Evidence for Evolution

[Spock]

so we're no better than monkeys. I've been saying that for years.

[brownjenkins]

actually, we're worse... monkeys don't think they're special

[Spock]

"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals."
Sir Winston Churchill

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

You're missing my point. The visual nerve in the human eye has its exit point to the brain right in the middle of the retina, which is why humans have a "blind spot" in their eye. Check out this link to understand better. The placement of the visual nerve is therefore not perfect. Nature has examples of better designs. In squid eyes the placement of the nerve is better and doesn't give rise to a blind spot in the squid's retina. This has nothing to do with protection from the sun at all. If god had given the human eye a perfect design, our visual nerve wouldn't be where it is now, because now it is basically "in the way".

I don't have any problems seeing things; do you?

I think that human eyesight works amazingly, incredibly well. I think that it's hard to argue that something that works as amazingly well as it does is not "perfect - things like tonsils and the appendix spring to mind. These were once thought to be useless, until we found out their use. Unless all the info is in, which will never happen in science , I don't see how you can claim the eye isn't perfect. I think a better question is given how amazingly well the eye works, and how amazingly complex its workings are, is it reasonable to think that it could have evolved?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I don't have any problems seeing things; do you?

I think that human eyesight works amazingly, incredibly well. I think that it's hard to argue that something that works as amazingly well as it does is not "perfect - things like tonsils and the appendix spring to mind. These were once thought to be useless, until we found out their use. Unless all the info is in, which will never happen in science , I don't see how you can claim the eye isn't perfect. I think a better question is given how amazingly well the eye works, and how amazingly complex its workings are, is it reasonable to think that it could have evolved?

but many animals have "better" eyes than humans

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why should I look it up? I know what it is and have used it before

well then why would you tell me I was incorrect in using it before?

Heres what the encyclopedia says:

"Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is, in its most general sense, the hypothetical generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to hypotheses of the origin of life from a primordial soup."

And chemical evolution is the study of how abiogenesis might have taken place.

Now you are changing your tune and saying they are the same when before you said I was wrong to use it.

[Rían]

No, what I was saying was that chemical evolution is the scientific study of how life might have arisen from non-life. You said I was wrong.

I said, " "chemical evolution" refers to the scientific study of how life might have arisen from non-life."

and you said, "Nope. Thats abiogenesis."

So I pointed out places in major scientific institutions where the term "chemical evolution" was used how I said it was used.

It also appeared that you were not familiar with the term "chemical evolution", and I was explaining how it related to abiogenesis. And how "biological evolution" is a term, too, used to more precisely describe what we usually refer to as "evolution", and it looks as if you weren't familiar with that term, either. Now you've heard of them

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

but many animals have "better" eyes than humans

Is that why they're higher up on the food chain than humans?

Seems like human eyes work great

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No, what I was saying was that chemical evolution is the scientific study of how life might have arisen from non-life. You said I was wrong.

NO... I was saying that abiogenisis was “the origin of the first life� and “ is a completely different topic from evolution. Youd have to wait till we got to the first self replicating molecule before evolution can kick in.�

To which YOU said I was "incorrect�. Then you changed your tune and said well it’s the same. NOW yer saying that abiogenesis is evolution when it clearly is defined by what happens BEFORE life is in place. Now you can put all the modifiers on evolution you like but it doesn’t make it Evolution. Just because there are terms called “Linguistic Evolution� and “Social Evolution� doesn’t mean language or society are part of the theory of evolution. The scientific dictionary and encyclopedic definitions of evolution have to do with change in gene frequency over time… not with pre-life.

“Biological evolution� is a redundant term which I have heard many times before thanks so no sense trying to score petty points with that by acting all smug and special and playing your gotcha word games... I don’t bother with it as many scientists don’t because its redundant and useless. It’s the same as saying evolution. In fact the term is “Evolutionary Biology� when describing the life processes involved with evolution not "biological evolution" and I quite frankly I don’t give a hoot who the hell says it so you can quit the name dropping game already. It’s a simple matter of definition and grammar really. They call it “The Theory of Evolution� not the theory of biological evolution after all.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Is that why they're higher up on the food chain than humans?

Seems like human eyes work great

But the point is they could work better. Not just that but why the human appendix? Its a bacteria trap. And the human urethra? A soft tube through the prostate which is an organ prone to infection and swelling?? Was that gods idea of a little joke on us guys? And while we are at it the human spine comes to mind. What an awful design for bipedalism. What was he thinking there? Nevermind the fact that he threaded the incredibly important spinal chord right through the spine of all places! Slight disc damage can lead to agonizing pain and paralysis. A first year engineer could have come up with something a lot smarter. And dont get me started on the human knee... or the jaw which is actually too small for the number of teeth it holds... impacted wisdom teeth anyone?

[Rían]

my goodness - why so defensive? Sheesh! So you learned some new terms in standard use by major scientific organizations - that's a good thing, isn't it?

And I think I'll take the National Science Foundation, the National Science Teachers' Association, and the National Academy of Science's word about whether or not "biological evolution" and "chemical evolution" are valid terms or not - not your word (or talk origins' word, altho they use it, too). And biological evolution IS related to chemical evolution, as you'll see if you do some reading on the subject - I never "changed my tune" on that.

The defensiveness of many evolutionists continues to amaze me. Why are they so worried?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But the point is they could work better.

And you know this ... how? This is merely theoretical speculation, not actual knowledge. But evolution is big on theoretical speculation, as opposed to actual knowledge, because there simply is not much actual knowledge available, because we're talking about things that happed in pre-history!! This is an unfortunate fact of life for evolutionary scientists, so they just have to do the best they can, which means - speculation (which has often proved wrong).

Doctors used to rip out tonsils wholesale because they thought they were useless evolutionary leftovers. They did NOT know enough at that point to know that they were very valuable tools in the fight against infection. You cannot assert with any intellectual integrity that moving something around in the human eye would be a better design without testing it! The eye is incredibly complex, with interrelated parts. If you move things around, it's very likely that other things will be affected.

[Insidious Rex]

Rian being used to your petty word games and attempts to score points by throwing out completely irrelevant technicalities is the only thing Im reacting to. It has nothing to do with evolution. Im amused however that you would rather get into a tit for tat discussion irrelevant to the many valid points we have been making rather then address those points. Not surprised though.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And you know this ... how? This is merely theoretical speculation, not actual knowledge. But evolution is big on theoretical speculation, as opposed to actual knowledge, because there simply is not much actual knowledge available, because we're talking about things that happed in pre-history!! This is an unfortunate fact of life for evolutionary scientists, so they just have to do the best they can, which means - speculation (which has often proved wrong).

Doctors used to rip out tonsils wholesale because they thought they were useless evolutionary leftovers. They did NOT know enough at that point to know that they were very valuable tools in the fight against infection. You cannot assert with any intellectual integrity that moving something around in the human eye would be a better design without testing it! The eye is incredibly complex, with interrelated parts. If you move things around, it's very likely that other things will be affected.

Its not a matter of moving things around. Its a matter of a completely better design from scratch. Not one with a the wiring done THROUGH the eye itself like it is. Are you saying theres some incredible benefit to this that medical science has no clue about? And how is having a spine not designed for bipedalism a boon to our species as well?

[Rían]

Since you won't answer my points, I guess I'll just have to ask readers of this thread to judge for themselves who uses name calling and who is discussing facts.

You won't even admit that I was right about "chemical evolution" and "biological evolution" being valid terms used by the National Science Foundation, the National Science Teachers' Association, and the National Academy of Science?


And what have I not addressed?
YOU have not addressed that I was right about those terms!
Come on, IRex, this is an interesting topic - let's learn! There's no shame in admitting you don't know everything

[Insidious Rex]

I would be happy to get into a petty tit for tat meaningless contest about how I was in fact quite right with everything I said from the start but first youll have to admit its simply your way of avoiding the real issues I bring up which you know you have no response for. After you...

[Rían]

I'm sorry, I can't admit something that I don't think is true. And I don't avoid things - my post count should be a good witness to that!

Seriously, though, I've never avoided anything that anyone has asked me about. I guess you just think I'm avoiding if I don't agree with you - that's the only thing I can figure out

Am I right about those terms being in use, or do you think that is not true? If you think it is true, will you say it? If not, why not?

[Insidious Rex]

Although this is a great example of diversion tactics in action. A tactic I have seen from other creationists and that you are quite expert at. Shall I continue to play the dupe so people can see how natural "Debate Evolution" works?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm sorry, I can't admit something that I don't think is true. And I don't avoid things - my post count should be a good witness to that!

Ha ha! Your post count is witness to the fact that you can spin faster then a top and divert a conversation from something that is crippling to your way of thinking. I have seen it more times then I could even begin to count. If you didnt do that youd have less posts.

Seriously, though, I've never avoided anything that anyone has asked me about. I guess you just think I'm avoiding if I don't agree with you - that's the only thing I can figure out

is this the part where you play ignorant cause yer not Rian.

[Rían]

What is wrong with admitting that you were wrong about those terms?