tarekabdo12
Active Member
OK, I've seen your link and I'll give my comments about it so please follow up.Like this. If an engineer I employed made that many mistakes, I'd have their work redone.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
OK, I've seen your link and I'll give my comments about it so please follow up.Like this. If an engineer I employed made that many mistakes, I'd have their work redone.
If there is a god he probably loves animals except for pesky humans. If the earth were a petri dish humans would be ruining the whole experiment. Maybe he doesn't mind us so much since we are still here for the time being at least.
For those who believe in both evolution and creation what is the story with the dinosaurs. I hear people say god would chose evolution as the means to get to humans. Why would god choose to "create" thousands of species of animals just to wipe out 99% of them?
Like this. If an engineer I employed made that many mistakes, I'd have their work redone.
[FONT="]Although mutations could knock out the eyes of the cave-dwelling fish without causing too much trouble, withering away the pineal gland would lead to too many problems[/FONT]
As a result, the gland stayed, as did the light sensitivity it conferred.
[FONT="]If it was just a matter of evolution the body would lose the genes for the eye, this is much easier. [/FONT]
[/color][/font][/size][/font]
Your own source just told you why they don't loose the genes for the eye.
I think the good doctor needs to read up on vestigiality.
Well, here you are criticizing something without mentioning and trying the alternative. In order to prove that the design currently present is insufficient, you ought to design and try an alternative in experiments to prove it's actually better on scientific basis. Since this is not present so the dialogue won't be fruitful.
I hear tell that dinosuars never actually existed.For those who believe in both evolution and creation what is the story with the dinosaurs. I hear people say god would chose evolution as the means to get to humans. Why would god choose to "create" thousands of species of animals just to wipe out 99% of them?
Sorry if you're not finished yet, but.... LOL
We probably would be designing human brains right now, but religeous groups always stand in the way of this sort of research.
Furthermore, things that are obvious don't really need to be tested do they?
You wouldn't go to the trouble of building a car with wheels on it's roof just to test it's performance against current designs... would you?
For those who believe in both evolution and creation what is the story with the dinosaurs. I hear people say god would chose evolution as the means to get to humans. Why would god choose to "create" thousands of species of animals just to wipe out 99% of them?
I hear tell that dinosuars never actually existed.
The bones we have found were put there by god to test the faith of man.
Neither of those options make sense if God is specifically designing the organism. 1) Why not give them working eyes, if they have a use for them? 2) Removing the light-sensitive portions of the pineal gland without disturbing the rest of it should be completely trivial for a all-knowing designer.Actually, they are not totally blind. Cavefish still retain the pineal gland which is sensitive to light. When the scientists experimentally removed eyes and pineal glands from the young cavefish, they found the fish only retained their shadow response if they had their pineal gland too.
In other words, the pineal gland helped them detect light.
So why might cavefish have preserved a way to see light after living a million or so years in the dark?
One possibility is that caves are not always dark for instance, cavefish might experience light near cave entrances or after cave-ins open windows in ceilings, the researchers said.
Another idea has to do with the fact that the pineal gland supplies the body with melatonin, a key hormone behind reproduction and growth.
Although mutations could knock out the eyes of the cave-dwelling fish without causing too much trouble, withering away the pineal gland would lead to too many problems
As a result, the gland stayed, as did the light sensitivity it conferred.
The shadow response might have originally evolved to protect young surface fish, the researchers suggested.
When the larvae sense shadows of floating objects such as leaves, they hide beneath the object as a shelter, perhaps to avoid predators.
Humans grow tails in the womb, which are then re-absorbed later during the pregnancy. That's just inefficient. It serves no use, functionally, and so no designer should put it there.In addition, there are genes that cause these eyes to shut down. This means that it's an active process controlled by genes so it's designed. If it was just a matter of evolution the body would lose the genes for the eye, this is much easier. But, notice that God really removed and organ that is not in use later one which emphasizes the perfect planned intelligent design.
1) Why not give them working eyes, if they have a use for them?
2) Removing the light-sensitive portions of the pineal gland without disturbing the rest of it should be completely trivial for a all-knowing designer.