whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Science => Topic started by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 02:55:57 PM

Title: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 02:55:57 PM
I just really wanted to know how you feel about this quote and I would like to see you all discuss it and observe the conclusions that are determined from it.

'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'

I wonder who said that? Hmmmmmm....  ;D
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freak on October 11, 2008, 03:02:51 PM
I woudn't use a computer science from 100 years ago, why would I use biology from 100 years ago?
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 03:08:57 PM
I wouldn't use a computer science from 100 years ago, why would I use biology from 100 years ago?

So would you go by anything the man who made this quote said or wrote? Have you scraped those ideas and made new ones?
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freak on October 11, 2008, 03:54:11 PM
I wouldn't use a computer science from 100 years ago, why would I use biology from 100 years ago?

So would you go by anything the man who made this quote said or wrote? Have you scraped those ideas and made new ones?

We don't scrap knowledge and start again, we build on it. I don't look to scientists from 100 years ago for modern insights. Would I trust a source on evolution from 100 years ago? Of course not, I'd ask modern biologist. Darwin was brilliant for his time, but he's been out of the loop for too long to be an authority on anything.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Froggy on October 11, 2008, 04:28:49 PM
so... since we're building on what Darwin said

what exactly is todays answer to his being baffled by the complexity of the 'eye'

I'm not 'up' on my evolutionary development.

Just how many "partially eyed" fossils have been recently discovered ?

--------------------

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him
than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 04:33:46 PM
I wouldn't use a computer science from 100 years ago, why would I use biology from 100 years ago?

So would you go by anything the man who made this quote said or wrote? Have you scraped those ideas and made new ones?

We don't scrap knowledge and start again, we build on it. I don't look to scientists from 100 years ago for modern insights. Would I trust a source on evolution from 100 years ago? Of course not, I'd ask modern biologist. Darwin was brilliant for his time, but he's been out of the loop for too long to be an authority on anything.

I wonder if they ever found an answer for that dilemma?
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: HerrAxel on October 11, 2008, 04:51:18 PM
what exactly is todays answer to his being baffled by the complexity of the 'eye'

I'm not 'up' on my evolutionary development.

Today's answer is that he was not baffled, but is frequently quoted out of context:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html)

What baffles me is the same people who think the eye is too complex to have evolved on its own don't ask the same question about the eye's creator, who would have to be at least as complex as the eye it created, nicht wahr?

-
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 04:57:35 PM
what exactly is todays answer to his being baffled by the complexity of the 'eye'

I'm not 'up' on my evolutionary development.

Today's answer is that he was not baffled, but is frequently quoted out of context:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html)

Two things I have to say about that one: I'm confused on what your saying there please try to rephrase

Two:Nice German

What baffles me is the same people who think the eye is too complex to have evolved on its own don't ask the same question about the eye's creator, who would have to be at least as complex as the eye it created, nicht wahr?

-

Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Froggy on October 11, 2008, 04:57:57 PM
That is a ridiculous analogy

An eye is a mere functional instrument

GOD by definition is the creator of all things

'Eyes' evolve, whereas God is

So, can you (a good Darwinian religionist) please show me the latest fossils exhibiting the development of the eye (over time).  WHERE are the 'partially eyed' fossils that one would need to see to hold such a belief.

I do not have the 'faith' required to be an atheist


Your 'freaky' friend stated that we must keep up with the latest developments.

I'm all ears (pardon the pun) .... by all means, present your case.

 
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Hermes on October 11, 2008, 05:04:41 PM
Quote
"Absurd in the highest degree"

An example found in debates over evolution is an out-of-context quotation of Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species:

    To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

This sentence, sometimes truncated to the phrase "absurd in the highest degree", is often presented as part of an assertion that Darwin himself perceived his own theory of evolution as absurd. However, Darwin went on to explain that the apparent absurdity of the evolution of an eye is no bar to its occurrence.

The quote in context is

    To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

    Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
    —Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Fallacy of quoting out of context
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context)

Seriously, you picked a quote that is so abused that it appears as the first example of a fallacy in a Wikipedia article on the subject. 

When you quote mine, please don't pick something so obvious and make a yourself look like a ham fisted buffoon.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 05:12:11 PM
Quote
"Absurd in the highest degree"

An example found in debates over evolution is an out-of-context quotation of Charles Darwin in his Origin of Species:

    To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

This sentence, sometimes truncated to the phrase "absurd in the highest degree", is often presented as part of an assertion that Darwin himself perceived his own theory of evolution as absurd. However, Darwin went on to explain that the apparent absurdity of the evolution of an eye is no bar to its occurrence.

The quote in context is

    To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

    Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.
    —Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Fallacy of quoting out of context
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context)

Seriously, you picked a quote that is so abused that appears as the first example of a fallacy in a Wikipedia article on the subject. 

When you quote mine, please don't pick something so obvious and make a yourself look like a ham fisted buffoon.

You know you could have said all that without the insult there. No need for an Aggressive atheist.

I do wonder though if evolution took millions of years wouldn't there be a lot of blind animals for a very long time? How did they all live?
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: HerrAxel on October 11, 2008, 05:18:33 PM
I do wonder though if evolution took millions of years wouldn't there be a lot of blind animals for a very long time? How did they all live?

You mean like how do the earthworms, plankton, plants, etc live now?

-
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Asmoday on October 11, 2008, 05:18:50 PM
There is no dilemma. Darwin was not dismantling his own theory of Evolution. If those people, who lean back and smirk, as they think they found a weak spot, would care to read the rest of that paragraph, they would see, that Darwin gave the answer himself. But as usual this line of Darwin is taken out of context and as usual those, who use this quote, "forget" to show us the rest of Darwins statement, that follows right after the quoted part.

But let´s read, what Darwin has to say about it:
Quote
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."


And we don´t even have to look for "partially eyed" fossils for that. Even if we just look at living species, we can see, who the eyes evolved from simple photoreceptor cells to the mammalian eye. Not to forget, that there are a large number of species around, that show us less developed, more simple eyes, which fill the gaps (for example the pinhole eye of the nautilus). Not to mention that if we look at the "best" eyes today we can see all the evolutionary baggage, which would not be there, if there was a designer.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 05:20:45 PM
I do wonder though if evolution took millions of years wouldn't there be a lot of blind animals for a very long time? How did they all live?

You mean like how do the earthworms, plankton, plants, etc live now?

-


No more like cats, dogs, and people?
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Froggy on October 11, 2008, 05:22:20 PM

That answer doesnt cut it

comparing a worm or pinhole eye to an eagle or an owl

SHOW ME a partially blind owl or eagle fossil

the fact that worms are different is irrelevant


I'll wait --- while you go bring me the supposed MILLIONS of examples :rolleyes:

Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 05:23:19 PM
There is no dilemma. Darwin was not dismantling his own theory of Evolution. If those people, who lean back and smirk, as they think they found a weak spot, would care to read the rest of that paragraph, they would see, that Darwin gave the answer himself. But as usual this line of Darwin is taken out of context and as usual those, who use this quote, "forget" to show us the rest of Darwins statement, that follows right after the quoted part.

But let´s read, what Darwin has to say about it:
Quote
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."


And we don´t even have to look for "partially eyed" fossils for that. Even if we just look at living species, we can see, who the eyes evolved from simple photoreceptor cells to the mammalian eye. Not to forget, that there are a large number of species around, that show us less developed, more simple eyes, which fill the gaps (for example the pinhole eye of the nautilus). Not to mention that if we look at the "best" eyes today we can see all the evolutionary baggage, which would not be there, if there was a designer.

Still where did all the "garbage" of evolution go?
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Froggy on October 11, 2008, 05:29:27 PM
Quote from: Freezykow

Still where did all the "garbage" of evolution go?

Obviously it 'evolved' suchthat they dont even need an answer to legitimate questions any more  :o
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: HerrAxel on October 11, 2008, 05:30:06 PM
I do wonder though if evolution took millions of years wouldn't there be a lot of blind animals for a very long time? How did they all live?

You mean like how do the earthworms, plankton, plants, etc live now?

-


No more like cats, dogs, and people?

Cats, dogs, and people have eyes.  Jellyfish, coral, bacteria, etc do not and don't seem to have any problem thriving.  They live because they are successful reproducing better/faster than their predator's ability to consume them.

-
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 05:33:33 PM
I do wonder though if evolution took millions of years wouldn't there be a lot of blind animals for a very long time? How did they all live?

You mean like how do the earthworms, plankton, plants, etc live now?

-


No more like cats, dogs, and people?

Cats, dogs, and people have eyes.  Jellyfish, coral, bacteria, etc do not and don't seem to have any problem thriving.  They live because they are successful reproducing better/faster than their predator's ability to consume them.

-


You don't listen very well do you? OK lets try again. (according to evolution)At one point in time animals like monkeys, birds, ect... didn't have fully developed eyes. Without those that means millions of years passed by while there eyes were fixing themselves. So how did they survive?
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: HerrAxel on October 11, 2008, 05:44:33 PM
You don't listen very well do you? OK lets try again. (according to evolution)At one point in time animals like monkeys, birds, ect... didn't have fully developed eyes. Without those that means millions of years passed by while there eyes were fixing themselves. So how did they survive?

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.  Evolution doesn't say at one point in time animals like monkeys, birds, etc... didn't have fully developed eyes.  Monkeys, birds, etc. ALWAYS had fully developed eyes.

-
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 05:45:46 PM
You don't listen very well do you? OK lets try again. (according to evolution)At one point in time animals like monkeys, birds, ect... didn't have fully developed eyes. Without those that means millions of years passed by while there eyes were fixing themselves. So how did they survive?

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.  Evolution doesn't say at one point in time animals like monkeys, birds, etc... didn't have fully developed eyes.  Monkeys, birds, etc. ALWAYS had fully developed eyes.

-


Now how did that happen then?
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Irish on October 11, 2008, 05:46:46 PM
You don't listen very well do you? OK lets try again. (according to evolution)At one point in time animals like monkeys, birds, ect... didn't have fully developed eyes. Without those that means millions of years passed by while there eyes were fixing themselves. So how did they survive?

No, at one point there were no monkeys, birds, etc. No one is saying that monkeys evolved with inadequate eyes and then had to wait around while their eyes evolved sufficiently to use.

Eyes developed in lower order lifeforms and evolved in complexity.  Just as lower order lifeforms evolved in complexity as well.  With the individual lifeforms developing and evolving so too did their individual parts.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Asmoday on October 11, 2008, 05:48:53 PM
Quote
SHOW ME a partially blind owl or eagle fossil
*sigh* Can´t you make it atleast a little less obvious, that you don´t know, what you´re talking about?
There can´t be a partially blind owl or eagle, cause such a species would never evolve, if there are competing species, that have eyes. In an evironment, where eyes are highly usefull, a species that doesn´t have eyes will never stand a chance against those species with eyes. You´re making a mistake by thinking, there could partially blind owls evolve while there are other birds in the same niche with fully usable eyes. Evolution favors working concepts and a half-blind owl is not a working concept, if it has to compare with species that are not half-blind...

It´s different, if you look at an environment, where having eyes is notnecessary. Look at the deep see for example. There you´ll find species that do without eyes or that have really really big eyes. These can exist at the same time, cause it is possible to do as good without eyes. They "don´t have to see good" down there. It can be helpfull, but it´s not as important as it is, if the species lives in an evironment where they have a huge advantage with eyes.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 05:54:44 PM
Quote
SHOW ME a partially blind owl or eagle fossil
*sigh* Can´t you make it atleast a little less obvious, that you don´t know, what you´re talking about?
There can´t be a partially blind owl or eagle, cause such a species would never evolve, if there are competing species, that have eyes. In an evironment, where eyes are highly usefull, a species that doesn´t have eyes will never stand a chance against those species with eyes. You´re making a mistake by thinking, there could partially blind owls evolve while there are other birds in the same niche with fully usable eyes. Evolution favors working concepts and a half-blind owl is not a working concept, if it has to compare with species that are not half-blind...

It´s different, if you look at an environment, where having eyes is notnecessary. Look at the deep see for example. There you´ll find species that do without eyes or that have really really big eyes. These can exist at the same time, cause it is possible to do as good without eyes. They "don´t have to see good" down there. It can be helpfull, but it´s not as important as it is, if the species lives in an evironment where they have a huge advantage with eyes.

OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would function properly
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: HerrAxel on October 11, 2008, 06:02:09 PM
OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would fiction properly

Who did the first person to speak French talk to?  Was there half a Frenchman?

-

Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Irish on October 11, 2008, 06:03:52 PM
OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would fiction properly

Archeaopteryx, is a candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Had wings but was thought to not have been able to fly. And archaeopteryx has been shown to have more in common with the jurassic reptiles of it's time period than with modern birds.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 06:06:30 PM
OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would fiction properly

Who did the first person to speak French talk to?  Was there half a Frenchman?

-

Language has what to do with the working body parts of animals?
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 06:07:37 PM
OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would function properly

Archeaopteryx, is a candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Had wings but was thought to not have been able to fly. And archaeopteryx has been shown to have more in common with the jurassic reptiles of it's time period than with modern birds.

Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and ability to fly.

Wikipedia defiantly just said it could fly. Having more in common with reptiles than birds? Hmmmmmmmm... I'll ponder that one for you.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Froggy on October 11, 2008, 06:10:29 PM
Quote from: Asmoday
Quote
SHOW ME a partially blind owl or eagle fossil
*sigh* Can´t you make it atleast a little less obvious, that you don´t know, what you´re talking about?

We shall see - who knows 'what' ... answer if you can   

There can´t be a partially blind owl or eagle, cause such a species would never evolve, if there are competing species, that have eyes.

Hold on there bubba, you've set this one up backwards.

The Darwin Religionist claims that everything evolves (ie the eye) so then there were first beings with no eyes, then partial eyes, then real eyes, then superior eyes. The eyes 'evolved' over time.  The 'better' the eye, the more likely the beast would be 'naturally selected'.

Now you tell me that there are no 'partially blind' owls or eagles (partially evolved) They either have eyes or they do not ... is that it ??  This is not classic darwinism. So I fear that you've introduced heretical beliefs into the 'faith' of your fathers ...

There should be eagle fossils with no eyes, followed by eagle fossils with partial eyes ... etc  


In an evironment, where eyes are highly usefull, a species that doesn´t have eyes will never stand a chance against those species with eyes.

So then how did eyes evolve? That is at the very crux of Darwins dilemna. The eye is too complex to have simply evolved over time and given anyone an 'advantage' with a non-functioning partially developed eye.

You yourself concede that a 'partial eye' is hardly better than no eye at all.

Are you now suggesting a 'new faith' (unobserved) where all animals all developed 'eyes' at the same time ?

That one is far harder to 'swallow' than the belief that a Creator 'created' these beings fully formed.

Try again.  

You´re making a mistake by thinking, there could partially blind owls evolve while there are other birds in the same niche with fully usable eyes. Evolution favors working concepts and a half-blind owl is not a working concept, if it has to compare with species that are not half-blind...

NO you are making the reverse assumption to suit your 'faith' that there are birds with eyes to begin with,
EYES evolved remember. So we dont start with eyes and go backwards toward 'partial eyes' ... we take it on faith that birds start with no eyes and then developed them as part of natural selection.

Even 'Darwin' didnt have that much 'faith'

It´s different, if you look at an environment, where having eyes is notnecessary. Look at the deep see for example. There you´ll find species that do without eyes or that have really really big eyes. These can exist at the same time, cause it is possible to do as good without eyes. They "don´t have to see good" down there. It can be helpfull, but it´s not as important as it is, if the species lives in an evironment where they have a huge advantage with eyes.

But we are not talking about some sub-species of blob at the bottom of the ocean in the mirky dark. We are talking about birds and mammals on the earth. SHOW ME where they developed 'eyes' as part of a natural selection, survival of the fittest evolution.

Darwin acknowledged that the eye is far to complex for this to have occured by happenstance.

(as your 'faith' alleges)

All I am asking is SHOW ME the partially blind in the historical fossil record. There should be MILLIONS of them

Where are they ... or do we take in on 'faith' that they must exist ???
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Irish on October 11, 2008, 06:20:18 PM
OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would function properly

Archeaopteryx, is a candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Had wings but was thought to not have been able to fly. And archaeopteryx has been shown to have more in common with the jurassic reptiles of it's time period than with modern birds.

Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and ability to fly.

Wikipedia defiantly just said it could fly. Having more in common with reptiles than birds? Hmmmmmmmm... I'll ponder that one for you.

Read the full article before you begin making assumptions: (respectfully said)

The full quote should be:

"Despite its small size, broad wings, and ability to fly, Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.

The features above make Archaeopteryx the first clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs."


And:

"As in the wings of modern birds, the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx were highly asymmetrical and the tail feathers were rather broad. This implies that the wings and tail were used for lift generation. However, it is unclear whether Archaeopteryx was simply a glider or capable of flapping flight. The lack of a bony breastbone suggests that Archaeopteryx was not a very strong flier, but flight muscles might have attached to the thick, boomerang-shaped wishbone, the platelike coracoids, or perhaps to a cartilaginous sternum. The sideways orientation of the glenoid (shoulder) joint between scapula, coracoid and humerus—instead of the dorsally angled arrangement found in modern birds—suggests that Archaeopteryx was unable to lift its wings above its back, a requirement for the upstroke found in modern flapping flight. Thus, it seems likely that Archaeopteryx was indeed unable to use flapping flight as modern birds do, but it may well have utilized a downstroke-only flap-assisted gliding technique."

And then:

"Considering the current knowledge of flight-related morphology, a scenario outlined by El?anowski in 2002, namely that Archaeopteryx used its wings mainly to escape predators by glides punctuated with shallow downstrokes to reach successively higher perches, and alternatively to cover longer distances by (mainly) gliding down from cliffs or treetops, appears quite reasonable.[21]"
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 06:25:00 PM
OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would function properly

Archeaopteryx, is a candidate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Had wings but was thought to not have been able to fly. And archaeopteryx has been shown to have more in common with the jurassic reptiles of it's time period than with modern birds.

Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and ability to fly.

Wikipedia defiantly just said it could fly. Having more in common with reptiles than birds? Hmmmmmmmm... I'll ponder that one for you.

Read the full article before you begin making assumptions: (respectfully said)

The full quote should be:

"Despite its small size, broad wings, and ability to fly, Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.

The features above make Archaeopteryx the first clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs."


And:

"As in the wings of modern birds, the flight feathers of Archaeopteryx were highly asymmetrical and the tail feathers were rather broad. This implies that the wings and tail were used for lift generation. However, it is unclear whether Archaeopteryx was simply a glider or capable of flapping flight. The lack of a bony breastbone suggests that Archaeopteryx was not a very strong flier, but flight muscles might have attached to the thick, boomerang-shaped wishbone, the platelike coracoids, or perhaps to a cartilaginous sternum. The sideways orientation of the glenoid (shoulder) joint between scapula, coracoid and humerus—instead of the dorsally angled arrangement found in modern birds—suggests that Archaeopteryx was unable to lift its wings above its back, a requirement for the upstroke found in modern flapping flight. Thus, it seems likely that Archaeopteryx was indeed unable to use flapping flight as modern birds do, but it may well have utilized a downstroke-only flap-assisted gliding technique."

And then:

"Considering the current knowledge of flight-related morphology, a scenario outlined by El?anowski in 2002, namely that Archaeopteryx used its wings mainly to escape predators by glides punctuated with shallow downstrokes to reach successively higher perches, and alternatively to cover longer distances by (mainly) gliding down from cliffs or treetops, appears quite reasonable.[21]"
So it's just a species of bird that didn't completely be able to fly?
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: HerrAxel on October 11, 2008, 06:26:33 PM
OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would fiction properly

Who did the first person to speak French talk to?  Was there half a Frenchman?

-

Language has what to do with the working body parts of animals?

Follow the analogy.  How could the French language possibly have come into existence?  The first person to speak the language would have had no one to talk to, nicht wahr?  Or, using your argument, there would have been half a Frenchman, with half his grammar.

-
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Asmoday on October 11, 2008, 06:28:02 PM
Quote
At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would function properly
I see, Irish already posted something about the Archeopterix, so I don´t have to.

We have to look at the "where neither would function properly"-part. Granted, a species with half wing-half legs won´t be able to fly like a bird or run really fast with one pair of legs being half wings. But, and that is important, it doesn´t need to. It´s a trade-off. Even if they can´t run fast anymore, they can glide now much better than any competitors that are still geared to running or jumping between trees. Being able to glide from tree to tree is a high improvement compared to having to run on the ground to reach a tree, that is not in jumping distance. And since they don´t run very fast or good, they´ll avoid open planes anyway, so they don´t have to compete with predators, that can run fast.
Have a look at these little critters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel) (unfortunately the english wiki-entry is a bit short, but you get the idea)
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Irish on October 11, 2008, 06:34:04 PM
So it's just a species of bird that didn't completely be able to fly?

But that's precisely it.  It wasn't yet classifiable as a bird.  It was still a reptile with bird characteristics.  It's also noted that other species of reptiles (dinosaurs, whatever) had primitive and advanced feathers.  Archeaopteryx was still a reptile but represents another step in the evolution towards birds.  Its' primitive wings only enabled it to glide or crudely get some sort of lift, but what makes that great is the generations afterwards built upon this crude wing and eventually true flight was possible.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Froggy on October 11, 2008, 06:38:54 PM
So you gave one arguably disputable example

given the myriad species that have come down the proverbial 'pike'

where are the countless MILLIONS of other examples

One 'bird/reptile' is the basis for your entire 'faith' ???

Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: nihilanth on October 11, 2008, 06:43:31 PM

That answer doesnt cut it

comparing a worm or pinhole eye to an eagle or an owl

SHOW ME a partially blind owl or eagle fossil

the fact that worms are different is irrelevant


I'll wait --- while you go bring me the supposed MILLIONS of examples :rolleyes:




I think that I am going to like you Froggy.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Hermes on October 11, 2008, 06:45:08 PM
You know you could have said all that without the insult there. No need for an Aggressive atheist.

Well, when someone makes a mistake that large and they are arrogant about flaunting that mistake they get my attention.  What it tells me is that the person making that mistake makes it usually for very specific reasons -- none of them good;

1. You are taking a cheap shot and don't think much of anyone else's time or ability to address your cheap shot.  You'll continue those cheap shots till you have bored others into silence and then you will claim a 'victory'.  The Muslim Alfady does this quite a bit.

2. You really are that godsoaked and you would not listen anyway ... you only move the goalposts when you are found out.  Dogmatic to the end.

I do wonder though if evolution took millions of years wouldn't there be a lot of blind animals for a very long time? How did they all live?

Start reading here: http://www.google.com/search?q=eyes

Additionally, eyes are most useful for fast moving and complex creatures that aren't in caves or in oceans below 1,000m; 90% of the volume of the water on the planet.  Early life was single celled, and likely in the oceans as the solar radiation would sterilize the surface.  So, I think in your case we have a winner ...

3. You lack an interest in looking for yourself; you are not inquisitive.


Now, as for your charge against me, you started this thread with neither respect nor courtesy.

If you want to gain courtesy from anyone, then you can cut out the cheap shots and actually *look* before posting such nonsense.  Do something that shows you are both humble and thoughtful or expect ridicule for such bad behavior.

What can you do that is positive?  That will show that you are thoughtful and reasonably humble?  First, you can start by retracting your whine about the mean old atheist calling you out on your own rudeness.  Second, you can publicly state that you were mistaken and that you will make an effort not to do that in the future -- that you will at a minimum check your sources and not misquote people who have done nothing but improve your life and the lives of billions.

Show me some of that much claimed Christian morality.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Irish on October 11, 2008, 06:48:19 PM
So you gave one arguably disputable example

given the myriad species that have come down the proverbial 'pike'

where are the countless MILLIONS of other examples

One 'bird/reptile' is the basis for your entire 'faith' ???

There is not necessarily a need for "millions" of examples as you said.  There can be variations among each species of life.

For instance look at humans.  We are one single species with countless variations.  Height, weight, hair color, freckles, eye color, personalities galore, hair texture, skin color, the list goes on and on.  The basic premise is that within each species there can be small (eye color) to rather large variations (skin color) that would not constitute a new species.

There are many examples of feathers on reptiles or animals that developed wing-like appendages in that time frame.  I just gave the one, Archeaopteryx, because it is the most widely known and easiest to recognize.

Several different species all evolved feathers separately of each other,  not one species doing all this change by itself.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: jetson on October 11, 2008, 06:49:54 PM

That answer doesnt cut it

comparing a worm or pinhole eye to an eagle or an owl

SHOW ME a partially blind owl or eagle fossil

the fact that worms are different is irrelevant


I'll wait --- while you go bring me the supposed MILLIONS of examples :rolleyes:



I have had 20/20 vision for most of my life.  I am now far-sighted.  God sucks.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Ashe on October 11, 2008, 06:50:17 PM
Bookmark.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Deus ex Machina on October 11, 2008, 06:51:08 PM
^^^^
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: HerrAxel on October 11, 2008, 07:03:26 PM
So you gave one arguably disputable example

given the myriad species that have come down the proverbial 'pike'

where are the countless MILLIONS of other examples

Seek and yea shall find.  Ask and it shall be delivered.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html)

Quote
One 'bird/reptile' is the basis for your entire 'faith' ???

My "faith" is in the Invisible Pink Unicorn.  I have faith that she is pink and I logically know she is invisible since I can't see her.

Edited: Lest you think I mock you:
http://www.cafepress.com/ipushop

Edited Yet Again: OK, I confess, I do mock you.  But only because you seem to imply evolution is "faith-based".  Faith is a belief in something for which there is no evidence, for, if there is evidence, there is no need for faith.  In other words, faith is wishful thinking stated in the most politically correct terms.  Evolution is a scientific theory.  Now get this through your head - Science is a self-correcting process.  It is performed by humans who make mistakes, therefore science makes mistakes.  But, because it actively supports questioning and peer review by independent third parties, errors are ultimately discovered and corrected.  Thus we now have an 88% cure rate for breast cancer among other things you fekking maroon.

Now, on a Saturday night, after having dealt with the idioteligencia all week at work, you will forgive me for tossing a few sticks of dynamite into the fish barrel to relieve the stress.  On Sunday morning I will come to my senses and agree that Irish's and Asmoday's sensible approach to debate is really the way to go.

-
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Irish on October 11, 2008, 07:23:03 PM
HerrAxel,

I bookmarked this one: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

The other one was very good.  I'll read the second one later on.  Very nice. ;)
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freak on October 11, 2008, 07:54:57 PM
Asking a question that can be answered in 3 seconds of searching show massive disingenuity. There's an entire fracking wiki page dedicated to the evolution of the eye:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
Theists wonder why atheists discard their opinions out of hand so often... this is why.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Irish on October 11, 2008, 07:58:08 PM
There should be eagle fossils with no eyes, followed by eagle fossils with partial eyes ... etc.

No there shouldn't be eagle fossils without eyes.  You are making the assumption that the eagle evolved before the eye and then once the eagle developed the eye evolved within it.  Is this correct?  If I'm mis-stating you I apologize.

The eagle evolved with eyes from it's ancestors, reptiles.  Just as reptiles evolved with eyes in place from their ancestors, amphibians.  Amphibians developed with their eyes from their ancestors, fish... and then so on.

Eyes first developed as very simple eye spots on very simple creatures, small multi-celled organisms.  The eye and animals evolved side-by-side not in turns as you are suggesting.  With every small little step up the chain in animals the eye grew slightly more and more complex as well.


So then how did eyes evolve? That is at the very crux of Darwins dilemna. The eye is too complex to have simply evolved over time and given anyone an 'advantage' with a non-functioning partially developed eye.

You yourself concede that a 'partial eye' is hardly better than no eye at all.

Any ability to sense light is an advantage.  The eye, as many scientists believe, started out as a simple eye spot in lower organisms, small multi-celled creatures.  All they could do with this spot is sense light.  Eventually the spot became concave which allowed for detection of direction of the light.  Then a covering for the eye-spot which became the cornea and lens.  Then the original eye-spot became the retina and on and on. 

Here's a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpaFVgKPw


But we are not talking about some sub-species of blob at the bottom of the ocean in the mirky dark. We are talking about birds and mammals on the earth. SHOW ME where they developed 'eyes' as part of a natural selection, survival of the fittest evolution.

All I am asking is SHOW ME the partially blind in the historical fossil record. There should be MILLIONS of them

Where are they ... or do we take in on 'faith' that they must exist ???

There are fossils of each stage of eye development.  Each stage of development did not have to take place, stage-by-stage in each individual animal specie that has eyes.  We have simple bacteria today that have eye-spots.  We have mollusks and other simple creatures with concave and covered eye-spots. There are pinhole eyes.  There are eyes that can sense a picture but are poor in focusing or color.  Even our own brethren the apes, have great eyes but are not fully capable of seeing certain colors. *Edit* Even humans do not have perfect eyes.  Color-blindness is a sex linked trait.  Some people need to wear corrective lenses for farsightedness and nearsightedness. Then there are other conditions of the eye that lead to blindness.

The fossil record will not show eagles with no eyes, and then partial eyes, and then full eyes because they simply do not exist. However, we can see clearly each stage of the development of the eye within animals alive today or in fossils of animals that did exist

If any of this was vague or you simply want more I'd be happy to give you a full description.  I shortened many things to make the message shorter.  I'm more than happy to go in to further detail and won't give you any misgivings on your stand
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Asmoday on October 11, 2008, 08:15:03 PM
Quote
Hold on there bubba, you've set this one up backwards.

1 The Darwin Religionist claims that everything evolves (ie the eye) so then there were first beings with no eyes, then partial eyes, then real eyes, then superior eyes. The eyes 'evolved' over time.  The 'better' the eye, the more likely the beast would be 'naturally selected'.1

Now you tell me that there are no 'partially blind' owls or eagles (partially evolved) They either have eyes or they do not ... is that it ??  This is not classic darwinism. So I fear that you've introduced heretical beliefs into the 'faith' of your fathers ...

2 There should be eagle fossils with no eyes, followed by eagle fossils with partial eyes ... etc2
What you presume here is, that a species like the eagle pops up without eyes and then the eyes evolves over time. That itself is ridiculous and it shows, that you a) don´t understand the theory at all or b) don´t want to understand it to make up contradicting arguments.
As you see in the quote, I marked statement 1 and 2. Statement 1 is true, but statement 2 is false. You assume in 2, that Evolution creates a perfectly developed eagle without eyes, that slowly develops eyes after. If that was true, we would find fossils of eagles without eyes. But as you know aswell, your claim is false. The eagle does not pop up without eyes. If that would happen other species with eyes (it does not matter if it would be half-blind eyes or fully devoloped eyes) would wipe out the blind eagle pretty fast. (exactly as I said in my first post.).

You´re trying to build an argument by making a false picture of evolution. You´re trying to give the impression that evolution creates the species "eagle" first and the eyes of the eagle after the rest of it. It doesn´t work that way.

Quote
So then how did eyes evolve? That is at the very crux of Darwins dilemna. The eye is too complex to have simply evolved over time and given anyone an 'advantage' with a non-functioning partially developed eye.
Again, your twisting the theory and ignore everything that you don´t like. The eye is not too complex to evolve. As it is shown in the examples given before, all the less-devoloped-but-still-functional eyes are there for you to see. You just don´t want to see.
You´re right, that a non-functioning partially devoloped eye is no advantage. But already a really really simple photoreceptor molecule (that is far far away from a fully developed eye), that lets you know, if you swim away or towards the light, gives a single cell organisms a huge advantage over organisms without that.

Quote
You yourself concede that a 'partial eye' is hardly better than no eye at all.
Show me, where I said that. I said, that an organism with no eye doesn´t stand a chance against a competitor with an eye (if the eye is the only difference). You imply here, that "partial eye" means "non-functioning". Look above for the example with the single cell organism.

Quote
Are you now suggesting a 'new faith' (unobserved) where all animals all developed 'eyes' at the same time ?

That one is far harder to 'swallow' than the belief that a Creator 'created' these beings fully formed.
Wasn´t it your own idea, that a species evolves without eyes and that the eyes evolve after everything else is done? (see "the eagles without eyes"-part). But anyway, I´m not saying all kinds of animals developed eyes at the same time (that was your idea alone), but, and that is important, evolution is like an arms race of superpowers, so if one starts, all other must adapt or perish. If one species in an environment advances, it puts pressure on the other species, too (I am not saying, species can decide to evolve!). More evolved predators leed to more evolved prey.

Quote
But we are not talking about some sub-species of blob at the bottom of the ocean in the mirky dark. We are talking about birds and mammals on the earth. SHOW ME where they developed 'eyes' as part of a natural selection, survival of the fittest evolution.

Darwin acknowledged that the eye is far to complex for this to have occured by happenstance.

(as your 'faith' alleges)
I´m not talking about sub-species blob either. If you think of highly adapted fish as "sub-species blob", then that´s your problem, not mine. And as I said above, all the evidence was allready shown to you, but you decided not to look.
Since your own idea of evolution is false, as pointed out, you wont find evidence for that. But the theory of evolution by Darwin has enough evidence, which was already shown.

And Darwin did not acknowledge that the eye is to complex. Read the whole paragraph written by Darwin, not just the little line of text that creationists are quote mining to death. The eye would only be too complex for evolution, if you could not change it´s configuration without destroying it´s functionalty. That means, only if the fully developed mammalian eye was the only configuration for a working eye, then an eye would be to complex for evolution.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Count Iblis on October 11, 2008, 08:42:40 PM
So you gave one arguably disputable example

Okay, dispute it.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Froggy on October 11, 2008, 09:29:40 PM
the very article regarding the example disputes it

why should i
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Irish on October 11, 2008, 09:34:53 PM
What is disputable?  It was a real animal that was a reptile with bird characteristics.

Scientists don't know if it could fly or not but based on the structure of the bones and feathers they found, they conclude it was only capable of gliding.

Froggy, did you read my posts? I tried to answer yours to the best of my ability.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: PingTheServer on October 11, 2008, 09:37:27 PM
I find it amazing that people will start a thread like this, with only an opininion based loosely on what they think they know.

Instead of saying "what do you think of this quote"...how bout you go read up and form an educated opinion...then come to the boards, list the quote and your opinion at the same time, and you'll be amazed when you get a more polite and thorough evaluation of your post from the members.

The OP is playing some kind of silly gotcha game - waiting for someone with less than evidence to slip up, when the case is already closed in the scientific community.  Wouldnt you get more satisfaction out of being right for the right reasons, than winning a less than factual argument by being right for the wrong reasons?

If you are actually intersted in science and proof, one of thunderf00t's videos on youtube explains the phenomenon of our eyes improving.  There are like 30 videos and I don't remember which one it was...but if you're interested in truth rather than bickering, here:


http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D&page=1
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Hermes on October 11, 2008, 09:50:48 PM
I find it amazing that people will start a thread like this, with only an opininion based loosely on what they think they know.

Instead of saying "what do you think of this quote"...how bout you go read up and form an educated opinion...then come to the boards, list the quote and your opinion at the same time, and you'll be amazed when you get a more polite and thorough evaluation of your post from the members.

The OP is playing some kind of silly gotcha game - waiting for someone with less than evidence to slip up, when the case is already closed in the scientific community.  Wouldnt you get more satisfaction out of being right for the right reasons, than winning a less than factual argument by being right for the wrong reasons?

Well, it's even worse than that.  The whole premise of this thread is based on a misquote of something written about 150 years ago.  This is several levels of wrong.  I'd be interested if a retraction of the OP will be coming, or if lack of ethics will rule and the terminal errors in the OP will be ignored or defended.  I've seen Christian evangelical ethics, and I'm betting one of the later two options.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 10:19:29 PM
OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would fiction properly

Who did the first person to speak French talk to?  Was there half a Frenchman?

-

Language has what to do with the working body parts of animals?

Follow the analogy.  How could the French language possibly have come into existence?  The first person to speak the language would have had no one to talk to, nicht wahr?  Or, using your argument, there would have been half a Frenchman, with half his grammar.

-


That dosen't follow my example. Mine would have to be a man already with a language and them making up french. Unfortuanatly he would still know his previous language he would have grow in knowledge not change.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: HerrAxel on October 11, 2008, 11:13:25 PM
OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would fiction properly

Who did the first person to speak French talk to?  Was there half a Frenchman?

-

Language has what to do with the working body parts of animals?

Follow the analogy.  How could the French language possibly have come into existence?  The first person to speak the language would have had no one to talk to, nicht wahr?  Or, using your argument, there would have been half a Frenchman, with half his grammar.

-


That dosen't follow my example. Mine would have to be a man already with a language and them making up french. Unfortuanatly he would still know his previous language he would have grow in knowledge not change.

The analogy is meant to point out the "very" gradual nature of evolution.  At no point in time did an individual pop up and start speaking French.  Obviously, there was no first person to speak French!  Likewise, there was no instantaneous transition from a reptile to a bird.  There was no "half wing, half leg" as you're worried about.  At any given point in time, if you looked around France, most everyone in a specific geographic region understood each other.  But separate them in time by several thousand years and you will find they probably can no longer converse.  Likewise, at any given point in time, if you looked around, you would see some reptilian looking creature indistinguishable from his neighbors.  One of those creatures is ultimately the ancestor of the modern bird, but you would never tell by looking at him.  Only as you proceed down the time line over several  million years will the accumulated genetic changes become noticeable.

That's as explicit as I can make it.  After this I'm pissing in the wind.

-
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: PingTheServer on October 11, 2008, 11:14:57 PM
OK well lets try to slightly shift the disscussion but keep the purpose. Reptiles are the common ancestor of modern birds. At one point wouldn't there be an animal with half wing half leg where neither would fiction properly

You really should try to educate yourself.  The answer to most of your questions are out there.  You can choose to be lazy and ignorant, or you can take 5 minutes and use google.

Quote
The other major question about avian origins concerns the origin of avian flight. Two hypotheses have dominated the discussions. One proposes that flight and flapping of the forelimbs evolved in the context of running, this has been dubbed the cursorial or "ground up" hypothesis.

The other is the arboreal or "trees down" hypothesis, in which birds descend from arboreal parachuters and gliders, similar to modern tree squirrels and flying squirrels.

An interesting piece of evidence here concerns the hind limbs. When originally discovered, the hind limbs of the Berlin specimen bore large feathers, leading some scientists to propose that Archaeopteryx used the hind limbs in flight. This kind of adaptation is seen in modern gliding lizards such as Draco and Ptychozoon, but wouldn't be expected if primitive birds were relying on their legs to become airborne; large hindlimb feathers would hinder a cursor.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/~longrich/archaeopteryx.html

http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/evolution/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_evolution

http://www.aquatic.uoguelph.ca/BirdS/morphevol/main.htm

You may very well choose not to believe evolution is valid in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary no matter what anyone says.  If you see different breeds of dogs...you understand that they all have ancestory as wolves, and humans performed selection, to give us the breeds we have today.  That is called micro-evolution.  Macro-evolution is basically micro evolution over a greater expanse of time.  It doesnt make sense to me that people can understand one but not the other.

Quote
Natural selection is the machine that drives evolution. This mechanism causes those organisms that are "abnormal" to survive an environmental change, making them the "new normal." Over time, according to the Theory of Evolution, this can cause an organism to change into a totally different form of life. Some evidence of natural selection has been seen in nature, but not to an extent that would change a species in any meaningful way. Every genetic mutation that science has observed changing the form or function of an organism has resulted in handicap or death. It does, however, mean that an ecosystem is vulnerable to rapid change, since organisms that cannot adapt will usually die.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-evolution-faq.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html

Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 11, 2008, 11:28:22 PM
I find it amazing that people will start a thread like this, with only an opininion based loosely on what they think they know.

Instead of saying "what do you think of this quote"...how bout you go read up and form an educated opinion...then come to the boards, list the quote and your opinion at the same time, and you'll be amazed when you get a more polite and thorough evaluation of your post from the members.

The OP is playing some kind of silly gotcha game - waiting for someone with less than evidence to slip up, when the case is already closed in the scientific community.  Wouldnt you get more satisfaction out of being right for the right reasons, than winning a less than factual argument by being right for the wrong reasons?

If you are actually intersted in science and proof, one of thunderf00t's videos on youtube explains the phenomenon of our eyes improving.  There are like 30 videos and I don't remember which one it was...but if you're interested in truth rather than bickering, here:


http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D&page=1


Oh but Ping this was the point all along. To see how taking an argument that has already been proven wrong and see how far the Atheists community explodes on it. I thought it would be fun to see and I was correct!  ;)
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: jetson on October 11, 2008, 11:32:05 PM
why am I not surprised?
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Hermes on October 11, 2008, 11:54:09 PM
Oh but Ping this was the point all along. To see how taking an argument that has already been proven wrong and see how far the Atheists community explodes on it. I thought it would be fun to see and I was correct!  ;)

Any chance that you're going to retract your dreck, or are you a typical liar for Christ?
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Irish on October 12, 2008, 12:28:36 AM
Oh but Ping this was the point all along. To see how taking an argument that has already been proven wrong and see how far the Atheists community explodes on it. I thought it would be fun to see and I was correct!  ;)

So, in other words you made yourself look like a complete air-brain for your total lack of understanding of the mechanisms of genetics and evolution.  On that note, you did well, congratulations.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Azdgari on October 12, 2008, 01:15:59 AM
Creationists come onto sites like this in order to practice their misunderstanding-skills.  It's a useful skill for a creationist to have.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Hermes on October 12, 2008, 07:50:51 AM
Well, of course, there's so much to misunderstand and deny.  Willful ignorance on that scale that takes years.  Looking at the world only gets in the way.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: PingTheServer on October 12, 2008, 10:39:13 AM
Oh but Ping this was the point all along. To see how taking an argument that has already been proven wrong and see how far the Atheists community explodes on it. I thought it would be fun to see and I was correct!  ;)

How Christlike - preying on the misinformed.  Actually, that IS Christlike, he's going to eternally damn everyone that has not been informed of him.  Nevermind.

I am not an athiest, but just because someone is an athiest doesnt mean they have all the answers.  Thanks for wasting everyone's time and bringing nothing enlightening to the forum.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Ashe on October 12, 2008, 10:49:55 AM
Somehow I don't actually believe that this was done for fun. It seems more like someone had no idea how bad the argument was, watched it get pulled apart, and is making up some lame cover excuse to hide their own initial ignorance. Totally how that comes across. ::)
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Sota on October 12, 2008, 10:57:10 AM
Somehow I don't actually believe that this was done for fun. It seems more like someone had no idea how bad the argument was, watched it get pulled apart, and is making up some lame cover excuse to hide their own initial ignorance. Totally how that comes across. ::)

That's exactly what I was thinking.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: PingTheServer on October 12, 2008, 11:14:04 AM
Somehow I don't actually believe that this was done for fun. It seems more like someone had no idea how bad the argument was, watched it get pulled apart, and is making up some lame cover excuse to hide their own initial ignorance. Totally how that comes across. ::)

For sure.  We get alot of that here.  Some nub joins the forums thinking, i'll show these athiests how dumb they are...all the while forgetting the entire history of science is at our fingertips.

If he wanted to, he could go get the creationist explanation from answersingenesis.com and let us explain how those are fallacious.  That would at least be a little more fun.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Cycle4Fun on October 12, 2008, 12:29:37 PM
You have a question on the evolution of the eye.  You happen to be connected to the largest information resource ever conceived by man.  Let's try an experiment.  For a proper experiment we need a hypothesis and a way to test that hypothesis.

Hypothesis
By using an internet search engine, it is possible to find an answer to a question with a reasonable accuracy.

Method
Not understanding how the evolution of the eye may have occurred, I wish to know more about the scientific explanation of how the eye came to be.  Using the internet search engine Google, at www.google.com (http://www.google.com), I typed in "evolution of the eye."

Result
In 0.29s Google responded with 19,200,000 hits for "evolution of the eye."  The very first hit was from Wikipedia.  This website, while not to be used as a resource for a paper, nevertheless has a well cited article on the evolution of the eye.  The article is both informative, and easy to follow.

Conclusion
The original hypothesis is confirmed.  By using the most powerful information resource ever devised by man it is possible to find the answer to a question with reasonable accuracy.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Cycle4Fun on October 12, 2008, 12:33:11 PM
I just really wanted to know how you feel about this quote and I would like to see you all discuss it and observe the conclusions that are determined from it.

'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'

I wonder who said that? Hmmmmmm....  ;D

Nice quote mine.  You should read the rest of the text surrounding that.  Darwin didn't know how the eye evolved.  That's ok.  Newton didn't have the faintest idea about light, relativity, or quantum mechanics.

The original theory of evolution has changed to today's version that better fits the data.  Today's version of evolution will undoubtedly be changed to better fit the data that includes the data of the past, the data of today, and the data of tomorrow.  That's a good thing.  Your quote tells us nothing other than Darwin didn't know how the eye evolved.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 12, 2008, 02:43:38 PM
I honestly don't expect many of you to believe me or care but It matters not to me.  The purpose of this whole thing was to test out an idea I had. I needed to see how you would react to an argument with a massive hole in it. So I picked a very recognized quote, took it out of context, and sat back to observe the result. I can truly say I was supprised at my conclusion and no longer have need for this topic.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: PingTheServer on October 12, 2008, 03:27:52 PM
I honestly don't expect many of you to believe me or care but It matters not to me.  The purpose of this whole thing was to test out an idea I had. I needed to see how you would react to an argument with a massive hole in it. So I picked a very recognized quote, took it out of context, and sat back to observe the result. I can truly say I was supprised at my conclusion and no longer have need for this topic.

I no longer have a need to answer any of your questions.  You are not interested in light, only fire.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Goodkat on October 12, 2008, 03:42:37 PM
I just really wanted to know how you feel about this quote and I would like to see you all discuss it and observe the conclusions that are determined from it.

'To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.'

I wonder who said that? Hmmmmmm....  ;D
That quote was 100% true when it was written. Back then, the thought of an eye evolving did seem absurd, but now we now it isn't. You obviously make the mistake of thinking that we believe what Darwin wrote because he was some kind of prophet, you are obviously wrong. We believe what he wrote because it has been proven time and again. Darwin was to evolution what Einstein was to physics, a brilliant man, but no more than a man, and just because he said it doesn't make it so. See my "mistakes of Charles Darwin" thread.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Goodkat on October 12, 2008, 03:58:11 PM
I honestly don't expect many of you to believe me or care but It matters not to me.  The purpose of this whole thing was to test out an idea I had. I needed to see how you would react to an argument with a massive hole in it. So I picked a very recognized quote, took it out of context, and sat back to observe the result. I can truly say I was supprised at my conclusion and no longer have need for this topic.
I don't normally accuse people, but I have this feeling that when you started this thread you were completely serious.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Ashe on October 12, 2008, 04:06:33 PM
Oh what utter bull. You gave an argument and tried to debate it. This is clear from your responses. This "I meant to do that" crap doesn't pass the smell test. What are you, 13? Just say that the argument was a bad one and move on. Nobody who ever tried the line you just did has been successful.

You "no longer have need" for this topic because your argument didn't work and people shut it down. You're not concluding an experiment, you're leaving a debate that you just lost. It's very simple. No need for clumsy face-saving techniques.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Irish on October 12, 2008, 05:55:36 PM
I don't believe your "backing out, this was only an experiment" excuse.  The fact is you created a new topic with an unbelievably and ubsurdly misused quote and then made outlandish accusations regarding the very mechanisms of evolution that you clearly do not understand.  And then when forum members came in, such as myself, Hermes, Asmoday, Cycle4Fun, HerrAxel, Ping, and others, and completely tore apart your faulty reasonings and hypotheses regarding evolution instead of just saying "I was wrong" you are trying to cowardly back out by saying it was all for fun and a little experiment to tease us.

The fact is you were wrong and when you came in here to try and prove the stupid atheists wrong you were met with more intelligence than you imagined and your simple reasonings were not enough.

You and Froggy had more holes in your reasoning and logic than I could count... "half-blind eagles" and such.  Grow up.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 12, 2008, 07:42:06 PM
Oh what utter bull. You gave an argument and tried to debate it. This is clear from your responses. This "I meant to do that" crap doesn't pass the smell test. What are you, 13? Just say that the argument was a bad one and move on. Nobody who ever tried the line you just did has been successful.

You "no longer have need" for this topic because your argument didn't work and people shut it down. You're not concluding an experiment, you're leaving a debate that you just lost. It's very simple. No need for clumsy face-saving techniques.

It matters not what you think of this. Belive I did it to prey of the misinformed or believe I did it out of shear stupidity. I don't care my Hypothesis about Atheists is slowly proving itself. Of course there are some exceptions to the theory.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Hermes on October 12, 2008, 07:50:40 PM
Then show that you aren't woefully uninformed.  Stun us with your intellect.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Goodkat on October 12, 2008, 08:01:18 PM
I don't care my Hypothesis about Atheists is slowly proving itself. Of course there are some exceptions to the theory.
What exactly is this hypothesis?
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Sota on October 12, 2008, 08:42:06 PM
I don't care my Hypothesis about Atheists is slowly proving itself. Of course there are some exceptions to the theory.
What exactly is this hypothesis?

"Atheists are mean."

I bet this is it.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: jetson on October 12, 2008, 08:47:43 PM
Oh what utter bull. You gave an argument and tried to debate it. This is clear from your responses. This "I meant to do that" crap doesn't pass the smell test. What are you, 13? Just say that the argument was a bad one and move on. Nobody who ever tried the line you just did has been successful.

You "no longer have need" for this topic because your argument didn't work and people shut it down. You're not concluding an experiment, you're leaving a debate that you just lost. It's very simple. No need for clumsy face-saving techniques.

It matters not what you think of this. Belive I did it to prey of the misinformed or believe I did it out of shear stupidity. I don't care my Hypothesis about Atheists is slowly proving itself. Of course there are some exceptions to the theory.

What is an atheist?  If you can define it properly, it might help your case.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Astreja on October 12, 2008, 08:51:17 PM
And then when forum members came in, such as myself, Hermes, Asmoday, Cycle4Fun, HerrAxel, Ping, and others, and completely tore apart your faulty reasonings and hypotheses regarding evolution instead of just saying "I was wrong" you are trying to cowardly back out by saying it was all for fun and a little experiment to tease us.

Much as an abusive individual will respond "I was only joking..." when the target of his abuse dares to raise an objection.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: ksm on October 12, 2008, 09:06:31 PM
Oh what utter bull. You gave an argument and tried to debate it. This is clear from your responses. This "I meant to do that" crap doesn't pass the smell test. What are you, 13? Just say that the argument was a bad one and move on. Nobody who ever tried the line you just did has been successful.

You "no longer have need" for this topic because your argument didn't work and people shut it down. You're not concluding an experiment, you're leaving a debate that you just lost. It's very simple. No need for clumsy face-saving techniques.

It matters not what you think of this.

So why do you respond?

Belive I did it to prey of the misinformed or believe I did it out of shear stupidity. I don't care my Hypothesis about Atheists is slowly proving itself. Of course there are some exceptions to the theory.

That many Atheists are generally well informed, and usually know how to shut down flawed debates from know nothing creationists?

That's not a hypothesis, that's a workable Theory (and maybe a fact too!)
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Hermes on October 12, 2008, 09:34:17 PM
Much as an abusive individual will respond "I was only joking..." when the target of his abuse dares to raise an objection.

Yep.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Deus ex Machina on October 13, 2008, 03:18:11 AM
I don't care my Hypothesis about Atheists is slowly proving itself. Of course there are some exceptions to the theory.

Does it matter to you that you have probably done your belief-system some small disservice by pretending to indulge in a sincere discussion but in fact pushing people's buttons, that in the process you have deliberately misrepresented yourself and deliberately misrepresented the facts, and that this kind of behaviour goes against the ninth commandment of the Mosaic law which I suppose you believe still applies to you?

Because you see, I have this hypothesis that theists are liars and hypocrites, and your actions aren't exactly helping to disprove it.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Freezykow on October 13, 2008, 12:52:03 PM
I don't care my Hypothesis about Atheists is slowly proving itself. Of course there are some exceptions to the theory.

Does it matter to you that you have probably done your belief-system some small disservice by pretending to indulge in a sincere discussion but in fact pushing people's buttons, that in the process you have deliberately misrepresented yourself and deliberately misrepresented the facts, and that this kind of behaviour goes against the ninth commandment of the Mosaic law which I suppose you believe still applies to you?

Because you see, I have this hypothesis that theists are liars and hypocrites, and your actions aren't exactly helping to disprove it.

For the most part Deus you were one of the exceptions.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Azdgari on October 26, 2008, 07:15:34 PM
I doubt that your failure to actually answer to answer DeM's question did much to help disprove his hypothesis, either.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Deus ex Machina on October 26, 2008, 08:01:00 PM
Azdgari, you necromancer! :D
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Azdgari on October 26, 2008, 08:37:13 PM
It wasn't all that far down the page!  Anyway, he didn't answer your question in his response, which is kinda funny considering what the question was about.
Title: Re: How do you feel about this quote?
Post by: Deus ex Machina on October 26, 2008, 08:42:38 PM
It wasn't all that far down the page!  Anyway, he didn't answer your question in his response, which is kinda funny considering what the question was about.

Well, sometimes silence is an answer, I guess.