Article in current issue of Scientific American describes evolution of the human eye

[Atreus21]

What evidence is there that the universe was created?

...is anyone else this retarded?

 

[fskimospy]

...is anyone else this retarded?

Sure, I am. What evidence is there that the universe was created? Why couldn't it be eternal, just like you (presumably) believe god to be?

 

[William Gaatjes]

...is anyone else this retarded?

The fun part is that the catholic church supported the big bang theory (The physics theory, not the comedy). Because it is a great way to extend the picture that there was a creator first.


You will like this text.
Hannes Alfven is relatively unknown it seems but was extremely important.
Especially what he has to say about the
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2137590&highlight=hannes+alfven

To Alfvén, the Big Bang was a myth - a myth devised to explain creation. "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory," he recalled. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.

But if there was no Big Bang, how -and when- did the universe begin? "There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time," Alfvén explained. "It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."

 

[p0nd]

...is anyone else this retarded?

There is plenty of evidence that the Universe exists, but not even the Big Bang theory discusses the creation of the Universe. Just what happened from the earliest observable point in time, the singularity. Effectively for our purposes, it's the beginning of time, but we don't have any actual way to know what happened before the singularity (i could be wrong about the specifics here and someone might come and school me on cosmology)

 

[William Gaatjes]

There is plenty of evidence that the Universe exists, but not even the Big Bang theory discusses the creation of the Universe. Just what happened from the earliest observable point in time, the singularity. Effectively for our purposes, it's the beginning of time, but we don't have any actual way to know what happened before the singularity (i could be wrong about the specifics here and someone might come and school me on cosmology)

In contradiction to what the popular media claims, the big bang is only a theory. There is no hard evidence. There have been measurements done that can support the big bang theory indirectly but also other theories can benefit from such measurements indirectly.

Time is just a quantification of events, changes. If there are no changes in the universe, there would be no time. A singularity, would still experience events. Thus you could say that if the big bang theory turns out to be correct, time already existed before the big bang. Time is just not a constant in contrast to popular believes. Of course, even if the big bang theory is not correct, time would still be present as long as there are events happening.

Forgot to add that according to the big bang theory, our known universe is the result of the big bang.

 

[shira]

Let me make sure I understand this. Natural processes don't disprove God, but they do prove that he is unnecessary.

Most theists hold that God created everything. Including these natural processes. How can he be unnecessary to something that he created?



Same point as above.

The fact that - hypothetically - a religious text is proven to have errors or that one matter of faith is proven to be incorrect doesn't prove that all aspects of a particular faith - for example, the existence of God - are invalid.

To some extent I agree with this. If I honestly somehow came to know with certainty that there is nothing beyond this existence, I wouldn't see any reason not to commit suicide, or commit crime. God is central to my understanding of the universe.

I've heard people snicker at this admission, saying they wouldn't want to be around me if I ever came to this conclusion. To this I retort: You think your claim to morality is any safer? On the shifting whims of societal norms that simply happen to have produced a temporary civility? I'd say my claim rests in a far less malleable source.

But beyond the comfortable psychological reasons, I can't understand how people look at the mind-boggling complexity of the universe, and our poor power to grasp all of it, and ascribe it to nothing more than chance + time. I couldn't look at any handiwork of my own or someone else's and think it logical to include mindless chance as the origin of its assemblage. And my creations are insignificant in comparison to whatever power created the universe.

I think your bolded conclusion is erroneous. Clearly, what people of faith have considered to be "moral" has shifted over the millennia. Slavery was once considered moral by Christians and Jews; it isn't any longer. Killing unbelieving innocents in the name of one's religion was once considered moral; it isn't any longer.

The point is that regardless of whether there's an "ultimate morality" defined by God, as practiced by humanity across the millennia morality has been the product of the human mind as it's interpreted scripture, subject to those "shifting whims" you decry.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Who's read the actual article?

 

[shira]

Who's read the actual article?

I have.

 

[gaidensensei]

Who's read the actual article?

But then it's a portal to open the evolution debate again anyway. When I saw the first few comments at the page in the OP, it was enough for me. Nothing will likely ever settle the debate in our time, only more information that can help us learn.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Is all this to fight some creationist fairytale that some clever man wrote down two thousand years ago?

It's fascinating to learn more about the evolution of the human eye, and while some dogmatic folk might enjoy throwing the book at you - this is all rather moot in the grand scheme of things.

Of course evolution is real. Why does evolution exist? Who created evolution? Let us say you figure out and answer that. Who created that which created evolution? Who created that which created that which created evolution?

The circular logic is infinite. It is entirely irrelevant and aside from a question of god and creation. So it did not occur exactly the way some primate wrote it thousands of years ago. That much should be obvious. It should only spit in the face of the ignorant, and the rest of us will enjoy learning more about the world we live in, regardless of how it came to be.

There is nothing that implies that you NEED a "watchmaker".

Nature has come (and, no it dosn't mean that there is a plan in evolution!. Mutations are RANDOM. Most are actually quite harmfull, many fatal. But over time some few advantagde ones will appear. It's a matter of staticstics. And give a benefit...over time.) up with different solutions to the same problem. In case of visual stimuli, many different types of eyes has evolved.

And the human eye is far from perfekt.

The need for a "watchmaker" or "prime mover" is not a prerequisite, just a religious "escape hatchet" from the physical evidence we have located in the universe.

No arms, no cookie.

 

[Lonbjerg]

But then it's a portal to open the evolution debate again anyway. When I saw the first few comments at the page in the OP, it was enough for me. Nothing will likely ever settle the debate in our time, only more information that can help us learn.

The debate has been settled a long time now, make no mistake about that.
It's only outside the realm of those that have knowlegde of these things and where consensus rules, that the illusion of "theach the controversy" exsist.

There is no debate.
Only religious based pseduo-science mixed with PR spin and money.

And that is no valid scientific counter what so ever the theory of evolution.
And even if the theory of evolution was disproved, it wouldn't mean that ID took it's place, because ID dosn't match the evidence, it would mean a third theory was needed.

And don't even get me started on the people that cannot differentiate between evolution...and and the origin of life.
Two seperate matters.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

What evidence is there that the universe was created?

...is anyone else this retarded?

Looks like that one kinda backfired on ya, didn't it?

The fact is that there is nowhere that you can say the universe does not -- nor did not -- exist. If you cannot show where the universe did not exist, then you cannot say that it began somewhere. If you cannot say that the universe began somewhere, you cannot say that it was created.

So, who's "retarded" now, Poindexter?

 

[LumbergTech]

Ever wondered why the omnipotent creator did such a terrible job designing things? Humans are mess. We have eyes that are thrown together like a last minute project, our hips and knees are weak. Back injuries are crippling for even minor problems. List goes on.

im an atheist but i dont agree with this logic

when you create something you have a goal in mind..it isnt necessarily perfection in every aspect..some things are more important than others

 

[LumbergTech]

Looks like that one kinda backfired on ya, didn't it?

The fact is that there is nowhere that you can say the universe does not -- nor did not -- exist. If you cannot show where the universe did not exist, then you cannot say that it began somewhere. If you cannot say that the universe began somewhere, you cannot say that it was created.

So, who's "retarded" now, Poindexter?

o snap

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

But then it's a portal to open the evolution debate again anyway. When I saw the first few comments at the page in the OP, it was enough for me. Nothing will likely ever settle the debate in our time, only more information that can help us learn.

Did you find it to be a good article? I'm interested from a scientific POV, so the quality is important to me. As far as the evolution debate, well let's say that the reasons for posting about such topics is best left to the imagination

 

[gaidensensei]

Did you find it to be a good article? I'm interested from a scientific POV, so the quality is important to me. As far as the evolution debate, well let's say that the reasons for posting about such topics is best left to the imagination

Definitely, it is research like this that sets theoretical and hypotheses into theory.

While I must say that a background of ophthalmology and whether it is different or similar across organisms is not my forte of biology (photoreceptors, opsin proteins, the stuff in higher sections of animal/vertebrate physiology), it is fortunate that the findings are divided into two parts.

The first pertaining to the mechanisms of the eye, and the second to how it supports the hypothesis that life adapted in a way that with phylogenetics can outline the process of vertebrates.

It fully supports the notion that eyes improved over time from natural selection, while organisms that did not need to do what we, as land vertebrates, do have eyes that operate differently, thus we 'evolved' different from their usage with the eye. Since we are organisms that live based on a circadian rhythm, bodily functions being active when sunlight is around, it is obvious that our eyes are tailored to have our functions when there is light.

In shorter terms, not sure of how deep your biology roots are, it is confirming likeness and function between vertebrates in phylogenetics by monophyletic grouping, while phyla outside of vertebrates evolved their eyes to achieve different functions that work differently from ours. The following is an image from that illustrates the depiction from Lamb's 2007 publication, dating with the earliest evidence of a fossilized Hagfish (Myxiniformes) order from the Cambrian period some ~550 million years ago.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thanks! My doctorate is in biology but I'm sadly out of date since I had to fall back on my undergrad degree. Have to pay those bills, but I've kept up enough to know somethings not quite right with that"jawed vertebrate" illustration.

I'll read this one.

 

[CycloWizard]

Definitely, it is research like this that sets theoretical and hypotheses into theory.

While I must say that a background of ophthalmology and whether it is different or similar across organisms is not my forte of biology (photoreceptors, opsin proteins, the stuff in higher sections of animal/vertebrate physiology), it is fortunate that the findings are divided into two parts.

The first pertaining to the mechanisms of the eye, and the second to how it supports the hypothesis that life adapted in a way that with phylogenetics can outline the process of vertebrates.

It fully supports the notion that eyes improved over time from natural selection, while organisms that did not need to do what we, as land vertebrates, do have eyes that operate differently, thus we 'evolved' different from their usage with the eye. Since we are organisms that live based on a circadian rhythm, bodily functions being active when sunlight is around, it is obvious that our eyes are tailored to have our functions when there is light.

In shorter terms, not sure of how deep your biology roots are, it is confirming likeness and function between vertebrates in phylogenetics by monophyletic grouping, while phyla outside of vertebrates evolved their eyes to achieve different functions that work differently from ours. The following is an image from that illustrates the depiction from Lamb's 2007 publication, dating with the earliest evidence of a fossilized Hagfish (Myxiniformes) order from the Cambrian period some ~550 million years ago.

At least some invertebrate sea animals also have circadian rhythms. One of the first experiments showing this was done on horseshoe crabs involving their photosensitivity over a 24-hour period. The daily cycle was maintained even after a year in complete darkness.

 

[gaidensensei]

Thanks! My doctorate is in biology but I'm sadly out of date since I had to fall back on my undergrad degree. Have to pay those bills, but I've kept up enough to know somethings not quite right with that"jawed vertebrate" illustration.

I'll read this one.

Lol, I was thinking something when off as I was posting it. Maybe Lamb meant to depict fish and humans, I have no idea...
Here's the DOI for the '07 publication if you want to take a garner at it..
10.1038/nrn2283

 

[gaidensensei]

At least some invertebrate sea animals also have circadian rhythms. One of the first experiments showing this was done on horseshoe crabs involving their photosensitivity over a 24-hour period. The daily cycle was maintained even after a year in complete darkness.

Yeah, of course since arthropods, insects show similarities too. Bees have been proved to rely on circadian clocks as well. But were they evolutionary on the same track as us (Humans)?

This seems to be one example of homoplasious / convergent evolution...