Entropy contradict Evolution

James R said:
786:



That's right. But in evolutionary terms, we're never talking about one animal. We talk about whole populations. So, to use your example, what happens when we have 100 kids, and each one gets a pizza? Answer: 99 kids die of the disease, but 1 kid lives due to the pinapple pizza. Now, who is going to pass on their pizza to the next generation? Answer: the one kid who survived. And after that, everybody has a pineapple pizza.
Click to expand...

Dude, the kid will eat the whole pizza. When he reproduce then you will need to order a new pizza. For the new children. Just a joke. :)

Another joke out of this would be. If 99 out of a 100 would die. Then how will that 1 (survivor) reproduce? This of course applying to animal who reproduces sexually. :D

Anyways. Maybe it was a bad analogy. As I said I'm not good with analogies.
 
(Q) said:
That explanation has been given to you and you now insult those who took the time to explain it to you by ignoring their answers and repeating the question.

If the only answer you will accept is, "God did it," then accept that and give it a rest.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the answer. I don't know where you saw the answer. I was discussing about "eye" but then Nasor changed my direction to Mutation again. Now I'm back to discussing about the "eye".

So question remains.

"how did an eye come into being (existence)?"
 
786 said:
I haven't seen the answer. I don't know where you saw the answer. I was discussing about "eye" but then Nasor changed my direction to Mutation again. Now I'm back to discussing about the "eye".

So question remains.

"how did an eye come into being (existence)?"
Click to expand...


Here is a starter. I'll be back with more but you can see (no pun intended) that there are many different eyes and hence many different evolutions to an eye function.

A bit more information on the make up of different eyes of increasing complexiety.

http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm

It does seem there is ample material to answer your question. It also seems you may be being disengenious in asking your question. Although there is more than enough information to satisfy your question, you are placing an undue burden on this forum to explain in detail the evolution of an eye.

That is it would be like me challenging you to name every part, and how they are assembled, for the ISS. Not a valid question for a forum like this.

http://www.biol.lu.se/funkmorf/vision/dan/model.html

People have spent years and use complex computer programs to illustrate the process. It is not something that can reasonably be replicated here. to suggest that failure to fullfill your question means it is not true is simply false.

But I'll continue to search for a good solid description and see just how determined you are to pretend you have made a point by rejecting the information.
 
Last edited:
MacM said:
Here is a starter. I'll be back with more but you can see (no pun intended) that there are many different eyes and hence many different evolutions to an eye function.

A bit more information on the make up of different eyes of increasing complexiety.

http://library.thinkquest.org/28030/eyeevo.htm
Click to expand...

I have read your article. Pretty interesting. Thanks for sharing, it raised my knowledge, but let me get back to the question.

The article shows simple to complex. This is NOT what i'm asking. I'm asking the formation of the first eye. What you just shared is simple existence to complex existence.

My question is from non-existense to existence.
 
786 said:
I have read your article. Pretty interesting. Thanks for sharing, it raised my knowledge, but let me get back to the question.

The article shows simple to complex. This is NOT what i'm asking. I'm asking the formation of the first eye. What you just shared is simple existence to complex existence.

My question is from non-existense to existence.
Click to expand...

OK. Disregard my above post. You have clarified. I'll see what I can find but I am curious why you haven't searched for yourself?

I believe you will find your answers if you Google "Intercalary Evolution".

http://sdb.bio.purdue.edu/fly/neural/sineocl3.htm
 
Last edited:
I have, but I didn't get any results. All I get is something like what you just shared. This is what I am not interested in, as I told you. So hopefully you guys will be able to show me.

A reason for my failure to get results could be that I didn't try hard enough, but in my thinking I really did try.

This is for the people who don't get, why I'm asking this question-Evolution says gradual changes. So there has to be a non-existence of an eye to the existence of an eye. So a non-existence of an eye which gradually changed into the existence of an eye.
 
786 said:
I have, but I didn't get any results. All I get is something like what you just shared. This is what I am not interested in, as I told you. So hopefully you guys will be able to show me.

A reason for my failure to get results could be that I didn't try hard enough, but in my thinking I really did try.

This is for the people who don't get, why I'm asking this question-Evolution says gradual changes. So there has to be a non-existence of an eye to the existence of an eye. So a non-existence of an eye which gradually changed into the existence of an eye.
Click to expand...

Well, I think this one shares some light. It states that certain mutation had other functions unrelated to vision or eyes but became useful in the development of eyes.

That is like saying "How did a car evolve?". Well you make wheels. Gee they roll and make things easy to move but it isn't a car. Now make a frame and mount 4 wheels and you get a more stable platform for moving things but you still don't have a car.

Add piece by piece and ultimately you have a car. I don't really see your problem since components for eyes developed independant of evoluving for or to be an eye. With components being available it is easy to see how something with no eye could suddenly have a light sensative spot. That would be a most beneficial mutation and off we go with evolution of an eye.

http://146.186.95.23/weiss_lab/CQ/CQ07_HowTheEyeGotItsBrain.pdf
 
MacM said:
Well, I think this one shares some light. It states that certain mutation had other functions unrelated to vision or eyes but became useful in the development of eyes.

That is like saying "How did a car evolve?". Well you make wheels. Gee they roll and make things easy to move but it isn't a car. Now make a frame and mount 4 wheels and you get a more stable platform for moving things but you still don't have a car.

Add piece by piece and ultimately you have a car. I don't really see your problem since components for eyes developed independant of evoluving for or to be an eye. With components being available it is easy to see how something with no eye could suddenly have a light sensative spot. That would be a most beneficial mutation and off we go with evolution of an eye.

http://146.186.95.23/weiss_lab/CQ/CQ07_HowTheEyeGotItsBrain.pdf
Click to expand...

Huh? Could you explain this better?
 
786 said:
Huh? Could you explain this better?
Click to expand...

From the quick read I gave that jpaper it seemed rather obvious. Components of the eye arose through evolution and served purposes other than for generating sight. All the parts to an eye didn't just occur and go from no eye to an eye but components for light sensitive spots, etc already had come into existaance before they appeared in the form of rudimentary vision (light sensative) arrangement.

i.e. - The parts to your car are scattered around the garage and are being used for things other than functioning as a car.
 
MacM said:
From the quick read I gave that jpaper it seemed rather obvious. Components of the eye arose through evolution and served purposes other than for generating sight. All the parts to an eye didn't just occur and go from no eye to an eye but components for light sensitive spots, etc already had come into existaance before they appeared in the form of rudimentary vision (light sensative) arrangement.

i.e. - The parts to your car are scattered around the garage and are being used for things other than functioning as a car.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Interesting. Can this assumption be supported? Just curious.
 
Hey, I have a question, so I don't get confused later.

What do you believe? The eye evolved independantly (40-65 times) or it evolved from 1?

Peace be unto you:)
 
786 said:
Hey, I have a question, so I don't get confused later.

What do you believe? The eye evolved independantly (40-65 times) or it evolved from 1?

Peace be unto you:)
Click to expand...

I think it could be either way. But when you say "1", I take exception. You have to be more specific when you want to claim "No Eye" to an "Eye". The first bits of photosensitive cells did not function initially as an eye. However when they coincidentally occurred in a manner to be linked to a brain they began to stimulate vision, albiet minimal.

There are to many forms of light senstive cells, so I would suggest that independant evolutions looks more realistic.
 
Ok. So I'd take that you believe in independantly evolving eyes. Right?
I'll share thinks regarding this.

Peace be unto you :)
 
786 said:
Ok. So I'd take that you believe in independantly evolving eyes. Right?
I'll share thinks regarding this.

Peace be unto you :)
Click to expand...

You are a bit eager to test your claims. You are distorting what I said. I said "Either" but that I tended to "Favor" independant.

Having said that I am speaking logically based on the evidence I see. I am not a biologist and have little interest in the field. So arguing with me, even should you win the debate, will really not be a feather in your cap. Save your arguements for those that can properly challenge your claims.
 
Oh I know what you meant.

When you "favor" something over the other than obviously you believe in it MORE than the others.

But ok. I'll ask others about this question.

"how did an eye come into being (existence)?"

Peace be unto you :)
 
786 said:
"how did an eye come into being (existence)?"
Click to expand...
how did you come into existence?
how did all those bazilion liforms on earh come into existence?
they EVOLVED from other lifeforms,and changed and adapted to their different environments.
your problem me thinks is thinking in terms of 6 thousands(or whatever) years creation the religion teaches.

forget about that and THINK 100 million years,or there abouts and it will be much easier to comprehend evolution
try here
www.talkorigins.org
or here
www.infidels.org/index.shtml
 
Q25 said:
how did you come into existence?
how did all those bazilion liforms on earh come into existence?
they EVOLVED from other lifeforms,and changed and adapted to their different environments.
your problem me thinks is thinking in terms of 6 thousands(or whatever) years creation the religion teaches.

forget about that and THINK 100 million years,or there abouts and it will be much easier to comprehend evolution
try here
www.talkorigins.org
or here
www.infidels.org/index.shtml
Click to expand...

I have looked at those sites many times. Especially Talk Origin, because it is given to me the most often.

Both are bias sites. Talk Origin supports Evolution right? Well go to True Origin it supports Creation, and refutes Talk Origin.

You can provide evolutionist sites, and I can provide creationist sites. It's not going to help the debate, is it?

The question remains- "how did an eye come into being (existence)?"

Peace be unto you :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top