appear in the incredibly complex form that they eppear in humans. bringing up argumants based on human neuro-anatomy simply doesnt apply to those early organisms. even in vertabrates we can see that not all maningeal systems are the same. lampreys have 4 layers, non of which are very similar to our own.
sorry but he lost me at natural selection.... natural selection removes genes not adds them, and by removing genes the animals of the species can adapt.
@StarRonKid nope, sorry, that's not what natural selection is. Then again, if I trim your comment off all the parts that are wrong, we can get something almost valid : "[...]Natural selection: [...] genes [...]i[...]n[...] the animals [...] can adapt." There you go. It's simplistic, not very grammatical, heavy to read, but still better than what you barfed.
@SolDeSaBelle you are wrong, Natural selection preserves genes that are favorable and removes genes that are a hindrance towards the species through death thats how the species adapts, if you are talking about a singular organisms defense system thats another thing. You got much to learn.
The people who don't believe on evolution and say it doesn't make sense say so because from when you try to explain it to them they already believe you are wrong.
It is such a simple idea that it really should be understood by everyone if only people were not trying to say it was wrong before they understood how it even works.
@RespectMyHate yeaaaah, that's not really an argument, now, is it? Just ignoring the science and whatever was explained in this video; just dismissing it and saying "Goddidit!" isn't really argumenting, or proving anything. It's just replacing a problem (an already-solved problem, I might add) with another one. Burrying your head in the sand and saying "LALALALALA no no no, you're wrong, I can't hear you, LALALALAAAAaaah. La."
Evolution of the eye is impossible, this video barely touches on the extreme complexity of the eye. If evolution were true humankind should be getting noticeably greater over time, but as history has shown we are getting worse and worse. Has it not occurred also that there is every type of eye we can imagine still existing today? Why has not every creature's eye become as complex and useful as the eye of an eagle? Evolution happening once is a slim chance enough, but billions of times?
in what sense do you mean "greater"? and "worse"? right now we are, as a species, better and better adapted to survive all over the earth, there are humans living in deserts, tropics, thundras, plains, mountains, even in the frozen poles. can you name another species that has adapted to the whole planet as well as we have? remember evolution has nothing to do with morality, it's simply that those who are better adapted to survive and pass the genes, shape the next generation
also please notice that evolution is a VERY slow process, taking many many MANY generations to see any noticeable difference. so far we dont have pictures of our ancestor species or scientific data beyond....hmm 500 years ago?
so changes have costs to survival, if a more complex eye wont really help that creature survive better, then it's a burden more than an advantage, and those tend to die out
Ok again, in big steps. You first need a brain, stop. Just imagine the complexity of this brain to know how to evolve. We have to stop right there, this just doesn't happen. Is like telling that you have a cell, that with enough time can become all these animals and then a human too. And that this happaned by accident. Never.
@cmpresents Can you explain to me why nerve fibers and blood vessels in the vertebrate eye, are in front of the light sensing cells, casting shadows and creating a blind spot when exiting the eye through the retina? Pretty shitty design if you ask me. And why did god gave a much better designed eye, with light sensing cells facing the light, and nerve fibers and blood vessels behind them so no shadows and no blind spot, to the bloody octopus?
@udoloh Neither can you, it has a purpose, but since you don't understand it, you critize it. Look I don't care anymore about debating who made what. I believe that God did it and you don't. Good luck in your search for the truth.
@cmpresents Actually i can explain it, but something tells me that you won't have it. And i never said i don't believe that god did it. But if god (or, how i would put it, the underlying spirit of the universe) did it, it did it in an evolutionary process. But thanks for wishing me good luck. Reaching for the truth, knowing to never be able to possess it, is one of the fun things of existence. So good luck to you too. Have fun.
@udoloh I really don't like the word evolution, because it carries the idea that there is no God, science has stolen that word to mean that there is no God. When scientist or atheist use the word evolution, they automatically take God out of the equation. The word evolution is really misleading. People adapt everyday to different things, but I wouldn't call it evolution.
@HitMeWithIt when one thinks about just how endless reality more then likely is, consideration of the possiblity of the existance of at least one super infinitely mind boggleing entity must be taken into account, maybe not like the one your learn about in bible camp but yeah. a flea does not know you exist, but you do. Would you try to communicate with a flea? the effort would be in vain, if "super entitys" exist, this is how they more likely would think of us, if they even knew of us.
@matthias2986 we are probably sitting in a petri dish of sorts right now, being looked at under a microscope, the big bang was when the universe was injected into the dish through a syringe of sorts.. our reality is the research to find a cure to some sort of super entity diseases lol
@HitMeWithIt evolutionist all the time say, just because we dont know, doesnt mean it didnt happen..How can you be so hooked on a theory thats so poorly thrown together and top if off with "with enought time, anything can happen"... How can anybody believe nothing created everything, and then have no proof
@cmpresents people here really need to study before they start commenting on shit that they clearly know NOTHING about and if they dont want to dedicate their lives to the study of science and how the REAL WORLD WORKDS and actually start being intelligent then they should SHUT UP -_-
@cmpresents a brain has nothing to do with the evolutionary process. natural selection simply favors those who can reproduce successfully. lets start with a plant well a plant dosent have a brain so by your logic it wont evolve but lets say one individual plant is greener than the others and that is a favorable trate. well that means it is more likely to survive to pass on its genetic code making subsequent generations greener. this only shows 1/1000000 of the exampels i can give you
Wow what crap, The pinhole eyes of the worm helps them avoid predetators. How the hell does the worm know that a shark is a predetor. This explanation sucks.Teacher, you suck.
His is convinced that the eye evolved. This is not science. This video is going to show step by step how the eye evolved, really. Step by step, not in my class.
An eye without a super complex circuit is useless, you need to have a circuit, this circuit has to have a purpose and has to know how to process the information. The rest of the brain has to communicate witht this circuit. All these things have to work together.
What sounds the best? That the eye had millions of year to develop or that an old man in PJ created all the variety of these "oh so complex eyes" in one day (using magic?). (And then he still had time to create all other organs and animals)
Nillson forgot the optic nerve, visual cortex, and code, six oculomotors, nerves that run those, blood vessels the feed all, iris, muscles that run the iris, connection to the brain for the iris, self focusing lens, code that communicates between the retina and brain, ...on and on. You did too, because you put up this nonsense. The notion that this happened all by itself is just poppycock. How could you or anyone fall for such rubbish.
@HitMeWithIt Yes, really. I love people who play the "fairy card" who seriously think an entire visual system can invent and assemble itself. My gawd. I don't know which is more astounding, fairy or nothing.
@stevebee92653 The fairy card? Yes mate, I love people who try to throw the fairy card back at you and pigeon hole you as an atheist who believes in random chance and is therefore stupid.
Let's see now...you believe in a personal loving god character that answers prayers?
I believe, no, I TRUST the theory of evolution and am sure enough to the point of accepting it as a FACT, like most scientifically minded people. No one said it was a fairy or nothing. Strawman anyone?
@stevebee92653 Continued>>>>Nothing invented and assembled itself. Read up on evolution before assuming to have a knowledge on the topic. you obviously know very little.
@HitMeWithIt So vision, 4 chambered hearts, hearing from a sterile planet aren't inventions? How so? And they were never assembled? What dreamworld do you live in? They, uh, just, uh, kinda uh, came together, uh. Did some sort of evo-magic poof them together? You evos never really think things out. You just spout your dogma.
you are so so dumb.... evo-magic? retard... have you heard about crossover mutations? point mutations? alopratic speciation? sexual selection? etc etc?
ofc not... you don't have an education, idiot. you are just a retard that thinks the earth is 6000 years old.
ffs... you can't even tell the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.
try educate yourself, stop shouting over and over: "god tit it"; that improves to zero our knowledge.
@transtlantic You are such a fun commenter, I gave it a try. Already watched that one. A real nice anti-religious video. Well, sorry to say, but I am not religious.
you are obviously religious. your answer to the diversity of life is "god tit it"
you are a very poor liar... and the psychiatry vid, is one hour long, so i am sure you didn't watch it. it's about the neurobiology of belief.
seriously...idiot, you have no explanation better than evolution theory for antibiotic resistance or any other given phenomena in biology. so do me a favor...
fuck off, i've proven that you are an ignoramus, a creationist, YEC even.
It's ironic that creationists chose to attack the formation of the eye as proof that evolution is false. No matter how many times and how many different ways it's been shown how the eye formed, creationists remain willfully blind.
1. "light sensitive skin patch's" are not by any stretch of the imagination simple. And as Ken Miller said: "Evolution can never do a grand new design" 2. Mr Nllsons progressive steps are missing. We have the living flat worm basic eye, nautilus' huge leap forward, finally the fully developed, but vastly different eyes of all animals. Thats huge amount of missing intermediates. With the PAX6 tool and eye color found in all eyes. Adds up to I.D.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
A little problem with this theory: Nautilus has a kind of pinhole camera eye for 500 million years, what is supposed to be just one very early step in the of evolution of a proper eye.
So facts just simply show that this theory doesn't work!
Might I recommend a simpler approach just for you?
You haven't shown the theory doesn't work at all, you have merely shown your complete lack of understanding of something which is, in essence, very simple.
Look up the recent programme by David Attenborough about Darwin and evolution.
Get back to me after you've watched it. It has a particularly simple section on this very topic and maybe then you will understand.
Hmm, I posted this quite a while ago but if I remember correctly it was from a show called Naked Science. So I assume it is an episode that is probably titled 'Evolution' or something like that. I shall have a scout around and see if I can find it for you..
The only aspect of 'faith' we have in evolution is akin to the same 'faith' w have that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Whilst it is 'faith' technically, it is based on real hard fact and evidence.
It is not even comparable to the 'faith' that a god believer must have. that is NOT based on evidence, more like conjecture, personal experience & projecting your own hope for a god onto anything you see and concocting so called 'evidence' which,never holds up to scientific study.
Can you have a painting without a painter, or a building without a builder?
How can you have a creation without a creator?
Where did the information to build our complex world come from?
It takes more faith to believe that the world as we observe it "made itself" than to believe the Bible when it states "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..
You really have the gall to say there is no evidence for evolution?
Are you expecting me to gather together links to support evolution and then expect you to even visit them?
Here's an idea I much prefer:
Do your own damn research.
Go stick your head in a bible and ignore the rest of the rational world.
In the beginning god also said let there be light - (and there was light!) before creating any light emitting objects' but you only read the bits you prefer huh?
Define macro evolution? If you expect a new species to pop out a lab then no. There have been many studies using animals such as fruit flies, because of their short life span, that have produced evolution-like results. Considering the time required for evolution to make a noticeable change in nature, reproducing it in a lab shows that it, or something like it exists.
Animals adapt, they change within their species according to their environment - thats right- they do not and cannot move into a new species. Nature has laws and if they didn't exist we would be dead.
I was merely stating that it is impossible to create a new species as a basic statement before presenting facts. I did this in order to save time from people expecting some sort of evidence that cannot be produced.
It seems to me that you are conceeding that noone has observed one type of animal "evolving" into another type of animal. Hence to assert conclusively that IT DOES OCCUR AND HAS OCCURED. Is purely on the basis of faith or conjecture.
The fly experiments only proves that you can destroy the DNA but it does not prove any improvement in the population as a whole.
Science demands a skeptical position - unless something is reapeabily provable - it should not be called a "fact".
Please, stop saying what a skeptical position should be and elaborate on YOUR very weak and hilarious (to me) position. Stop trying to turn things around.
You began by saying there HAS TO BE a creator. Well, tell us why and show us how you reached this very scientific conclusion please.
Where on earth have you come up with such convincing proof to support this wild idea?
If you say the bible ... I won't even bother to reply.
1) We are teaching our kids that macro evolution is a "fact" and that it is "scientific."
2) The Scientific method calls for observation and repeatability.
3) The onus of proof is on the evolutionists to provide the evidence to substantiate the claim that we call came from a common ancestor - assumedly a rock or equivalent.
4) Where is the evidence.? What is the evidence?
5) How do evolutionists explain how information spontaneously came into existence?
Theot58 -how old are you? I'll try to keep this VERY simple.
1) You are correct - Evolution is fact and can be studied and proven scientifically. It has come under heavy scientific scrutiny and so far passed all tests.
3) Have you ever seen a dog? All dogs come from a related ancestor similar to a wolf. Yet humans have bred them into all types and forms. Have you seen all the different types of little dogs out there?
4) We share traits from both mother and father. You can see that in your own family probably. Do u think we all came from Adam & Eve? If so - then wouldnt we all look like them. That is, we would all look exactly the same UNLESS there is some evolution taking place. So even if A&E did exist - you HAVE to account for evolution.
You seem to misunderstand how the experiment was carried out. There was no DNA manipulation at all. In one they challenged the flies by giving them difficult to digest sugar as a primary diet. The flies that were more able to digest the sugar did better than the others and eventually there were flies that could completely digest the sugar and none that could not. Week die, the more capable survive.
The conclusion is that given a change in environment, a species identity and traits alter to best deal with the change. It thus is a proof that the evolutionary force, strong live and weak die, is in effect.
It is impossible for a fly to turn into another animal, it will always resemble its original common ancestor.
Also asking for a new creature to pop into existence in order to confirm evolution is naive.
You consistently choose to go with the idea that one hole in the evidence (or that is how YOU see it with macro evolution) is all you need to show that ALL the evidence is not valid?! You have one doubt, one problem & then you jump to saying we believe on FAITH?!
Not having witnessed one animal turning into another DOES NOT amount to evidence for the theory of evolution being wrong!
Kid yourself all you want but eventually you will have to accept the only REASONABLE explanation. Dumbfuck.
I may be a D___F____ but I will not be intimidated by your or others in allowing this Evolutionary deception to continue.
Jesus said in John 8:32... ".. and you shall now the truth and the truth will set you free"
I BELIEVE the Bible when it says that we are precious in God's sight. That we are created beings with free will to accept or reject God. I have experienced God's love and goodness and this makes the biggest difference.
Believing we are products of chance with not purpose is silly.
My point of concern that the internet is full of such fictional representations masquerading as science to sell the religion of Evolution.
On the basis of such deception I became an aethaest when I was about 12. Later when I was studying Biology and Physics, when I saw the impressive order and majesty of God's creation that I realized that I had been dupped.
It takes less faith to believe "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. that it does to believe in Evolution.
I respect your honesty. but that's about it really. what you are talking of is, by your admission, a personal story: an anecdote. NOT scientifically sound at all. 'You realised you'd been duped'? No you thought you had.
To then jump to the comment 'it takes less faith..etc' is just preposterous!
There is MUCH scientific EVIDENCE for evolution and you know it. Show anything! ANYTHING! that consists of actual scientifically sound proof for your story of a personal god.
I keep getting told about the "mountains of scientific evidence proving evolution". When I ask: What is the scientific evidence? Where is it documented?. I get ridiculed.
I have carefully analysed much of the so called "scientific evidence" and concluded that it is NOT scientific at all.
Scientific requires observation, repeatability, documentation. Who has observed Darwinian evolution?
No one said dressing up a topic DID make it a scientific fact so you are throwing a strawman at us there idiot.
As for your comment - 'most stupid' is not a valid argument I'm afraid.
You see, to actually debate and disagree then you need to have some kind of stance yourself. Saying 'that is dumb' or 'this is fiction' amounts to absolutely zero.
Either get some education, learn to argue properly or just shut up
the exact distance away from the sun that we dont burn up or freeze to death 365 days a year? That our atmosphere has the perfect level and kinds of gases to support a multitude of different species? I don't think all of these things happened so perfectly just by pure chance and it is hard for me to comprehend why so many people believe it just happened to happen that way which happened to be the perfect way.
There are eight planets in our solar system alone. There are 373 known exoplanets. In the Milky Way there are 200-400 billion stars, all of which could have planets. There are more than 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe. The human mind can't comprehend the sheer number of possible planets. With that many planets, one is bound to be within the habitable zone. Remember, we don't know for sure that we are the only life in the universe; we are just the only life that we've observed.
@DoctorEvazan the odds of life outside of earth are more then just high. i would say the chance life exists outside of our planet are about the same as playing the powerball, only reverse the odds, so like you have a billion chances to win every time you play. life outside our solar system is not even a question. Some would say the chance is 100% Yes life exists, when taking into account just how endless the universe is, i would have to side with them and agree, the answer is deff yes.
so everything is an accident and everything that has ever happened happened by chance for no particular reason? how depressing. what is the point of life then? why am i alive and self aware and aware of other people and events going on around me. does any of it matter? am i just an animal whose only reason to live is to pass on my genes to another generation so that generation can do the same? if so, why? is there any direction to any of this or is it just a cosmic coincidence that we are
Why is it depressing? The only fact is - we do not KNOW. So whilst it may be a complete accident with no meaning at all it may also be part of some great plan by aliens or even a god as there's no other suitable word (!) but the only thing we KNOW is that we don't know.
That isn't depressing to me, it fills me with wonder and delight at the mysteries of the world ... from the tiniest speck to the vastness of the universe, there is much to learn.
All this may b true but most people that believe in evolution also dont believe in any god whatsoever. They never really consider that4evolution 2b possible they r relying on the big bang theory. In defense, something still had2of created the particles that exploded. No matter what created it, it can be labeled "god" Which means by believing in the big bang and evolution you still have to incorperate some type of god figure in the big picture.
Just an idea, theres many different possibilities.
Evolution has NOTHING to do with the big bang theory.
That aside, just to respond to another thing you said - 'it can be labelled god' ... why? Under what logic or rule is this? One you made up right? It makes no sense. You can call the forces of nature and the universe god if you want but it is just a meaningless term in that context. If you are somehow mixing it in with the Abrahamic god or any other irrelevant deity then I would have to say NO WAY can it be called god...
HitMeWithIt is right. Evolution is nothing to do with the big bang. Also saying that such a thing can be labeled "god" is meaningless. It could be labeled "satan". It could be labeled "x". It could be labeled a singularity. If you are suggesting that it had to be some intelligent being, you are taking an enormous leap. It also wouldn't answer the question, it just creates a load of new ones to, which you will probably want to answer, "don't question god " or "you can't hope to understand god ".
I don't claim to have every answer. I just found this video to be very convincing, along with lots of things I learn about evolution. The fact I couldn't answer your question does not make me any less sceptical of what I believe.
I do believe that, ultimately, science DOES have the answer(s) but I'm no scientist and I'm learning slowly. I won't be alive myself by the time I've figured it out.
Something that rang my mind in question is the variation of eyes, which can also be applied to creatures. According to Darwin and only on his theories, there should be at LEAST a thousand variations of each living creature on this planet, amplified by the small changes natural selection does.
Darwin saw a variation of mankind in the black man, but that is not granted. Shouldn't there be a million man-like humanoids stalking our world, looking very similar to us? Randomization isn't helping.
Try looking at the video again. Then again. then type into google 'Evolution theory +natural selection +evolution of the eye' And then kick yourself for even considering the SKY GOD idea because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Remember: No one is claiming to KNOW how these things happened..we are simply theorizing. However science also freely admits that WE DO NOT KNOW. Religion, on the other hand boldly claims to KNOW and that is just dumb.
Doesn't the ping-pong ball illustration demonstrate the necessity for outside information for that "improvement" to occur? Also, the lens adjustment illustration required external input to happen. How did the eye know to increase fluid density to sharpen focus? Just a few questions for discussion.
The eye doesn't "know" to increase fluid density. The eye itself doesn't know anything. That's why Dawkin's calls it the "Blind" Watchmaker. Fluctuations in Allele frequency makes imperfections in the genetic information, mutations occur. Mutations always occur. Different things can influence the occurance of mutation, but nature makes BENEFICIAL mutations a success because the successful animal survives and passes on it's genes. Hence the pits form randomly, and the benefactor propogates.
"The eye doesn't "know" to increase fluid density." That is my point exactly! And "evolution" doesn't know anything either. There has to be a source of direction from somewhere.
No, there doesn't. You simply don't understand the way that the pressure of natural selection impacts genetic dissemination. Until you comprehend this premise, you will never get it. It's like trying to get you to grasp quantum mechanics, without even grasping Newton's law of Gravity.
You need to understand, that mutations happen all the time. There's lots of different things that can cause them. But when there is a mutation which is so effective, it impacts the success of that animal, that it becomes more effective at surviving, then it passes it's genes on to another generation. And because that new generation has been bred as more survival effective, the genes without the mutation will be less effective, thereby reinforcing the new genes. And propagating the inclination.
The term "natural selection" is basically a personification of a phenomena in nature. Natural selection, at its simplest, is survival of the fittest. The strongest organisms will live on while the weak die out, effectively making future generations strong as well. If you make it more complicated, it delves into adaptations. The organisms that adapt to their environment live on and those that don't die, ensuring that future generations will have adapted to the local ecosystem as well.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is a fairy tale there is NOTHING in this video. If some one says the eye can't evolve. instead of showing them this video, just say, OH YES IT CAN! That would be as effective as this video
Comment removed
stevew1904 1 month 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
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
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
LOL... wishful thinking.
hisham031170 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
First of all, eye ball evolution is impossible.
Even if eye ball exist, how can the brains tell the signals from the optic nerve is image, not cold,heat, smell or pain?
Before eye evolved (if evolution is true), the brain only receive sense of touch, temp., smell and pain, how can the brain tell the signals is an image. Even the brain can, how can it tell what part of the image is an object, and what is the object?
AbeleWong 2 months ago
@AbeleWong Oh come on, you have to do better than that!
Wheb we accept evlution, no one is claiming to KNOW for certain how some things evolved, none of us were there at the time right? So, we try to understand, through years of discovery, analysis and conclusion...MOST every living thing really does fit the theory.
Just because it might seem difficult to explain the eye, for example, does not mean the whole theory is wrong! That would be irrational thinking. Not wise.
HitMeWithIt 2 months ago
Comment removed
AbeleWong 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HitMeWithIt
"MOST every living thing really does fit the theory." so, 99% human body was from evolution but the eyes ball are not? You know that there are exceptionst, why you believe/consider it is true?
Evolution not yet proven by experiments, people still believe it because evolutionist claim evolution take million years to make evolution seems possible.
Evolution cannot explain the eye evolve, means the theory is wrong.
I am talking about science and logic, not religion.
AbeleWong 2 months ago
First the brain peoples. But how can the human body exist unless all fuctions are working. The eye is awesome but blind people survivie. No one can exist without a brain. Evolution is a mascarade, a distraction from the truth that all life need life as God made it all together to reproduce after their kind. Its so clear.
jiminiflix 3 months ago
people here really need to study before they start commenting on shit that they clearly know NOTHING about and if they dont want to dedicate their lives to the study of science and how the REAL WORLD WORKDS and actually start being intelligent then they should SHUT UP -_-
alana27272727 3 months ago
how people can try and dispute something like natural selection (evolution) is beyond me, evolution doesnt even have anything to do with disproving god, even if there was a god who created animals etc etc, natural selection happens, like people breeding dogs and horses, thats natural selection, and it is real and exists, its just man made natural selection vs non man made (geographical whatever) natural selection, thats all evolution is really
47represent 7 months ago
@47represent it is becauses this is one less gap to god live in...
fndalves 7 months ago
Anyone who believes we evolved are not as smart as they think. Of course it's good we have these ( psuedo ) scientists around to try and prove that there is no God it only makes the existence of God more credible. Bring it on Darweenians.
oldlite 9 months ago
@oldlite how does disproving gods involvment make god more credible?? =S
haz020190 9 months ago
Once again, they start with the optic nerve intact. How did the optic nerve evolve? What about all the supporting structures like the lens, tear ducts, larger cranial opening to accomodate the larger eye, the control muscles that position the eye, the eye lids etc.
Using this simplistic model I could evolve anything with enough imagination. I could construct a just-so story to evolve a grand piano if so desired. Evolution of the eye happened, but we need more evidence to conclude exactly how.
RTyp06 9 months ago
@RTyp06 its not just a work of imaginnation.
this route of evolution is heavily supported because there are organisms which have eyes that fall into all of these stages.
In the grand scheme of things a patch of light sensative tissue isnt a particularly complex first step (though almost certainly had in itself many steps, with more and more effecient light sensing mechanisms)
everything starts of pretty inefficient, the optic nerve wouldnt have been as complex as you know it today
haz020190 9 months ago
@haz020190 The optic nerve is a conduit of information between the eye and the brain. How did it evolve before there were light sensetive patches and brains? it had to have evolved along with the evolution of the eye and the brain at the same time. Even a light sensetive patch of cells would be useless to the organism if there wasn't a way to act upon the information that it could provide for the organism. even in brainless jellyfish the eyes have to give feedback somehow.
RTyp06 9 months ago
@haz020190 so the point im making is why do they skip the optic nerve and multitude of other complimentary parts that *had* to evolve at the same time such as tear ducts, control muscles, iris, lens etc?. And let's not forget the eye has evolved multiple times for multiple different species.
RTyp06 9 months ago
@RTyp06 ok so in the beginning it was a light sensative patch of skin. it already had nerves running to it that were previously used for touch. because initially the information processed was merely 'light or dark' then little modification of the nerves were needed.
tear ducts didnt need to be there untill animals evolved to live on land. marine animals dont cry =P
also the others u mention can be evolved at their own pace seperately, they are not required for the first eyes.
haz020190 9 months ago
@RTyp06 The eye hasnt evolved seperately that many times. key examples being arthropods and vertabrates (who inherited the beginnings from worms).
it has been imroved upon may times in different ways by different species yes. Thankfully some didnt need to improve further which gives us a snapshot of the steps along the way
haz020190 9 months ago
At the beginning of the video, there seemed to already be an optical nerve present before the eyeball even evovled. How did that get there? The orange stuff,?
pussylumpessru 10 months ago
@pussylumpessru There are nerves travelling to the skin enabling a sense of touch. If the skin developes a light sensing capability it is already linked up to a nerve.
the evvolution of nervous systems is another, way older story =]
haz020190 9 months ago
@haz020190 So basically, this nerve cell links up to light sensitive cells? How did evolution know that they would be needing a nerve cell if the end result of these mutations were unknown? Did they randomly put these two things together and luckily recieved a working eye bal that transmitted images to the brain? How was the brain able to decode the images that passed through these "light sensitive cells?"
pussylumpessru 9 months ago
@pussylumpessru it didnt 'know' that they would need a nerve cell. they were already linked to a nerve cell because they are part of the skin, and used to convey a sense of touch.
the mutation to make cells light sensative was random yes, but natural selection could kick in from here.
the first organisms with eyes didnt have brains (e.g. see jellyfish, flatworms and other marine worms.) just simple nervous systems.
haz020190 9 months ago
@pussylumpessru the original 'code' would have conveyed no more than whether it was light or dark (because thats all the first eyes could do). this is a simple message to code, no more complicated than 1 or 0, or on or off. this requires very little (if any) adaptation to process for a nerous system that can already process touch signals (basic touch signals are also touch or no touch, basic messages).
haz020190 9 months ago
@haz020190 And also, if they were simple sensory nerves, The big problem here is the fact that the optic nerve is ensheathed in all three meningeal layers (dura, arachnoid, and pia mater) rather than the epineurium, perineurium, and endoneurium found in peripheral nerves. Which means the it could not have evolved from sensory nerves, unless an amazingly large change evolved.
pussylumpessru 8 months ago
@pussylumpessru ok first of all the minengeal layers are a purely vertebrate trait (covering only the brain and the spinal chord). and as such 1) they would not have been present on the early pre-vertabrates on which the eye evolved 2) the early eye-evolving organisms wouldnt have had brains (true brains, see worms jellyfish etc), so these layers are doubly pointless to apply.
haz020190 8 months ago
@pussylumpessru you must understand that the eye and associated nerves didnt appear in the incredibly complex form that they eppear in humans. bringing up argumants based on human neuro-anatomy simply doesnt apply to those early organisms. even in vertabrates we can see that not all maningeal systems are the same. lampreys have 4 layers, non of which are very similar to our own.
haz020190 8 months ago
sorry but he lost me at natural selection.... natural selection removes genes not adds them, and by removing genes the animals of the species can adapt.
StarRonKid 1 year ago
@StarRonKid nope, sorry, that's not what natural selection is. Then again, if I trim your comment off all the parts that are wrong, we can get something almost valid : "[...]Natural selection: [...] genes [...]i[...]n[...] the animals [...] can adapt." There you go. It's simplistic, not very grammatical, heavy to read, but still better than what you barfed.
SolDeSaBelle 11 months ago
@SolDeSaBelle you are wrong, Natural selection preserves genes that are favorable and removes genes that are a hindrance towards the species through death thats how the species adapts, if you are talking about a singular organisms defense system thats another thing. You got much to learn.
StarRonKid 11 months ago
The people who don't believe on evolution and say it doesn't make sense say so because from when you try to explain it to them they already believe you are wrong.
It is such a simple idea that it really should be understood by everyone if only people were not trying to say it was wrong before they understood how it even works.
RandomDirectors 1 year ago
Evolution never happened.
RespectMyHate 1 year ago
@RespectMyHate yeaaaah, that's not really an argument, now, is it? Just ignoring the science and whatever was explained in this video; just dismissing it and saying "Goddidit!" isn't really argumenting, or proving anything. It's just replacing a problem (an already-solved problem, I might add) with another one. Burrying your head in the sand and saying "LALALALALA no no no, you're wrong, I can't hear you, LALALALAAAAaaah. La."
So yeah, go read a book.
SolDeSaBelle 11 months ago
Evolution of the eye is impossible, this video barely touches on the extreme complexity of the eye. If evolution were true humankind should be getting noticeably greater over time, but as history has shown we are getting worse and worse. Has it not occurred also that there is every type of eye we can imagine still existing today? Why has not every creature's eye become as complex and useful as the eye of an eagle? Evolution happening once is a slim chance enough, but billions of times?
TruthSeekingOne 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
in what sense do you mean "greater"? and "worse"? right now we are, as a species, better and better adapted to survive all over the earth, there are humans living in deserts, tropics, thundras, plains, mountains, even in the frozen poles. can you name another species that has adapted to the whole planet as well as we have? remember evolution has nothing to do with morality, it's simply that those who are better adapted to survive and pass the genes, shape the next generation
sabin97 1 year ago
@TruthSeekingOne
also please notice that evolution is a VERY slow process, taking many many MANY generations to see any noticeable difference. so far we dont have pictures of our ancestor species or scientific data beyond....hmm 500 years ago?
so changes have costs to survival, if a more complex eye wont really help that creature survive better, then it's a burden more than an advantage, and those tend to die out
sabin97 1 year ago
@cmpresents
Are you a scientist?
Why would studying how eyes were formed "disprove" God?
Do you realize that one cannot "disprove" God?
Did you know that many of the very scientists who study the evolution of the eye are Christians who believe in Jesus Christ?
odinata 1 year ago
@cmpresents
What part of this is not science?
odinata 1 year ago
Ok again, in big steps. You first need a brain, stop. Just imagine the complexity of this brain to know how to evolve. We have to stop right there, this just doesn't happen. Is like telling that you have a cell, that with enough time can become all these animals and then a human too. And that this happaned by accident. Never.
cmpresents 1 year ago
@cmpresents Can you explain to me why nerve fibers and blood vessels in the vertebrate eye, are in front of the light sensing cells, casting shadows and creating a blind spot when exiting the eye through the retina? Pretty shitty design if you ask me. And why did god gave a much better designed eye, with light sensing cells facing the light, and nerve fibers and blood vessels behind them so no shadows and no blind spot, to the bloody octopus?
udoloh 1 year ago
@udoloh Neither can you, it has a purpose, but since you don't understand it, you critize it. Look I don't care anymore about debating who made what. I believe that God did it and you don't. Good luck in your search for the truth.
cmpresents 1 year ago
@cmpresents Actually i can explain it, but something tells me that you won't have it. And i never said i don't believe that god did it. But if god (or, how i would put it, the underlying spirit of the universe) did it, it did it in an evolutionary process. But thanks for wishing me good luck. Reaching for the truth, knowing to never be able to possess it, is one of the fun things of existence. So good luck to you too. Have fun.
udoloh 1 year ago
@udoloh I really don't like the word evolution, because it carries the idea that there is no God, science has stolen that word to mean that there is no God. When scientist or atheist use the word evolution, they automatically take God out of the equation. The word evolution is really misleading. People adapt everyday to different things, but I wouldn't call it evolution.
cmpresents 1 year ago
@cmpresents By the way: God didn't do anything. You believe without founding.
That makes you an idiot.
Good luck to YOU, idiot...
HitMeWithIt 1 year ago
@cmpresents Nothing you just said actually makes any kind of logical sense. what exactly are you trying to say?
Is your argument one of 'It is far too complex for our brains to even comprehend therefore...we must stop trying to comprehend..'?
And if this is what you are saying then how can you possibly believe in a GOD?
Surely I don't have to point out the obnvious flaw here. OK I will: A GOD is utterly and totally complex and incomprehensible!
HitMeWithIt 1 year ago 10
@HitMeWithIt when one thinks about just how endless reality more then likely is, consideration of the possiblity of the existance of at least one super infinitely mind boggleing entity must be taken into account, maybe not like the one your learn about in bible camp but yeah. a flea does not know you exist, but you do. Would you try to communicate with a flea? the effort would be in vain, if "super entitys" exist, this is how they more likely would think of us, if they even knew of us.
matthias2986 1 year ago
@matthias2986 we are probably sitting in a petri dish of sorts right now, being looked at under a microscope, the big bang was when the universe was injected into the dish through a syringe of sorts.. our reality is the research to find a cure to some sort of super entity diseases lol
matthias2986 1 year ago
@HitMeWithIt evolutionist all the time say, just because we dont know, doesnt mean it didnt happen..How can you be so hooked on a theory thats so poorly thrown together and top if off with "with enought time, anything can happen"... How can anybody believe nothing created everything, and then have no proof
unshakable4life 5 months ago
@cmpresents But the first life form at 1 min has 24 eyes! but no brain.. hmm...
lilmarome 1 year ago
@cmpresents "Just imagine the complexity of this brain to know how to evolve"
the brain doesnt decide how or know how to evolve you moron.
and you dont neccesarily need a brain (if u have eyes you need a basic nervous system minimum).
haz020190 9 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@cmpresents people here really need to study before they start commenting on shit that they clearly know NOTHING about and if they dont want to dedicate their lives to the study of science and how the REAL WORLD WORKDS and actually start being intelligent then they should SHUT UP -_-
alana27272727 3 months ago
@cmpresents a brain has nothing to do with the evolutionary process. natural selection simply favors those who can reproduce successfully. lets start with a plant well a plant dosent have a brain so by your logic it wont evolve but lets say one individual plant is greener than the others and that is a favorable trate. well that means it is more likely to survive to pass on its genetic code making subsequent generations greener. this only shows 1/1000000 of the exampels i can give you
Shangrily 2 months ago
Wow what crap, The pinhole eyes of the worm helps them avoid predetators. How the hell does the worm know that a shark is a predetor. This explanation sucks.Teacher, you suck.
cmpresents 1 year ago
His is convinced that the eye evolved. This is not science. This video is going to show step by step how the eye evolved, really. Step by step, not in my class.
cmpresents 1 year ago
An eye without a super complex circuit is useless, you need to have a circuit, this circuit has to have a purpose and has to know how to process the information. The rest of the brain has to communicate witht this circuit. All these things have to work together.
cmpresents 1 year ago
What sounds the best? That the eye had millions of year to develop or that an old man in PJ created all the variety of these "oh so complex eyes" in one day (using magic?). (And then he still had time to create all other organs and animals)
Dakkosa 1 year ago
Nillson forgot the optic nerve, visual cortex, and code, six oculomotors, nerves that run those, blood vessels the feed all, iris, muscles that run the iris, connection to the brain for the iris, self focusing lens, code that communicates between the retina and brain, ...on and on. You did too, because you put up this nonsense. The notion that this happened all by itself is just poppycock. How could you or anyone fall for such rubbish.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 I know. How could ANYONE fall for this rubbish?
It is an abomination.
Nonsense?
Really?
:P
HitMeWithIt 1 year ago
@HitMeWithIt Yes, really. I love people who play the "fairy card" who seriously think an entire visual system can invent and assemble itself. My gawd. I don't know which is more astounding, fairy or nothing.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 The fairy card? Yes mate, I love people who try to throw the fairy card back at you and pigeon hole you as an atheist who believes in random chance and is therefore stupid.
Let's see now...you believe in a personal loving god character that answers prayers?
I believe, no, I TRUST the theory of evolution and am sure enough to the point of accepting it as a FACT, like most scientifically minded people. No one said it was a fairy or nothing. Strawman anyone?
cont...
HitMeWithIt 1 year ago
@stevebee92653 Continued>>>>Nothing invented and assembled itself. Read up on evolution before assuming to have a knowledge on the topic. you obviously know very little.
HitMeWithIt 1 year ago
@HitMeWithIt So vision, 4 chambered hearts, hearing from a sterile planet aren't inventions? How so? And they were never assembled? What dreamworld do you live in? They, uh, just, uh, kinda uh, came together, uh. Did some sort of evo-magic poof them together? You evos never really think things out. You just spout your dogma.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
you are so so dumb.... evo-magic? retard... have you heard about crossover mutations? point mutations? alopratic speciation? sexual selection? etc etc?
ofc not... you don't have an education, idiot. you are just a retard that thinks the earth is 6000 years old.
ffs... you can't even tell the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.
try educate yourself, stop shouting over and over: "god tit it"; that improves to zero our knowledge.
now...fuck off, loser.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic You tryin' to insult me or something? I just have a feelin' you are.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
you insult yourself with the quantity of crap you write and say....
try acquire an education and then come back, you ignoramus.
don't you realize that people keep giving you answers and yet you just ASSERT an argument of personal incredulity?
fuck off.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic
youtube.com/watch?v=wGqyy9X7fes
DON"T MISS IT!
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
sure...after you see this one
watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8
now go get that education, dumb one. stop believing that rocks have souls, that seriously demented stuff...
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic You are such a fun commenter, I gave it a try. Already watched that one. A real nice anti-religious video. Well, sorry to say, but I am not religious.
Now it's your turn.
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
you are obviously religious. your answer to the diversity of life is "god tit it"
you are a very poor liar... and the psychiatry vid, is one hour long, so i am sure you didn't watch it. it's about the neurobiology of belief.
seriously...idiot, you have no explanation better than evolution theory for antibiotic resistance or any other given phenomena in biology. so do me a favor...
fuck off, i've proven that you are an ignoramus, a creationist, YEC even.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
"couldn't assemble itself"...moron...do you know how snowflakes form? what's your try to explain snowflakes? "fairies did it"?
moron.... try learn some basics before spreading your baseless ignorant shit.
transtlantic 1 year ago
complete idiot---> @coolasacoldsummer
transtlantic 1 year ago
@HitMeWithIt
just ask moronic steve if he can find one single mistake at the wikipage about evolution theory and laugh at his avoidance.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@transtlantic
Be sure and watch: youtube.com/watch?v=wGqyy9X7fes
Describes you to a tee. It will make you even more happy and cheerful than you are!
stevebee92653 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
i watched it and laughed. found it amazingly funny, perfect example of a fool who never had an education (you) trying to make fun of those who had.
you clearly are demented. you have no idea how things work.
transtlantic 1 year ago
@stevebee92653
watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg
describes perfecly why you are a sheep.
transtlantic 1 year ago
It's ironic that creationists chose to attack the formation of the eye as proof that evolution is false. No matter how many times and how many different ways it's been shown how the eye formed, creationists remain willfully blind.
sleazybtd 1 year ago
1. "light sensitive skin patch's" are not by any stretch of the imagination simple. And as Ken Miller said: "Evolution can never do a grand new design" 2. Mr Nllsons progressive steps are missing. We have the living flat worm basic eye, nautilus' huge leap forward, finally the fully developed, but vastly different eyes of all animals. Thats huge amount of missing intermediates. With the PAX6 tool and eye color found in all eyes. Adds up to I.D.
Howie47 1 year ago
Very sciency sounding for BS.
THAT'S CONCLUSIVE THEN!
Forget Evolution folks, here we have it!!!!!
ID really is THE truth, the light & of course...not forgetting 'the way'. Like erm, 'The way of the Master' tells it yeah?
The fucking banana is why we KNOW that God created us in all his wisdom.
I am really tired of having to even acknowledge such stupidity these days. Like homeopathy and people who can see spirits - its BULLSHIT.
Grow up moron. This is the age of science and reason. ID my arse.
HitMeWithIt 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A little problem with this theory: Nautilus has a kind of pinhole camera eye for 500 million years, what is supposed to be just one very early step in the of evolution of a proper eye.
So facts just simply show that this theory doesn't work!
bubis 2 years ago
You really are serious aren't you?
Wow.
Might I recommend a simpler approach just for you?
You haven't shown the theory doesn't work at all, you have merely shown your complete lack of understanding of something which is, in essence, very simple.
Look up the recent programme by David Attenborough about Darwin and evolution.
Get back to me after you've watched it. It has a particularly simple section on this very topic and maybe then you will understand.
HitMeWithIt 2 years ago
What National Geographic documentary does this come from?
PDFmetalhead1000 2 years ago
I want to know that too. Cause this episode is quite awesome.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
Hmm, I posted this quite a while ago but if I remember correctly it was from a show called Naked Science. So I assume it is an episode that is probably titled 'Evolution' or something like that. I shall have a scout around and see if I can find it for you..
HitMeWithIt 2 years ago
I could draw an imaginary progression for anything and make it believable. This is all 'whats ifs' and 'maybe's'.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
Its called a hypotheses.
sublimenija 2 years ago
Yes you could.
Your point is what exactly?
The fact remains that it would not be believable if scrutinised scientifically using the basic scientific method.
Evolution has been and constantly is, scrutinised.
The sun is going to rise tomorrow - fact.
Evolution - fact.
HitMeWithIt 2 years ago
One more thing theot58:
The only aspect of 'faith' we have in evolution is akin to the same 'faith' w have that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Whilst it is 'faith' technically, it is based on real hard fact and evidence.
It is not even comparable to the 'faith' that a god believer must have. that is NOT based on evidence, more like conjecture, personal experience & projecting your own hope for a god onto anything you see and concocting so called 'evidence' which,never holds up to scientific study.
HitMeWithIt 2 years ago
Have you or anyone else observed macro evolution?
Can you have a painting without a painter, or a building without a builder?
How can you have a creation without a creator?
Where did the information to build our complex world come from?
It takes more faith to believe that the world as we observe it "made itself" than to believe the Bible when it states "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..
theot58 2 years ago
Do you know who wrote it?
You really have the gall to say there is no evidence for evolution?
Are you expecting me to gather together links to support evolution and then expect you to even visit them?
Here's an idea I much prefer:
Do your own damn research.
Go stick your head in a bible and ignore the rest of the rational world.
In the beginning god also said let there be light - (and there was light!) before creating any light emitting objects' but you only read the bits you prefer huh?
HitMeWithIt 2 years ago
Define macro evolution? If you expect a new species to pop out a lab then no. There have been many studies using animals such as fruit flies, because of their short life span, that have produced evolution-like results. Considering the time required for evolution to make a noticeable change in nature, reproducing it in a lab shows that it, or something like it exists.
sublimenija 2 years ago
Animals adapt, they change within their species according to their environment - thats right- they do not and cannot move into a new species. Nature has laws and if they didn't exist we would be dead.
jiminiflix 2 years ago
I was merely stating that it is impossible to create a new species as a basic statement before presenting facts. I did this in order to save time from people expecting some sort of evidence that cannot be produced.
sublimenija 2 years ago
It seems to me that you are conceeding that noone has observed one type of animal "evolving" into another type of animal. Hence to assert conclusively that IT DOES OCCUR AND HAS OCCURED. Is purely on the basis of faith or conjecture.
The fly experiments only proves that you can destroy the DNA but it does not prove any improvement in the population as a whole.
Science demands a skeptical position - unless something is reapeabily provable - it should not be called a "fact".
theot58 2 years ago
Please, stop saying what a skeptical position should be and elaborate on YOUR very weak and hilarious (to me) position. Stop trying to turn things around.
You began by saying there HAS TO BE a creator. Well, tell us why and show us how you reached this very scientific conclusion please.
Where on earth have you come up with such convincing proof to support this wild idea?
If you say the bible ... I won't even bother to reply.
HitMeWithIt 2 years ago
Tell us scientifically why the earth can't be created? And also if the earth is created by God, what evidence would you expect to see?
jiminiflix 2 years ago
My position is simple:
1) We are teaching our kids that macro evolution is a "fact" and that it is "scientific."
2) The Scientific method calls for observation and repeatability.
3) The onus of proof is on the evolutionists to provide the evidence to substantiate the claim that we call came from a common ancestor - assumedly a rock or equivalent.
4) Where is the evidence.? What is the evidence?
5) How do evolutionists explain how information spontaneously came into existence?
theot58 2 years ago
Theot58 -how old are you? I'll try to keep this VERY simple.
1) You are correct - Evolution is fact and can be studied and proven scientifically. It has come under heavy scientific scrutiny and so far passed all tests.
3) Have you ever seen a dog? All dogs come from a related ancestor similar to a wolf. Yet humans have bred them into all types and forms. Have you seen all the different types of little dogs out there?
shagster1970 2 years ago
4) We share traits from both mother and father. You can see that in your own family probably. Do u think we all came from Adam & Eve? If so - then wouldnt we all look like them. That is, we would all look exactly the same UNLESS there is some evolution taking place. So even if A&E did exist - you HAVE to account for evolution.
5) We dont - theists do that.
shagster1970 2 years ago
You seem to misunderstand how the experiment was carried out. There was no DNA manipulation at all. In one they challenged the flies by giving them difficult to digest sugar as a primary diet. The flies that were more able to digest the sugar did better than the others and eventually there were flies that could completely digest the sugar and none that could not. Week die, the more capable survive.
sublimenija 2 years ago
And what is your conclusions from this experiment? Do you think this proves macro evolution?
Did the fly turn into a different animal?
The observation may be OK but the conclusion is a step of blind faith.
Please lets keep it scientific
theot58 2 years ago
The conclusion is that given a change in environment, a species identity and traits alter to best deal with the change. It thus is a proof that the evolutionary force, strong live and weak die, is in effect.
It is impossible for a fly to turn into another animal, it will always resemble its original common ancestor.
Also asking for a new creature to pop into existence in order to confirm evolution is naive.
sublimenija 2 years ago
It seems to me that you are conceding that noone has observed one type of animal turning into another. ie noone has observed Macro Evolution.
I may be naive; but you are believing in evolution on the basis of faith NOT SCIENCE.
theot58 2 years ago
You consistently choose to go with the idea that one hole in the evidence (or that is how YOU see it with macro evolution) is all you need to show that ALL the evidence is not valid?! You have one doubt, one problem & then you jump to saying we believe on FAITH?!
Not having witnessed one animal turning into another DOES NOT amount to evidence for the theory of evolution being wrong!
Kid yourself all you want but eventually you will have to accept the only REASONABLE explanation. Dumbfuck.
HitMeWithIt 2 years ago
I may be a D___F____ but I will not be intimidated by your or others in allowing this Evolutionary deception to continue.
Jesus said in John 8:32... ".. and you shall now the truth and the truth will set you free"
I BELIEVE the Bible when it says that we are precious in God's sight. That we are created beings with free will to accept or reject God. I have experienced God's love and goodness and this makes the biggest difference.
Believing we are products of chance with not purpose is silly.
theot58 2 years ago
Science and Reality care not what you believe.
sabertooth1980 2 years ago
I just have to respond to your closing line...
Keep it scientific?
you are about the least scientific commenter on this page.
Wtf is scientific about your reasoning here? Jumping from one radical conclusion to another based on your agenda...which is to rubbish evolution.
Blind faith is WRONG. It is based on observed and historical EVIDENCE.
--
I abhor censorship but I hate belligerent twats with no rationality or logic. So maybe I should just ban you for being one.
HitMeWithIt 2 years ago
Lol, what?
MeNicki 2 years ago
My point of concern that the internet is full of such fictional representations masquerading as science to sell the religion of Evolution.
On the basis of such deception I became an aethaest when I was about 12. Later when I was studying Biology and Physics, when I saw the impressive order and majesty of God's creation that I realized that I had been dupped.
It takes less faith to believe "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. that it does to believe in Evolution.
theot58 2 years ago
I respect your honesty. but that's about it really. what you are talking of is, by your admission, a personal story: an anecdote. NOT scientifically sound at all. 'You realised you'd been duped'? No you thought you had.
To then jump to the comment 'it takes less faith..etc' is just preposterous!
There is MUCH scientific EVIDENCE for evolution and you know it. Show anything! ANYTHING! that consists of actual scientifically sound proof for your story of a personal god.
You cannot as there is none.
HitMeWithIt 2 years ago
I keep getting told about the "mountains of scientific evidence proving evolution". When I ask: What is the scientific evidence? Where is it documented?. I get ridiculed.
I have carefully analysed much of the so called "scientific evidence" and concluded that it is NOT scientific at all.
Scientific requires observation, repeatability, documentation. Who has observed Darwinian evolution?
theot58 2 years ago
I asked YOU to show anything that consists of scientifically sound proof.
You ignored that and went straight into a logically wanting argument.!
Anything at all!!!
Is it so hard?
NOT a friggin quote from a book written by unknown persons!
If you would rather avoid the question by pushing the burden of proof onto me then I am not going to waste my time further.
Your denial is evidence of your insecurity.
HitMeWithIt 2 years ago
This is movie fiction. It is not science.
- The way the lens came to be is most stupid.
Dressing up a topic with impressive graphics and animations does NOT make it a scientific fact..
This is deception - it is not science
theot58 2 years ago
Please Mr Intelligentsia what IS science then?
You are obviously some kind of expert!
No one said dressing up a topic DID make it a scientific fact so you are throwing a strawman at us there idiot.
As for your comment - 'most stupid' is not a valid argument I'm afraid.
You see, to actually debate and disagree then you need to have some kind of stance yourself. Saying 'that is dumb' or 'this is fiction' amounts to absolutely zero.
Either get some education, learn to argue properly or just shut up
HitMeWithIt 2 years ago
the exact distance away from the sun that we dont burn up or freeze to death 365 days a year? That our atmosphere has the perfect level and kinds of gases to support a multitude of different species? I don't think all of these things happened so perfectly just by pure chance and it is hard for me to comprehend why so many people believe it just happened to happen that way which happened to be the perfect way.
Tyberious123 2 years ago
There are eight planets in our solar system alone. There are 373 known exoplanets. In the Milky Way there are 200-400 billion stars, all of which could have planets. There are more than 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe. The human mind can't comprehend the sheer number of possible planets. With that many planets, one is bound to be within the habitable zone. Remember, we don't know for sure that we are the only life in the universe; we are just the only life that we've observed.
DoctorEvazan 2 years ago 6
Well said.
HitMeWithIt 2 years ago
@DoctorEvazan the odds of life outside of earth are more then just high. i would say the chance life exists outside of our planet are about the same as playing the powerball, only reverse the odds, so like you have a billion chances to win every time you play. life outside our solar system is not even a question. Some would say the chance is 100% Yes life exists, when taking into account just how endless the universe is, i would have to side with them and agree, the answer is deff yes.
matthias2986 1 year ago
so everything is an accident and everything that has ever happened happened by chance for no particular reason? how depressing. what is the point of life then? why am i alive and self aware and aware of other people and events going on around me. does any of it matter? am i just an animal whose only reason to live is to pass on my genes to another generation so that generation can do the same? if so, why? is there any direction to any of this or is it just a cosmic coincidence that we are
Tyberious123 2 years ago
Why is it depressing? The only fact is - we do not KNOW. So whilst it may be a complete accident with no meaning at all it may also be part of some great plan by aliens or even a god as there's no other suitable word (!) but the only thing we KNOW is that we don't know.
That isn't depressing to me, it fills me with wonder and delight at the mysteries of the world ... from the tiniest speck to the vastness of the universe, there is much to learn.
Each one of us is just a moment. Don't waste it.
HitMeWithIt 2 years ago
All this may b true but most people that believe in evolution also dont believe in any god whatsoever. They never really consider that4evolution 2b possible they r relying on the big bang theory. In defense, something still had2of created the particles that exploded. No matter what created it, it can be labeled "god" Which means by believing in the big bang and evolution you still have to incorperate some type of god figure in the big picture.
Just an idea, theres many different possibilities.
Jesusfreak64 2 years ago
NONSENSE. again!
Evolution has NOTHING to do with the big bang theory.
That aside, just to respond to another thing you said - 'it can be labelled god' ... why? Under what logic or rule is this? One you made up right? It makes no sense. You can call the forces of nature and the universe god if you want but it is just a meaningless term in that context. If you are somehow mixing it in with the Abrahamic god or any other irrelevant deity then I would have to say NO WAY can it be called god...
HitMeWithIt 2 years ago
HitMeWithIt is right. Evolution is nothing to do with the big bang. Also saying that such a thing can be labeled "god" is meaningless. It could be labeled "satan". It could be labeled "x". It could be labeled a singularity. If you are suggesting that it had to be some intelligent being, you are taking an enormous leap. It also wouldn't answer the question, it just creates a load of new ones to, which you will probably want to answer, "don't question god " or "you can't hope to understand god ".
freaky28962 2 years ago
amazing how nature works
immortalmutation 2 years ago
wow god must of been some clever bloke lol
woodjoewood 2 years ago
Maybe a slow google search then.
hehe.
I don't claim to have every answer. I just found this video to be very convincing, along with lots of things I learn about evolution. The fact I couldn't answer your question does not make me any less sceptical of what I believe.
I do believe that, ultimately, science DOES have the answer(s) but I'm no scientist and I'm learning slowly. I won't be alive myself by the time I've figured it out.
HitMeWithIt 3 years ago
Something that rang my mind in question is the variation of eyes, which can also be applied to creatures. According to Darwin and only on his theories, there should be at LEAST a thousand variations of each living creature on this planet, amplified by the small changes natural selection does.
Darwin saw a variation of mankind in the black man, but that is not granted. Shouldn't there be a million man-like humanoids stalking our world, looking very similar to us? Randomization isn't helping.
psyblade1st 3 years ago
You want a serious, informative answer to this?
Try looking at the video again. Then again. then type into google 'Evolution theory +natural selection +evolution of the eye' And then kick yourself for even considering the SKY GOD idea because it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
Remember: No one is claiming to KNOW how these things happened..we are simply theorizing. However science also freely admits that WE DO NOT KNOW. Religion, on the other hand boldly claims to KNOW and that is just dumb.
HitMeWithIt 3 years ago
Why is it sad that someone is going to burn in hell. It is apparently what they deserve isn't it?
Or do you condone forgiving all so called sinners.
Like Hitler etc...?
You Christians are so full of shit it irks me.
HitMeWithIt 3 years ago
Doesn't the ping-pong ball illustration demonstrate the necessity for outside information for that "improvement" to occur? Also, the lens adjustment illustration required external input to happen. How did the eye know to increase fluid density to sharpen focus? Just a few questions for discussion.
piranha70 3 years ago
The anwser to all of your questions is natural selection and evolution.
What do you mean by "outside information" and whay does it have to occur in the first place?
A11ex 3 years ago
The eye doesn't "know" to increase fluid density. The eye itself doesn't know anything. That's why Dawkin's calls it the "Blind" Watchmaker. Fluctuations in Allele frequency makes imperfections in the genetic information, mutations occur. Mutations always occur. Different things can influence the occurance of mutation, but nature makes BENEFICIAL mutations a success because the successful animal survives and passes on it's genes. Hence the pits form randomly, and the benefactor propogates.
Hzqi 3 years ago 2
"The eye doesn't "know" to increase fluid density." That is my point exactly! And "evolution" doesn't know anything either. There has to be a source of direction from somewhere.
piranha70 3 years ago
No, there doesn't. You simply don't understand the way that the pressure of natural selection impacts genetic dissemination. Until you comprehend this premise, you will never get it. It's like trying to get you to grasp quantum mechanics, without even grasping Newton's law of Gravity.
Hzqi 3 years ago 2
You need to understand, that mutations happen all the time. There's lots of different things that can cause them. But when there is a mutation which is so effective, it impacts the success of that animal, that it becomes more effective at surviving, then it passes it's genes on to another generation. And because that new generation has been bred as more survival effective, the genes without the mutation will be less effective, thereby reinforcing the new genes. And propagating the inclination.
Hzqi 3 years ago 2
HAIL NO! GOD MADE IT ALL
KoutetsuTenshin 3 years ago
christians are retards and this is proof
volcomkyle152 3 years ago
is the rest of this episode uploaded somewhere? O: i wish to see the rest. (:
perrRrRrfect 3 years ago
Wow, this was a very informative video. Thank you for posting it.
ZombieGuy1 3 years ago
what is natural selection???
penguinskater123 3 years ago
The term "natural selection" is basically a personification of a phenomena in nature. Natural selection, at its simplest, is survival of the fittest. The strongest organisms will live on while the weak die out, effectively making future generations strong as well. If you make it more complicated, it delves into adaptations. The organisms that adapt to their environment live on and those that don't die, ensuring that future generations will have adapted to the local ecosystem as well.
ZombieGuy1 3 years ago
Do you have any specific, factually-based criticisms to make? Just saying it's a joke really doesn't make any case to support your claim.
Icarus3 3 years ago 3
eye evolution takes billions of years. and in around 5 billion years we wont be here :)
TrippleT123789 3 years ago
hahahaha your denial is a joke;)
6opOqo9 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is a fairy tale there is NOTHING in this video. If some one says the eye can't evolve. instead of showing them this video, just say, OH YES IT CAN! That would be as effective as this video
mejc2 3 years ago
Oh go boil your head idiot.
What is the point of even attempting to reason with you?
None.
Therefore I won't.
HitMeWithIt 3 years ago
Great video!
Ujikaweapon1 3 years ago 2
thanks
InReasonWeTrust 3 years ago 2