Author Topic: The Real Eve (Read 3239 times)

Hortlund3 · « **Reply #15 on:** August 23, 2002, 05:13:40 PM »

Well, see its really not up to us to disprove a theory. It is up to the one presenting a theory to prove it.

And there are several things that Darwin himself admits he cannot explain with his theory. One such thing is the human eye. "It could not have been evolved, it must have been created" ...remember that part? (not exact quote, off the top of my head here)

Animal · « **Reply #16 on:** August 23, 2002, 05:18:26 PM »

The human eye has been explained, he didnt know because he didnt have the means back then to understand it.

Its not that complicated actually (how it evolved, not how it worked)

The human eye (and all other eyes) evolved from simple light sensing cells in early organisms. After millions of years these cells grouped together to form the begining of the early eye. The cornea was initially a protective layer of clear tissue that covered the light sensing cells. After many mutations (much trial and error) the cornea turn into the complicated part it is now, mutations, mutations and more mutations, and viola, you get an eye (althought primitive) wich will later evolve depending on the needs of each individual specie and its niche.

(summerized explanation, but to get to the point.)

Wlfgng · « **Reply #17 on:** August 23, 2002, 05:20:59 PM »

don't believe in evolution?

look closely at a flounder.

Hortlund3 · « **Reply #18 on:** August 23, 2002, 05:21:56 PM »

No, that is not the part Im talking about.

To go from monkey-eye to human-eye, you would have to pass through 7 "steps" of evolution that would all be worse for the individual. That contradicts the basic theorem that a mutation that is good for the individual is kept and one that is bad is discarded. Ok if it was one fluke, but not 7 steps.

Cant remember exactly right now, but something like that.

senna · « **Reply #19 on:** August 23, 2002, 05:22:41 PM »

I like Biology also so my 2 cents. The eye must have been eveloved in organisms. If it not, there would have to have been thousands of individual eye creations for each and every different organism that exists or have ever existed. So many different creations of a similar aspect of life on Earth. Its more likely that they all evolved from a common origin.

Animal · « **Reply #20 on:** August 23, 2002, 05:28:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund3
No, that is not the part Im talking about.

To go from monkey-eye to human-eye, you would have to pass through 7 "steps" of evolution that would all be worse for the individual. That contradicts the basic theorem that a mutation that is good for the individual is kept and one that is bad is discarded. Ok if it was one fluke, but not 7 steps.

Cant remember exactly right now, but something like that.

Sometimes mutations are not that good for the specie, but they still remain because the specimens who carried it were dominant.

Not all mutations that are bad are discarded, only those that threaten the ability of the specie to survive.
Some monkeys still have some nice things that we dont, because we lost them during the evolutionary path.

It is possible for mutations to lead a specie into a dead end. It in fact is very common. Not all mutations are good. In fact, most are not, but every once in many many years, there is one that works.

Hortlund3 · « **Reply #21 on:** August 23, 2002, 05:30:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Animal

And how did those ancient men reach this theory? they sure as hell didnt use the scientific method we use today. Oh wait, GOD told them the earth was flat.

What happened when the true scientists came with good evidence that the earth was round? they we burned
(pretty sure some people fantasize that this practice be re-instituted )

No, they could see for themselves that the earth was flat. Where in the Bible do you find "and I also made the earth flat"?

And eventually the "round earth guys" managed to prove their theory to be correct, something that Darwin has yet to do with his.

midnight Target · « **Reply #22 on:** August 23, 2002, 05:32:07 PM »

Evolution is a fact. Its methods are a theory.

Just one of the proofs of the hypothesis would be to predict a model of the natural world as it would be, due to evolution. The model looks like nature folks. For example there is a hierarchy of types that follow a natural progression from simpler to more complex.
You also have analogous traits for completely different species. Wings for instance. The shape and function of a bats wing and a birds wing are strikingly similar. Yet their derivation is very different (bone structure). Common solutions indicate that environmental pressures led these species to seek the same solution to the same problem with very different starting points. (by seek I mean of course unconsciously through natural selection and mutation).

Animal · « **Reply #23 on:** August 23, 2002, 05:32:22 PM »

I have not mentioned christians and the bible, I said God.
Some liars say god (or deity of your choosing) told them the earth was flat, another liar says he sailed to the edge and verified it, and you get a very believable theory for the time.

edit: i dont know if you have been to the ocean, i live next to it, and a quick peek out the window clearly shows that the earth seems round, there is obvious curvature, plus big ships dissapear at some distance.

Animal · « **Reply #24 on:** August 23, 2002, 05:35:17 PM »

I find people who argue against evolution amusing, because all the evidence is staring at them at their faces and everywhere they look, they are just too close minded to try and understand it.

And most times they have the capacity to. Too bad for them.

Cobra · « **Reply #25 on:** August 23, 2002, 05:45:43 PM »

I think the fact that a bunch of drunk tards can actually form some sort of a loose association (read squad) and actually be able to turn on a computer is proof that while evolution is indeed a fact, some unwanted characteristics still can fall through the cracks.

Cobra

takeda · « **Reply #26 on:** August 23, 2002, 06:11:24 PM »

Evolution is a scientific theory, as such it doesn't need to be "proven", it just have to conform and provide an explanation to every related fact and experiment, and does that just fine, the same as Relativity or Quantum Theory. So when you hear that "evolution is just unfalsifiable" you can be sure that is ok.

Creation by God is a religious concept that lies out of the discourse of science, as science deals with natural, measurable and perceptible subjects, so God, Faith and supernatural matters have no place in any scientifical discussion.

On the other hand, the so called "Creation Science" is nothing but a ridiculous attempt to put Creation on par with Evolution as a viable scientific theory. The proponents of this "Creation Science" present their claims using dishonest means, distorted accounts and flawed logic, always trying to mislead their already convinced audience, befuddling them with nonsensical pseudoscientific babble while painting the scientific community as a bunch of evil atheists.

It's stupid and non Christian having to be dihonest and to outright lie to force feed your beliefs onto others.

Many religious scientists don't find any problem accepting that Evolution is a valid theory, the account of Creation in the Bible is just another parable, and they just see God as setting the rules of evolution and "quickstarting" the proccess.

On the subject at hand, the tracing of our DNA to a single individual might be possible, but I find the date given a little too close. It would be more palatable to me if they claimed we all were descendants of some african hominid 3 or 4 million years ago. I find also unappropiate naming that individual "Eve", as I wouldn't like those avid creationist out-of-context-quote miners having such an easy task.

Awulf · « **Reply #27 on:** August 23, 2002, 06:15:45 PM »

HALT!!.... This is the Gene Police!!... YOU! Get out of the pool now!!

Shuckins · « **Reply #28 on:** August 23, 2002, 06:24:36 PM »

Why does the existence of evolution have to conflict with the concept of divine creation? I find the natural world to be marvelous and I consider the mechanism of evolution to be a miracle in itself.

In a very real sense there was an Eve.

What evolutionary scientists have not been able to do is tie homo-sapiens to any direct ancestors. There is no unbroken line of human evolution to study. A number of ancient relatives of man have been discovered, but the closest direct ancestors of Cro-magnon or homo-sapiens have yet to be discovered. A very puzzling "blank spot" exists.

I read once, can't remember where, that Leaky discovered an almost completely modern human skull in the layer of sediments below the layer in which the skeleton of Lucy was found. Doesn't seem likely does it? But what if it wasn't a hoax? Has anyone else ever run across that story? Think what a puzzler that would pose for modern scientists.

Regards, Shuckins

Epsilon 5 · « **Reply #29 on:** August 23, 2002, 06:25:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund3
No, that is not the part Im talking about.

To go from monkey-eye to human-eye, you would have to pass through 7 "steps" of evolution that would all be worse for the individual. That contradicts the basic theorem that a mutation that is good for the individual is kept and one that is bad is discarded. Ok if it was one fluke, but not 7 steps.

Cant remember exactly right now, but something like that.

What makes the human eye inferior to a monkey's eye, or any other species' eye? We are the only "animal" on this earth that can see the full spectrum of color. Of course, at the loss of motion awareness. A good thing always come with a bad thing...