Some questions about evolution.

[E. Nato Difficile]

Oh and your reply is sidestepping. Sidestepping = fail.

Okay. I was just pointing out that we believe plenty of things without understanding them in excruciating detail, but that doesn't constitute faith.

And after all, you're the expert on fail.

-Nato

 

[Archer]

I don't think it's possible to answer the question in the way you want it answered. Nor do I think you will accept any answer given.

However a few thoughts for you....
1) light detection is the result of proteins that change shape when they are exposed to light. The same proteins are used in everything that responds to light.
2) you don't need a brain to detect and respond to light, Euglena do this as a single celled organism.
3) you don't need a brain to have and use eyes... Box Jellyfish have no brains but they do have several useful eyes that they use to get around. The same goes for Scallops, functional eyes but no brain.

wa:do

Ahhh Thank you one person that at least seems to understand what they support (I think this is part of your educational background; No?)

How did the links form if you can explain it. I will not discount your answers I am simply discounting non answers.

 

[idav]

in the beginning how did they decide they was light? They never saw it.

In the beginning life used light from the sun to store energy which is where the energy for life comes from. So since the beginning they knew it was there without having to see it. Once cells can do that there is not telling how much further it would go. Plants even point towards the sun trying to get as much nutrients as possible even though they can't see.

 

[Archer]

Okay. I was just pointing out that we believe plenty of things without understanding them in excruciating detail, but that doesn't constitute faith.

And after all, you're the expert on fail.

-Nato

Nope that is you. I mean you cant even tell me what you really believe because you have not got a clue until you read up on it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Can you not tell me how:

1: A cell becomes photosensitive.
2: How that cell realizes that its connections to adjacent calls are inadequate?
3: How that cell communicates that it needs a more direct link to a processing device that can interpret its signals that does not even exist?
4: How that then develops into part of a brain that specifically interprets those signals?

That is for starters. We know how it works now but how did it get that way?

Oh and your reply is sidestepping. Sidestepping = fail.

If you understood cellular biology, you wouldn't need to ask those questions. :sad:

If you do understand it, why ask a question to which you know the answer?

If you don't understand it, why ask a question to which you already refuse to understand?

The biblical answer, in case you care, is Proverbs 11:2.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nope that is you. I mean you cant even tell me what you really believe because you have not got a clue until you read up on it.

Have you ever heard of the strawman fallacy?

 

[Archer]

In the beginning life used light from the sun to store energy which is where the energy for life comes from. So since the beginning they knew it was there without having to see it. Once cells can do that there is not telling how much further it would go. Plants even point towards the sun trying to get as much nutrients as possible even though they can't see.

True. I do not deny that they absorbed and gravitated to it. But it is a long way away from there to here.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I will not discount your answers I am simply discounting non answers.

Answer = what you like

Non-Answer = what you don't like

Take a ride on the wonderful world of Archer.

 

[idav]

True. I do not deny that they absorbed and gravitated to it. But it is a long way away from there to here.

But the truth is it is the first step in sensing light. Then it just is a matter of sensing differently.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Nope that is you. I mean you cant even tell me what you really believe because you have not got a clue until you read up on it.

But he answered and said, "It is written, Man shall not live by flamebait alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." - Matthew 4:4

-Nato

 

[Archer]

If you understood cellular biology, you wouldn't need to ask those questions. :sad:

If you do understand it, why ask a question to which you know the answer?

If you don't understand it, why ask a question to which you already refuse to understand?

The biblical answer, in case you care, is Proverbs 11:2.

I don't care what i know. I want to know if those that believe in total evolution actually know what they believe in. Some (there are a lot of good PPL here but some) criticize believers because they cant present them with evidence of God and therefore are mentally ill. I am simply saying that many of them have no clue what they believe in.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nope that is you. I mean you cant even tell me what you really believe because you have not got a clue until you read up on it.

This is the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it.

This is a fallacy because:

If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.

I identify it also as a strawman fallacy because Archer obviously has no clue what he's doing and he's using it as an ad hominim. So by default Archer misrepresents basically everything he doesn't like (construction of strawman) and uses it to attack (employ of strawman).

 

[Alceste]

Archer, the reason nobody wants to play with you is that it is obvious that as soon as your questions are addressed you'll just ask more questions, hoping those ones might stump somebody. Biology is a big subject.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am simply saying that many of them have no clue what they believe in.

That's a moot point.

Having "no clue" is not the same thing as meeting your insanely high standard of proof in explaining evolution.

The average person knows that evolution is supported by every branch of science and is the fundamental building block of everything that we know in biology. One doesn't need to know minute things about cell mechanics and the like to believe in evolution. One only needs to know what makes it true - the basic cornerstone of evolution - natural selection. Aside from that, everything else is just the details.

On the other hand, there's no scientific proof of God, and yes - comparatively speaking, it's nuts to believe in God while by the same standard it's perfectly logical to believe in evolution.

Now you can poop your pants all you want, but that doesn't make it any less childish.

 

[Jose Fly]

Archer, most folks here very quickly figured out what you're up to, but for some reason you insist on stubbornly plodding ahead.

Yes, we all see your point. People who aren't evolutionary biologists specializing in the evolutionary history of eyes don't know or understand every single detail of how eyes evolved. I think we can all agree to that.

So the obvious follow-up question: So what?

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Archer, the reason nobody wants to play with you is that it is obvious that as soon as your questions are addressed you'll just ask more questions, hoping those ones might stump somebody. Biology is a big subject.

I'm still not sure what this little game is supposed to prove. Non-experts may have a flawed or incomplete understanding of a subject like biology, but the very basis of our "belief" in evolution (or heliocentrism, or atomic theory, etc.) is the understanding that scientific endeavor involves empirical testing and evidence. Just because I haven't personally witnessed every data point and conducted every test is no reason to deny the evidence exists.

With religious belief, however, the very notion of evidence is irrelevant. It's considered a virtue to believe when there's no evidence. I'm not knocking religion, I'm just pointing out that they're completely different approaches to understanding.

-Nato

 

[idav]

Archer, most folks here very quickly figured out what you're up to, but for some reason you insist on stubbornly plodding ahead.

Yes, we all see your point. People who aren't evolutionary biologists specializing in the evolutionary history of eyes don't know or understand every single detail of how eyes evolved. I think we can all agree to that.

So the obvious follow-up question: So what?

Oh come now. You saying not everybody knows detailed explanations of how the eye, ear, brain evolved? It only involves looking at billions of years of evolution of species to species to see exactly when and where each thing began developing. Tall order? lol!!

 

[painted wolf]

Ahhh Thank you one person that at least seems to understand what they support (I think this is part of your educational background; No?)

How did the links form if you can explain it. I will not discount your answers I am simply discounting non answers.

What links?
Every cell that touches another cell is automatically linked to that cell via their membranes..... cells that don't touch are still connected via chemicals that are released by other cells and bump into other cells membranes.

I honestly don't understand what connections you are talking about..

wa:do

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How did sensory organs develop?

Sense Organs Evolution

Just the eye for example? Can someone please explain to me in exacting detail how the eye developed?

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heck start off easy: do the ear?

Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I want exacting detail or nothing. I mean people believe in no divine guidance but I have yet to see empirical evidence of how the eye developed on its own.

It didn't develop "on it's own". It developed through evolution.

Sure different cells can form a symbiotic relationship but if nothing had eyes in the beginning how did they decide they was light? They never saw it.

How are plants able to open up when the sun is out, since they have no eyes? You do not need eyes in order to detect and respond to sunlight. Hell, our skin picks up on and reacts to the presence or absence of sunlight pretty well too.

So I suppose that vibrations were felt by cells and they decided to form the inner workings of the ear?

Do you have any idea how evolution works?

Perhaps the first hearing apparatus were were similar to a diaphram that picked up noise? Where did the bone come from?

See the above links.

Make me a believer in the unguided development of life.

The bonus: how did brains develop?

Evolution of the Human Brain
http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teach/y3project/Roth2005_TICS_brain_size_and_intelligence.pdf

I don't care what i know.

That's worrying.

I want to know if those that believe in total evolution actually know what they believe in.

What the heck is "total evolution"?

Some (there are a lot of good PPL here but some) criticize believers because they cant present them with evidence of God and therefore are mentally ill. I am simply saying that many of them have no clue what they believe in.

But we clearly do.

Also, how are those two things even remotely related? Even if everyone on here who criticized yours (or anyone else's) beliefs didn't "know what they believed it", how does that make believing things that have no evidence any more valid?

 

[Noaidi]

You mean you have not even looked at it?

Yes, I've looked at the evidence - I'm a biology teacher. However, sense organs are not my speciality (I'm a plant ecologist). I know enough about the eye to understand the basics and teach them, but that's it. The point I'm making is that if I wanted to find out more, the evidence is there for me to see.

Can you state explicitly the motive for this thread?