Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

[Valjean]

Really, so why are there so many scientists studying the eye and trying to figure our how did it evolved, (as well as other organs and systems?)

Are they too stupid that they haven’t found in Google the mysterious sources that you are referring to?



We know with high degree of certanity that the eye evolved from simpler organs , we don’t which mechanisms where responsible nor the role that each mechanism played ……..do you disagree with this statement?

I'm not referring to mysterious sources, I'm referring to an observable series of simple, commonsense changes. There are no complex mechanical transformations needed, and the mechanisms of each step are pretty obvious.

The steps involved in the development of the mammalian eye are generally agreed on. There are living examples of each of them that can be examined by anyone interested. I think you'll find that scientists are studying details and subsystems.
That's not to say the whole hypothesis can't be turned on its head by future discoveries, but this is not considered a major mystery among biologists.

 

[Pogo]

perhaps not, perhaps mutations are not always random

No @leroy, it is not support for your alien interference argument. It is another poorly written blurb that is open to your misinterpretation.

What it says is that DNA itself has evolved to favor guard mechanisms as well as repair mechanisms and they are not surprisingly most active where they are most useful. The new guard mechanisms are a new discovery but not any sort of reworking of descent with modification and environmental selection.

Plant evolved to protect itself​

The scientists found that the way DNA was wrapped around different types of proteins was a good predictor of whether a gene would mutate or not. “It means we can predict which genes are more likely to mutate than others and it gives us a good idea of what’s going on,” Weigel said.

The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival.

As it says, it is a twist in how we understand DNA replication. It is not evidence of some sort of external causal factor.

 

[Pogo]

Really, so why are there so many scientists studying the eye and trying to figure our how did it evolved, (as well as other organs and systems?)

Because that is what scientists do, they study the gaps in our necessarily incomplete knowledge.

Are they too stupid that they haven’t found in Google the mysterious sources that you are referring to?

No, they are not starting from the disingenuous ignorance you display

We know with high degree of certanity that the eye evolved from simpler organs , we don’t which mechanisms where responsible nor the role that each mechanism played ……..do you disagree with this statement?

Yet another version of your loaded question so that you can crow, "so you found an intermediate, now you have two gaps."

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you think those words imply “in time” then change the words and use any other words that you find convenient………………..why do you keep insisting on semantics?

Because if anyone tries to fix your poor language and responds to reasonable interpretation of what you said you always claim "strawman" but then never justify how it was a strawman. If you are going to make this demand you would have to agree to go in depth how someone made a strawman argument every time that you accused them of doing so.

 

[leroy]

Depends a bit on what you mean by 'naturalism', but since there is no objective evidence for theism and such 'subjective evidence' as we have (experiences, hearsay, etc.) is contradictory, of course the view that the natural world is all we have reason to accept is betters supported by evidence.

and what evidence woudl that be?

 

[ratiocinator]

and what evidence woudl that be?

Try reading what I said. We have evidence for the natural world and none for the theistic views (of which there are many that contradict each other).

 

[leroy]

I'm not referring to mysterious sources, I'm referring to an observable series of simple, commonsense changes. There are no complex mechanical transformations needed, and the mechanisms of each step are pretty obvious.

The steps involved in the development of the mammalian eye are generally agreed on. There are living examples of each of them that can be examined by anyone interested. I think you'll find that scientists are studying details and subsystems.
That's not to say the whole hypothesis can't be turned on its head by future discoveries, but this is not considered a major mystery among biologists.

The steps involved in the development of the mammalian eye are generally agreed on.

If by steps you mean “1 generation steps” (or mutations) then I would disagree and ask you to support your assertion

If by steps you mean “general steps” like

Step 1 blind creature

Step 2 the creature can detect light

Step 3 the creature can detect de direction of light

Step 4 the creature can distigush an image

Etc

Then yes granted, the ”steps” are known ….but given that each “steps” would take millions of generations, these wouldn’t really be steps right?

 

[leroy]

Try reading what I said. We have evidence for the natural world and none for the theistic views (of which there are many that contradict each other).

So what? Theism doesn’t exclude the existence of the natural world

Both naturalism and theism claim that there is a natural world……………so why would the existance of a natural world be evidence for naturalism to the exclusion of theism.

Consider this analogy……..if this is not analogous to your argument, then please explain why the analogy fails

Hypotheis 1 : there is only life In this planet (earth) (no life in other planets)

Hypotheis 2 there is life on earth + other planets

Would this be a good argument in support of hypothesis 1?

“we have evidence for life on planet earth”………………would this be a good argument against hypothesis 2?................NO………..do you see why your argument is bad?

 

[leroy]

No @leroy, it is not support for your alien interference argument. It is another poorly written blurb that is open to your misinterpretation.

What it says is that DNA itself has evolved to favor guard mechanisms as well as repair mechanisms and they are not surprisingly most active where they are most useful. The new guard mechanisms are a new discovery but not any sort of reworking of descent with modification and environmental selection.

Plant evolved to protect itself​

The scientists found that the way DNA was wrapped around different types of proteins was a good predictor of whether a gene would mutate or not. “It means we can predict which genes are more likely to mutate than others and it gives us a good idea of what’s going on,” Weigel said.

The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival.

As it says, it is a twist in how we understand DNA replication. It is not evidence of some sort of external causal factor.

It is not evidence of some sort of external causal factor.

Luckily, nobody was making that argument

 

[ratiocinator]

So what? Theism doesn’t exclude the existence of the natural world

Strawman. I didn't say it did, nether does it have to. Theism postulates an entire new realm, of which we have not one shred of evidence.

Consider this analogy……..if this is not analogous to your argument, then please explain why the analogy fails

Hypotheis 1 : there is only life In this planet (earth) (no life in other planets)

Hypotheis 2 there is life on earth + other planets

Nothing like it at all.

We have lots of evidence of other planets and that they are common. Many are suitable for life, and life got going here pretty much as soon as the Earth became hospitable to it. It would therefore be quite surprising if it never arose elsewhere, maybe even in this solar system.

 

[Valjean]

If by steps you mean “1 generation steps” (or mutations) then I would disagree and ask you to support your assertion

If by steps you mean “general steps” like

Step 1 blind creature

Step 2 the creature can detect light

Step 3 the creature can detect de direction of light

Step 4 the creature can distigush an image

Etc

Then yes granted, the ”steps” are known ….but given that each “steps” would take millions of generations, these wouldn’t really be steps right?

They would be steps, and the number of generations required would be unknown.

 

[Valjean]

So what? Theism doesn’t exclude the existence of the natural world

Both naturalism and theism claim that there is a natural world……………so why would the existance of a natural world be evidence for naturalism to the exclusion of theism.

The natural world is supported by evidence. The supernatural is not.

Consider this analogy……..if this is not analogous to your argument, then please explain why the analogy fails

Hypotheis 1 : there is only life In this planet (earth) (no life in other planets)

Hypotheis 2 there is life on earth + other planets

Would this be a good argument in support of hypothesis 1?

“we have evidence for life on planet earth”………………would this be a good argument against hypothesis 2?................NO………..do you see why your argument is bad?

These are not hypotheses. They are not evidence based. They are pure speculation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Luckily, nobody was making that argument

What is the argument for an external causal source?

 

[Pogo]

Luckily, nobody was making that argument

Ok, then it is just another example of your almost total lack of understanding of the subject and the words used in context.

You know that random function on your computer, guess what it is not, it is not even close.
A complete description would probably take a book, but for almost any purpose except actually troubleshooting a program that uses it, random is sufficiently accurate.

 

[firedragon]

Galapagos Finches

Okay. What's the verification that has been done, that it was "random gradual mutation"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Strawman. I didn't say it did, nether does it have to. Theism postulates an entire new realm, of which we have not one shred of evidence.


Nothing like it at all.

We have lots of evidence of other planets and that they are common. Many are suitable for life, and life got going here pretty much as soon as the Earth became hospitable to it. It would therefore be quite surprising if it never arose elsewhere, maybe even in this solar system.

Some posters refuse to understand the concept of evidence. That allows them to play silly word games when they can see that there is no evidence for their beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. What's the verification that has been done, that it was "random gradual mutation"?

You asked for an example:

"No. An example would be fine."

You said nothing about him doing your homework for you. You should be able to find out how they did that with proper web searching.

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay. What's the verification that has been done, that it was "random gradual mutation"?

It is not random. The evidence for gradual natural change is in the genetics as a result of a change in the environment.

 

[firedragon]

The supernatural is not.

You mean empirical evidence. Category error.

 

[John53]

Okay. What's the verification that has been done, that it was "random gradual mutation"?

Once again you're asking something that would require many hours of work I have neither the time or ability for.