Could the 'eye' and other complex organs have evolved from random mutation?

[BrownTown]

If you admit that in small time frames small changes can occur in populations, and that bacteria can develop new species, then how can you not also believe that in large time frams large changes can occur, and that even large animals can develop new species?

Trust me, I am a very firm believer in a gray world where nothing is black and white, but some of the rhetoric from intelegent design/creationists seems to make little sense at all. IT is pretty much what has been happening for the last 1000 years, science proves that the real world works one way, and then religious people are forced to accept it and change their beliefs to account for it. First the religious people say that the world is created in 6 days like in Genesis. But then astronomy and geology come along and say the universe is muc holder. So the religious people say OK, its just a metephor, but God still created man and the animals exactly as they are now. They evolution comes along and they say OK we'll concede that populations can change a little, but new species cannot be formed. Then bacteria research comes along and it is clear that new species are created all the time, so religious people cede that point too, but then argue it all proceeds by Gods design, adn evolution is really what the bible is talking about in Genisis, which is of course only a metaphor. How much longer will it be before they are forced to admit that they are worng once again?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ntdz
I don't rely on evolution to explain how life began (and evolution isn't a theory that tries to explain how life began)...it merely explains how things got here after life began. Evolution is an undeniable scientific theory, you can look in a microsope and watch it happen...

Yet you're arguing with someone else's statements that speak to how life began. Like you said, evolution tells us nothing of this event or phenomenon, nor is there any experimental evidence to support your theory or any other.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
If you admit that in small time frames small changes can occur in populations, and that bacteria can develop new species, then how can you not also believe that in large time frams large changes can occur, and that even large animals can develop new species?

Trust me, I am a very firm believer in a gray world where nothing is black and white, but some of the rhetoric from intelegent design/creationists seems to make little sense at all. IT is pretty much what has been happening for the last 1000 years, science proves that the real world works one way, and then religious people are forced to accept it and change their beliefs to account for it. First the religious people say that the world is created in 6 days like in Genesis. But then astronomy and geology come along and say the universe is muc holder. So the religious people say OK, its just a metephor, but God still created man and the animals exactly as they are now. They evolution comes along and they say OK we'll concede that populations can change a little, but new species cannot be formed. Then bacteria research comes along and it is clear that new species are created all the time, so religious people cede that point too, but then argue it all proceeds by Gods design, adn evolution is really what the bible is talking about in Genisis, which is of course only a metaphor. How much longer will it be before they are forced to admit that they are worng once again?

Exactly, the more scientific breakthroughs we have, the less holes "God" has to fill for the unexplanable, thus marginalizing religion. Science is replacing religion...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: B00ne
I thaught you are an aero-space engineer - now building rockets with monkey eyes?

Chemical engineer, now stretching and poking lenses from eyes. And no, it has nothing to do with chemical engineering.

 

[dahunan]

If something planned this hell hole then are the other planets = past failures just like this one will?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
I don't rely on evolution to explain how life began (and evolution isn't a theory that tries to explain how life began)...it merely explains how things got here after life began. Evolution is an undeniable scientific theory, you can look in a microsope and watch it happen...

Yet you're arguing with someone else's statements that speak to how life began. Like you said, evolution tells us nothing of this event or phenomenon, nor is there any experimental evidence to support your theory or any other.

No, I don't have a theory about how life began, because I just don't know. And neither do religious people. However, they chose to believe theories which flat out aren't supported by any facts...

Evolution was never designed to explain how life started, it only explains how it changes. You keep acting like I use evolution to explain how life started, and I just don't. Until I see some evidence, I'll just admit I don't know. I can do that, I don't think religious people can.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: BrownTown
If you admit that in small time frames small changes can occur in populations, and that bacteria can develop new species, then how can you not also believe that in large time frams large changes can occur, and that even large animals can develop new species?

Trust me, I am a very firm believer in a gray world where nothing is black and white, but some of the rhetoric from intelegent design/creationists seems to make little sense at all. IT is pretty much what has been happening for the last 1000 years, science proves that the real world works one way, and then religious people are forced to accept it and change their beliefs to account for it. First the religious people say that the world is created in 6 days like in Genesis. But then astronomy and geology come along and say the universe is muc holder. So the religious people say OK, its just a metephor, but God still created man and the animals exactly as they are now. They evolution comes along and they say OK we'll concede that populations can change a little, but new species cannot be formed. Then bacteria research comes along and it is clear that new species are created all the time, so religious people cede that point too, but then argue it all proceeds by Gods design, adn evolution is really what the bible is talking about in Genisis, which is of course only a metaphor. How much longer will it be before they are forced to admit that they are worng once again?

Exactly, the more scientific breakthroughs we have, the less holes "God" has to fill for the unexplanable, thus marginalizing religion. Science is replacing religion...

Not really. Religion can never be replaced by science and vice versa. They are there to serve their purpose. Religion gives hope to people. It is there to comfort them, to lend them a hand. To guide them. Some people devote their entire lives to religion and help countless other people who help other people and on and on. Much of our good fortunes today have come from religious people. Religion and science should not battle each other, rather they should work with each other and better humanity.

Many scientists are religious. Religion has unlimited power. Its too easy to label religion one way or another. There are millions of religions out there. Religion is what you make of it. You can choose to sit in a forest in India and meditate and find the meaning of life. You can choose to go to college and become somebody. Religion is necessary for this earth to function normally.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
If you admit that in small time frames small changes can occur in populations, and that bacteria can develop new species, then how can you not also believe that in large time frams large changes can occur, and that even large animals can develop new species?

Trust me, I am a very firm believer in a gray world where nothing is black and white, but some of the rhetoric from intelegent design/creationists seems to make little sense at all. IT is pretty much what has been happening for the last 1000 years, science proves that the real world works one way, and then religious people are forced to accept it and change their beliefs to account for it. First the religious people say that the world is created in 6 days like in Genesis. But then astronomy and geology come along and say the universe is muc holder. So the religious people say OK, its just a metephor, but God still created man and the animals exactly as they are now. They evolution comes along and they say OK we'll concede that populations can change a little, but new species cannot be formed. Then bacteria research comes along and it is clear that new species are created all the time, so religious people cede that point too, but then argue it all proceeds by Gods design, adn evolution is really what the bible is talking about in Genisis, which is of course only a metaphor. How much longer will it be before they are forced to admit that they are worng once again?

You're arguing with the strawman again. Generic intelligent design theory does not make any claims regarding the validity of evolution.

I think the underlying problem with all these discussions is that you guys get all in a huff about whether evolution occurs, when those who are arguing with you are looking at the origins of life rather than the evolution of life.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I don't rely on evolution to explain how life began (and evolution isn't a theory that tries to explain how life began)...it merely explains how things got here after life began. Evolution is an undeniable scientific theory, you can look in a microsope and watch it happen...

Yet you're arguing with someone else's statements that speak to how life began. Like you said, evolution tells us nothing of this event or phenomenon, nor is there any experimental evidence to support your theory or any other.[/quote]
I've really got to wonder about what your actual professional background is at this point.

Obviously evolution doesn't cover the question of how life begins, that's covered by the seperate theory of abiogenesis. You don't necessarily have to accept abiogensis in order to accept evolutionary theory.

There is existing experimental evidence towards abiogenesis in that under conditions designed to simulate what it would have been like on ancient earth, after stimulating the mixture with electricity designed to stipulate lighting strikes, researchers were able to form ammino acid chains in the mixture. It may not be absolute evidence, but it certainly is evidence that helps support the theory.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: BrownTown
If you admit that in small time frames small changes can occur in populations, and that bacteria can develop new species, then how can you not also believe that in large time frams large changes can occur, and that even large animals can develop new species?

Trust me, I am a very firm believer in a gray world where nothing is black and white, but some of the rhetoric from intelegent design/creationists seems to make little sense at all. IT is pretty much what has been happening for the last 1000 years, science proves that the real world works one way, and then religious people are forced to accept it and change their beliefs to account for it. First the religious people say that the world is created in 6 days like in Genesis. But then astronomy and geology come along and say the universe is muc holder. So the religious people say OK, its just a metephor, but God still created man and the animals exactly as they are now. They evolution comes along and they say OK we'll concede that populations can change a little, but new species cannot be formed. Then bacteria research comes along and it is clear that new species are created all the time, so religious people cede that point too, but then argue it all proceeds by Gods design, adn evolution is really what the bible is talking about in Genisis, which is of course only a metaphor. How much longer will it be before they are forced to admit that they are worng once again?

Exactly, the more scientific breakthroughs we have, the less holes "God" has to fill for the unexplanable, thus marginalizing religion. Science is replacing religion...

Not really. Religion can never be replaced by science and vice versa. They are there to serve their purpose. Religion gives hope to people. It is there to comfort them, to lend them a hand. To guide them. Some people devote their entire lives to religion and help countless other people who help other people and on and on. Much of our good fortunes today have come from religious people. Religion and science should not battle each other, rather they should work with each other and better humanity.

Many scientists are religious.

Don't get me wrong, I think religion does a lot of people a lot of good. However, I don't think it'll be relavent in 200 years. Religion's purpose is to explain the unexplainable, and the more science starts to explain things we don't understand right now, the less need we'll have for religion.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
You're arguing with the strawman again. Generic intelligent design theory does not make any claims regarding the validity of evolution.

I think the underlying problem with all these discussions is that you guys get all in a huff about whether evolution occurs, when those who are arguing with you are looking at the origins of life rather than the evolution of life.

Maybe, but the GLARING problem is those currently talking about teaching intelligent design in schools certainly DO question the validity of evolution, and claim humans could have not have possibly evolved merely through the mechanics of evolution. If you believe something like evolutionary theory was merely the way God set things up, you shouldn't have problem with evolution being taught in school, and then explaining to your kid that things are this way because God set it up this way on your own, or in Sunday school.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ntdz
No, I don't have a theory about how life began, because I just don't know. And neither do religious people. However, they chose to believe theories which flat out aren't supported by any facts...

Evolution was never designed to explain how life started, it only explains how it changes. You keep acting like I use evolution to explain how life started, and I just don't. Until I see some evidence, I'll just admit I don't know. I can do that, I don't think religious people can.

No, you keep acting like intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive. That, and you insist on waving your generalizations around like a weapon, trying to throw all religious people under one umbrella. I guess that facilitates your argument, since you don't have to address any particular issues that way. :roll:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Aegeon
Maybe, but the GLARING problem is those currently talking about teaching intelligent design in schools certainly DO question the validity of evolution, and claim humans could have not have possibly evolved merely through the mechanics of evolution. If you believe something like evolutionary theory was merely the way God set things up, you shouldn't have problem with evolution being taught in school, and then explaining to your kid that things are this way because God set it up this way on your own, or in Sunday school.

So? What does this have to do with what I said, strawman? I never once mentioned what is taught in schools. People in this forum need to quit extrapolating their generalizations in every discussion - that is not a valid substitute for reading my posts.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
I don't rely on evolution to explain how life began (and evolution isn't a theory that tries to explain how life began)...it merely explains how things got here after life began. Evolution is an undeniable scientific theory, you can look in a microsope and watch it happen...

Yet you're arguing with someone else's statements that speak to how life began. Like you said, evolution tells us nothing of this event or phenomenon, nor is there any experimental evidence to support your theory or any other.

No, I don't have a theory about how life began, because I just don't know. And neither do religious people. However, they chose to believe theories which flat out aren't supported by any facts...

Evolution was never designed to explain how life started, it only explains how it changes. You keep acting like I use evolution to explain how life started, and I just don't. Until I see some evidence, I'll just admit I don't know. I can do that, I don't think religious people can.

Very good response

and I might add..

Did God create Monkeys before Homo-Sapiens or did he create cro-magnon man before homo-sapiens

 

[dahunan]

Better not be anyone in here talking about WitchCraft of I will have you dunked in a vat of hot oil or burned at the stake

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: BrownTown
If you admit that in small time frames small changes can occur in populations, and that bacteria can develop new species, then how can you not also believe that in large time frams large changes can occur, and that even large animals can develop new species?

Trust me, I am a very firm believer in a gray world where nothing is black and white, but some of the rhetoric from intelegent design/creationists seems to make little sense at all. IT is pretty much what has been happening for the last 1000 years, science proves that the real world works one way, and then religious people are forced to accept it and change their beliefs to account for it. First the religious people say that the world is created in 6 days like in Genesis. But then astronomy and geology come along and say the universe is muc holder. So the religious people say OK, its just a metephor, but God still created man and the animals exactly as they are now. They evolution comes along and they say OK we'll concede that populations can change a little, but new species cannot be formed. Then bacteria research comes along and it is clear that new species are created all the time, so religious people cede that point too, but then argue it all proceeds by Gods design, adn evolution is really what the bible is talking about in Genisis, which is of course only a metaphor. How much longer will it be before they are forced to admit that they are worng once again?

Exactly, the more scientific breakthroughs we have, the less holes "God" has to fill for the unexplanable, thus marginalizing religion. Science is replacing religion...

Not really. Religion can never be replaced by science and vice versa. They are there to serve their purpose. Religion gives hope to people. It is there to comfort them, to lend them a hand. To guide them. Some people devote their entire lives to religion and help countless other people who help other people and on and on. Much of our good fortunes today have come from religious people. Religion and science should not battle each other, rather they should work with each other and better humanity.

Many scientists are religious.

Don't get me wrong, I think religion does a lot of people a lot of good. However, I don't think it'll be relavent in 200 years. Religion's purpose is to explain the unexplainable, and the more science starts to explain things we don't understand right now, the less need we'll have for religion.

You're labeling all religious people one way or another. You're grouping all religions together. Religion is too vast. There are simply too many forms out there. Meaning of religion varies from person to person. You are assuming religious people simply follow that faith because they are ignorant of the past or present. That is not the case. No matter how educated society becomes, it cannot exist like we know it without religion holding it together.

Science cannot explain certain things. That is why I keep saying that to better humanity, science and religion should work together.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
No, I don't have a theory about how life began, because I just don't know. And neither do religious people. However, they chose to believe theories which flat out aren't supported by any facts...

Evolution was never designed to explain how life started, it only explains how it changes. You keep acting like I use evolution to explain how life started, and I just don't. Until I see some evidence, I'll just admit I don't know. I can do that, I don't think religious people can.

No, you keep acting like intelligent design and evolution are mutually exclusive. That, and you insist on waving your generalizations around like a weapon, trying to throw all religious people under one umbrella. I guess that facilitates your argument, since you don't have to address any particular issues that way. :roll:

No, I don't act like that at all. Intelligent Design very well might be true, but there is NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT AT THIS TIME, therefore I choose not to believe in it. What don't you understand about that? Until a theory presents itself with facts behind it, I'll just wonder how life on Earth came to be.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So? What does this have to do with what I said, strawman? I never once mentioned what is taught in schools. People in this forum need to quit extrapolating their generalizations in every discussion - that is not a valid substitute for reading my posts.

The really huge problem is you haven't clearly expained what you believe on this subject. Given the other type of Intelligent Design Theory is what the phrase is associate with, this is highly problematic. It also potentially creates a situation where you are effectively legitimizing the movement to tech the other Intelligent Design Theory is school since you are not explaining what exactly you advocate.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: BrownTown
If you admit that in small time frames small changes can occur in populations, and that bacteria can develop new species, then how can you not also believe that in large time frams large changes can occur, and that even large animals can develop new species?

Trust me, I am a very firm believer in a gray world where nothing is black and white, but some of the rhetoric from intelegent design/creationists seems to make little sense at all. IT is pretty much what has been happening for the last 1000 years, science proves that the real world works one way, and then religious people are forced to accept it and change their beliefs to account for it. First the religious people say that the world is created in 6 days like in Genesis. But then astronomy and geology come along and say the universe is muc holder. So the religious people say OK, its just a metephor, but God still created man and the animals exactly as they are now. They evolution comes along and they say OK we'll concede that populations can change a little, but new species cannot be formed. Then bacteria research comes along and it is clear that new species are created all the time, so religious people cede that point too, but then argue it all proceeds by Gods design, adn evolution is really what the bible is talking about in Genisis, which is of course only a metaphor. How much longer will it be before they are forced to admit that they are worng once again?

Exactly, the more scientific breakthroughs we have, the less holes "God" has to fill for the unexplanable, thus marginalizing religion. Science is replacing religion...

Not really. Religion can never be replaced by science and vice versa. They are there to serve their purpose. Religion gives hope to people. It is there to comfort them, to lend them a hand. To guide them. Some people devote their entire lives to religion and help countless other people who help other people and on and on. Much of our good fortunes today have come from religious people. Religion and science should not battle each other, rather they should work with each other and better humanity.

Many scientists are religious.

Don't get me wrong, I think religion does a lot of people a lot of good. However, I don't think it'll be relavent in 200 years. Religion's purpose is to explain the unexplainable, and the more science starts to explain things we don't understand right now, the less need we'll have for religion.

You're labeling all religious people one way or another. You're grouping all religions together. Religion is too vast. There are simply too many forms out there. Meaning of religion varies from person to person. You are assuming religious people simply follow that faith because they are ignorant of the past or present. That is not the case. No matter how educated society becomes, it cannot exist like we know it without religion holding it together.

Science cannot explain certain things. That is why I keep saying that to better humanity, science and religion should work together.

I don't think religious people follow their religion because of ignorance. I think they follow it because 1) they were brought up in it and it's their tradition, and 2) It explains things they don't understand or don't know.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
I don't rely on evolution to explain how life began (and evolution isn't a theory that tries to explain how life began)...it merely explains how things got here after life began. Evolution is an undeniable scientific theory, you can look in a microsope and watch it happen...

Yet you're arguing with someone else's statements that speak to how life began. Like you said, evolution tells us nothing of this event or phenomenon, nor is there any experimental evidence to support your theory or any other.

No, I don't have a theory about how life began, because I just don't know. And neither do religious people. However, they chose to believe theories which flat out aren't supported by any facts...

Evolution was never designed to explain how life started, it only explains how it changes. You keep acting like I use evolution to explain how life started, and I just don't. Until I see some evidence, I'll just admit I don't know. I can do that, I don't think religious people can.

Very good response

and I might add..

Did God create Monkeys before Homo-Sapiens or did he create cro-magnon man before homo-sapiens

I don't believe God created anything, because I don't believe God exists. He is a figment of past people's imagination.

You ruined it My Q wasn't really for you.. it was for those who are bashing your unwillingness to be brainwashed..

 

[ntdz]

You ruined it My Q wasn't really for you.. it was for those who are bashing your unwillingness to be brainwashed..

Yes I realized that, so I edited that post to reply to another post, but then you had to go and quote it

BTW, are you saying I'm not brainwashed?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: ntdz
Don't get me wrong, I think religion does a lot of people a lot of good. However, I don't think it'll be relavent in 200 years. Religion's purpose is to explain the unexplainable, and the more science starts to explain things we don't understand right now, the less need we'll have for religion.

You're just demonstrating that you don't understand religion in general. Its primary purpose is generally not to describe anything about the physical world that we exist in, but to explain everything else. Thus, science and religion are parallel, not opposing.

Originally posted by: Aegeon
The really huge problem is you haven't clearly expained what you believe on this subject. Given the other type of Intelligent Design Theory is what the phrase is associate with, this is highly problematic. It also potentially creates a situation where you are effectively legitimizing the movement to tech the other Intelligent Design Theory is school since you are not explaining what exactly you advocate.

Why do my personal beliefs influence the outcome of this discussion in any way? They don't, and would only serve as a diversion. And again, I never mentioned the teaching of any theory in school. I'm only stating why people like ntdz should be a little more wary when waving around their generalizations like a kid who found his daddy's gun.

Dahunan, you've made at least three posts in this thread and, thus far, said nothing. one for each troll.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: ntdz

You ruined it My Q wasn't really for you.. it was for those who are bashing your unwillingness to be brainwashed..

Yes I realized that, so I edited that post to reply to another post, but then you had to go and quote it

BTW, are you saying I'm not brainwashed?

Huh? I think we are all brainwashed to a certain extent... at least you are practicing your freedom FROM religion

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
Don't get me wrong, I think religion does a lot of people a lot of good. However, I don't think it'll be relavent in 200 years. Religion's purpose is to explain the unexplainable, and the more science starts to explain things we don't understand right now, the less need we'll have for religion.

You're just demonstrating that you don't understand religion in general. Its primary purpose is generally not to describe anything about the physical world that we exist in, but to explain everything else. Thus, science and religion are parallel, not opposing.

Originally posted by: Aegeon
The really huge problem is you haven't clearly expained what you believe on this subject. Given the other type of Intelligent Design Theory is what the phrase is associate with, this is highly problematic. It also potentially creates a situation where you are effectively legitimizing the movement to tech the other Intelligent Design Theory is school since you are not explaining what exactly you advocate.

Why do my personal beliefs influence the outcome of this discussion in any way? They don't, and would only serve as a diversion. And again, I never mentioned the teaching of any theory in school. I'm only stating why people like ntdz should be a little more wary when waving around their generalizations like a kid who found his daddy's gun.

Dahunan, you've made at least three posts in this thread and, thus far, said nothing. one for each troll.

Are those cookies blessed?

It is impossible for many religious people to see

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: ntdz
Don't get me wrong, I think religion does a lot of people a lot of good. However, I don't think it'll be relavent in 200 years. Religion's purpose is to explain the unexplainable, and the more science starts to explain things we don't understand right now, the less need we'll have for religion.

You're just demonstrating that you don't understand religion in general. Its primary purpose is generally not to describe anything about the physical world that we exist in, but to explain everything else. Thus, science and religion are parallel, not opposing.

That's what it might be now, explaining everything else. But the reason religion was started, in my opinion, was for two reasons:

1) Keep the population under control (Be good or you go to hell)
2) Explain the unexplanable (Where did we come from? God created us -- How did the universe come to exist? God created it -- Why are we here? God put us here to test us -- What happens if we act "good?" You go to eternal heaven and spend eternity with guess who? God.)

Don't those answers sound ludicrious to you? Isn't it obvious that the heaven and hell aspect of Christianity/Islam/nearly every one single god religion/ was to keep people in line and make sure they act like they should? It's clear as day to me at least...