So your whole argument can be summed up as "I think some animals are pretty therefore they must have been designed"?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Just Accidental?
- Thread starter Deeje
- Start date
- Status
From your link.......
"Since these early days of visual chemistry, scientists have uncovered opsin's light detecting tricks and resolved its molecular structure in atomic detail. It is safe to say that the physical and chemical nature of opsin are better understood than its history. Many questions about the evolution of opsins have remained unanswered in the past 130 years of opsin research. In which of our many ancestors did opsins evolve? How old is opsin? How old is vision?
The short answer is 'ancient'. Since almost every animal carries opsins of some sort, these proteins must have appeared early in our evolution.".......
"Sure enough, the placozoan genome harbours two opsins. But here's the catch: these opsins cannot detect light. Remember retinal, the molecule that changes shape when it is struck by light? The placozoan opsins cannot bind retinal, because they lack the amino acid to which retinal binds (amino acids are the building blocks of proteins). Without 'lysine-296', it is unlikely that the placozoan opsins can detect light. But if not light sensors, what then? "Surely placozoans use these opsins. How? I cannot tell. Your answer would be as good as mine I am afraid", David Pisani, the lead author of the study, writes in an e-mail.".......
"Pondering this figure, it hit me that our opsins really had two origins. One is the birth of opsin itself, the other is the mutation that turned opsin into a light sensing protein. The opsin lineage itself arose between 755 and 711 million years ago, from the duplication of a single GPCR. The last common ancestor of Bilateria and Cnidaria lived between 711 and 700 million years ago. This leaves a short window of time (evolutionary speaking) in which opsin acquired the light sensing mutation and split into the three opsin families we still carry today.
This probably won't be the final word on opsin evolution. Branches will shift as more opsin sequences become available and researcher probe further into the earliest history of animals. Also remember that a single light sensing protein does not make a functional eye or eye-spot. The roads that animals took towards vision are myriad, with each eye and eyelet evolving along its own trajectory, towards splendid colour or dreary monochrome, eagle-eye vision or simple on/off light detection.
But although the differences are many, the starting point was the same. A single opsin. A flash. Then there was light."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! So many "unanswered" questions for something that you present as an established fact of evolutionary science. It does "tricks"!??
It "must have happened early in our evolution"....."Must" it? Who said? The defense is leading the witness your honor....
"Without 'lysine-296', it is unlikely that the placozoan opsins can detect light. But if not light sensors, what then? "Surely placozoans use these opsins. How? I cannot tell. Your answer would be as good as mine I am afraid"
Well there you have it...a full and very scientific confession!
And now we also have the very scientific statement that 'opsin was "born" and that it magically "turned into a light sensing protein". No one has a clue how or when....but it MUST have happened...its magic!
Are you serious?
Its just a shame that the people who keep correcting me have nothing of value to offer as actual evidence for macro-evolution. There is a lot of assumption forced into the interpretation of evidence, but we always come up short on verifiable facts.
If they say things like "it must have" or it "could have" or "it might have", or that this or that is "suggested"...are you really going to take the high ground on something that is pure supposition at the end of the day?
I think you need to clarify what you mean by "design."
In things manufactured de novo, like watches, the complexity is intentionally designed. But this isn't the case in organisms. Organisms reproduce themselves, and the offspring differ. This enables non-intentional Natural Selection to make alterations over time.
Where is your evidence of purpose?
I understand that design means to be making with a view to the future. I am aware of only ONE that has a true view of the future.
I thought her example of the mother who nurses her young was precious.
You might not be aware that some mammals are born without the ability to suckle. Do you understand the significance of that fact?
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But you simply cannot establish in any way that your interpretation is the correct one, whereas the vast majority of scientists and Christian theologians well realize that there is another much more logical and viable alternative. In light of what we now know, it makes not one iota of sense to take the creation accounts literally.
Oh, so only your church really teaches the Bible. So, you sit down there with you handy-dandy English-language Bible, whereas you admit you don't read the works of theologians, and we are then to believe that you know more than they? No.
It didn't appeal to me and, as a matter of fact, my splitting from my church was quite painful, as I previously had mentioned and on more than one occasion to you, includiing just recently.
Exactly. However, that certainly is not your attitude when it comes to your religious faith whereas you make one assumption after another after another after another..., and then you deal with them as if they're absolute facts.
As has been explained to you many times, you should be ashamed of making such a false accusation after what I repeatedly told you what I went through.
Last edited:
So, since evolution has no view toward the future, it's not guided by The One?
The baby dies?
No, in the context of natural selection vs intentional design I don't follow you at all.
Clarify, please.
I believe that evolution must be guided by an intelligence. I think that intelligence comes from Heaven which is what was before this universe imo.
Probably. Now imagine the possibility that the first lactating mammal bore an offspring who could suckle.
It is a fact that both the mother and the baby must be in sync for the nutrition to pass to the offspring. If the offspring can't suckle it will die and the genes for lactating are not passed on......
gnostic
The Lost One
That's because you don't bloody well understand the differences between proof and evidence, as use in science.
Evidences are objective indicators of what is true, false...or the 3rd option, "inconclusive". This is where a theory is testable, measurable or quantifiable, hence it has everything to do with observation. If it is not testable, it isn't science.
Proofs are simply mathematical statements, like mathematical equations. Proof, alone, doesn't show the theory to be true or false, because it is base on man's logic.
The differences between evidence and proof is that evidence is used by scientists and proof is used by mathematicians.
There are always some mathematical equations (proofs) in scientific theories, but is more important in science to have evidences than it is too have proofs.
When a scientist presents an explanation that are not testable (no evidence), but can show complex mathematical equations being "solved" or "provened", this is usually denote as "theoretical" theory.
If you heard of theoretical physics, then you would know that these types of physics, use maths, not evidences, to prove their solution. I am sure you have heard of String Theory, Superstring Theory, M-theory, Multiverse theory; these are all theoretical physics, relying on mathematical solutions (proofs), not testable, therefore not "scientific" theories.
Looking at superstring theory, as an example. There are number of competing research scientists working on different versions of this "theoretical" theory. Each has their own versions of mathematical solutions. None of these theories are testable. With this in mind, how does one show his or her solution to be true, when it is not testable?
Now, I couldn't begin to understand any of these advanced mathematics found in superstring theory, but each one (or each version) is based one (or more scientists, if they are working in a group or team), is based on his or her logic. The problem here with relying on theoretical physicist's logic, is that each one one is heavily invested in his or her own solution (or version), therefore it is possible for one scientist being "biased".
With empirical science, you don't rely on ONE scientist's logic alone...no, you would rely on evidences, not proof to reach a solution.
When they are talking about "absolute proof", they are talking about mathematical solutions; they are not talking about empirical and verifiable evidences.
Absolute proofs are for mathematical world, not in real-life scientific world.
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics used to be purely "theoretical", but since the found the first of many evidences, they are no longer classified as being "theoretical physics".
The Big Bang cosmology, is actually a theory on expanding universe, is no longer purely theoretical, when they are able to observe the galaxies moving away from each other, known as "redshifting". However, part of the Big Bang theory is still hypothetical or theoretical, because the scientists can only observe the "observable universe". Meaning everything before the Recombination epoch (377,000 years after the Big Bang or the start of universe expansion), the earlier epochs are unobservable, therefore still hypothetical or theoretical.
Charles Darwin's Natural Selection has never been theoretical, because he found evidences beforehand, long before he had written his published book, On The Origin Of Species (1859).
His travel journal and notes, which he had meticulously recorded his journey on HMS Beagle, during 1830s, where he traveled the world, recording not just animal wildlife, but also botany and geology. Biologists can easily retrace his voyage and observed what Darwin had observed, so Natural Selection is not "theoretical".
Of course, Darwin's original theory (Natural Selection) has been updated, because biologists have better technology, being able to test DNA and map out the genome of virtually every plants and animals. New tools help biologists in their fields.
Darwin's original framework on evolution is still valid, even today, but since his death, other evolutionary mechanisms (mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, genetic hitchhiking) have been discovered, as alternatives to natural selection.
Without evolution, biologists wouldn't be able to develop vaccines and antibiotics to fight viral or bacterial diseases.
Once any scientist can test his theory or hypothesis, and repeatedly and rigorously test it, and independent scientists can also test this theory or hypothesis (hence "peer review") and the test results verify it is true, then it never "theoretical".
You are confusing evidence with proof, that's why creationists, like yourself, don't understand science.
So whenever you hear news or documentaries, or read books, articles or papers that say science rely on evidences, not on proving proof, they are saying they are not relying on maths alone.
It is test or evidence that objectively indicates what is true or false, not proof (mathematical solution).
Last edited:
Squirrels and other creatures collecting food for the Winter without any idea as to why.
Bears hibernating without conscious intent.
Birds and butterflies migrating to places they have never been.
Mothers of predators showing extraordinary care of their own young whilst exhibiting no concern about killing the young of others to feed them.
Birds building a variety of nests with no previous generation to teach them.....sitting on eggs and feeding the hatchlings till adulthood......I could go on for pages....
Instinct is programmed wisdom and an insurance of survival. Each species has its own way of ensuring that life goes on, just as the Creator purposed....filling the earth "with their kind".
gnostic
The Lost One
Sorry, but the Jehovah's Witness only provide only one Christian sect among many, and would naturally be biased by their own interpretation of the bible.
So how would anyone, including yourself, decide which interpretation is the correct one?
And let's not forget that the other half of the bible, which Christians called it "Old Testament", were written by Christians. There are disagreements between interpretations of Jews and Christians, so who is right about the OT?
Most Christians don't even follow the laws in the OT, and the covenant weren't made to Christian population, who have not a drop of blood from Jacob-Israel ancestry.
Do the JW ever consider Jewish interpretations to be correct ones in regarding to the OT?
Because I was brought up in Christendom, I know what it teaches. Not much of it sat well with me once I reached an age of reason and as I saw more and more hypocrisy, I didn't feel like I belonged in that phony environment. I gave up the church, but I never gave up on God or his word.
The Bible itself explains that very nicely. Jesus said we would "know the truth" when we heard it and that it would "set us free". I never knew what that meant until I investigated the teachings of the last people on earth I though would be able to enlighten me about anything. But when I put aside my prejudices and studied the Bible apart from the church's interpretation of it, I saw the reason for Christendom's hypocrisy and its abject failure to uphold Christ's teachings. Jesus and his apostles had foretold an apostasy....a falling away from the truth. I had no idea that it was to be expected and that it happened so early in church history....right after the death of the apostles.
The "Christianity" you see practiced in the world today, has no resemblance to the original. It is exactly the same scenario as Jesus encountered with the hypocrites of Judaism in the first century. It is full of the traditions of men and light on the teachings of Christ. Its failure is seen in its hopelessly divided state. (1 Corinthians 1:10)
What others call the "Old Testament, we commonly refer to as the Hebrew Scriptures (we prefer not to call it the OT because "old" suggests that it is antiquated. Without a knowledge of the Hebrew Scriptures, we will have no idea what Jesus really taught about a lot of things. He preached to an exclusively Jewish audience, who had a Jewish understanding of his words.) It was not written by Christians, but like the Bible in its entirety, it was written by natural Jews. The disagreement between Jews and Christians has more to do with prophesies concerning the Messiah. They deny that Jesus was the Christ and are still waiting for his first appearance.
As to the interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, we follow closely what Hebrew scholars consider is the true interpretation of original language words. Hebrew concordances can be used to delve more deeply into these things. It is a fruitful exercise.
Again, this is where knowledge of the whole Bible is necessary to understand what Jesus taught and why the Jews as a nation rejected him as Messiah. God chose one nation to produce his Christ. But that nation did not live up to the covenant that he made with them. They agreed to be bound by his laws, but failed to live up to their end of the agreement. God did not fail to live up to his end however. Once the Messiah came, the natural Jews were given first option to become a "kingdom of priests and a holy nation" but when they rejected their Messiah, God in turn rejected them. (Matthew 23:37-39)
In Galatians 6:16 Paul called Christians "the Israel of God" indicating that a new Israel had been formed, made up of both natural Jews and gentile converts to Christianity. Gentiles no longer had to become Jewish proselytes in order to come and worship the true God. This meant that the law no longer applied to them. The law was fulfilled in Christ and now it was no longer the curse that condemned them every day....Christ, by his death had released them from that condemnation. A new law now governed Christians.....the law of love....which required them to love God with all they had...and to love their neighbor as themselves. For some Jews this wasn't good enough, so they tried to force gentile Christians to get circumcised. A requirement that no longer applied, so after some heated discussions, the governing body in Jerusalem met and decided the matter prayerfully, once and for all. Their conclusion?.....
Acts 15;19-20; 28-29:
"Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood."
"For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”
These were the only "necessary" things to be brought forward from the old covenant because many Gentiles were used to accepting these things in their former lives.
We rely heavily on the Jewish understanding of the words of the original text, but we reject the basis upon which they reject Jesus. Because the Jewish religion was so skewed by the time Jesus began his ministry, we would not accept Jewish interpretations that undermined the teachings of the Christ.
Fine, but you have no actual evidence for these beliefs. They're all based on religious folklore. ID neither explains nor posits a mechanism for creation, it only asserts a magical agency.
Scientists, on the other hand, have reasonable, observable, testable mechanisms to account for evolution.
Every biological system must be "in synch" with every other, and science describes how this happened, by small steps.
You do know that not all mammals suckle, and that 'milk' isn't exclusive to mammals?
Suckling developed, like most other biological traits, in a series of small, intermediate steps
And there are mechanisms by which these instincts slowly developed. There's no need to claim magic.[/quote][/QUOTE]
Fyi, that is a mess in a box.
Science describes how a mother lactating bore a baby who could suckle. Really? Do you care to share that evidence with us?
Can you listen? Lactating and suckling are not miraculous. It is miraculous that the first mother lactated and her offspring suckled.
Lactation is a biological case and suckling is another biological case. Each happened at the right time together. Can Science explain how that it possible?
How can you compare lactation/suckling, that takes TWO with digestion that takes ONE?
Why, and why do you assume a "first mother?"
i think you're assuming lactation was a sudden development, rather than gradual.
WHEN lactation first became effectual, then suckling became effectual right along with it.
This proves design To Me. Do you understand that for it to actually work, BOTH creatures needed to evolve the capacity at the same time?
- Status