10 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThe evolution of the eye is well documented within scientific literature. My views on this process, and every other person who accepts that life evolved, are the same as what you will find within scientific literature. If you really wanted to understand this process you would read up on it yourself instead of asking lay people on a chess website. There are no evolutionary biologists who post on this site, they would be the best people to answer your questions.
I can read the links, I actually read them, and you guys are the one's I'm putting questions
to since you provided the links and the authors are not here!
Google is my friend if I want to read another's work, if I want to have a give and take I'll
do it here. If all you want to do is present a link...I guess there are a few here that do that.
To add to this, and forgive me for being blunt, but you're a creationist Christian who believes that humans lived with dinosaurs, vegetarian ones at that, who coexisted on a big wooden boat whilst God flooded the earth. The cognitive process involved to believe such a narrative are so devoid of rational thought and processing of undeniable evidence that having a discussion about the evolution of the eye is utterly futile. We don't exist in the same reality. I simply don't have the time or inclination to venture down that path. Also, this process has been explained to you in a big long thread in the science forum a number of years ago, if you didn't get it then I don't see how you will get it now.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
10 May 15
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat the hell are you talking about? It's not just someone else's definition of irreducible complexity. It's the definition of irreducible complexity, as coined by Michael Behe. If you're not going to use accepted definitions, then how the hell are we supposed to have even a simple conversation? What's the point in me typing a lengthy post (and it would be a lengthy one) detailing the current scientific evidence for the evolution of the eye, when we can't even use the same language? Seems like a complete waste of my time, to be honest.
You should really start following along with the conversations, I don't give a rats behind
about someone else' irreducible complexity argument. I have my own...
10 May 15
Originally posted by Proper KnobI doubt your views and every other person who accepts that life evolved are the same as
The evolution of the eye is well documented within scientific literature. My views on this process, and every other person who accepts that life evolved, are the same as what you will find within scientific literature. If you really wanted to understand this process you would read up on it yourself instead of asking lay people on a chess website. There a ...[text shortened]... ence forum a number of years ago, if you didn't get it then I don't see how you will get it now.
what I'll find in scientific literature, unless you have turned your brain off and refuse to
think for yourself. I would find that surprising and very sad if that were true.
If you cannot answer least your views show up as different than what is published by
someone else, than don't bother. I'm sure there are those around here who can think for
themselves and have pondered this that feel strong enough in their own convictions that
they can have a give and take on the different questions that could arise.
10 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessI guess it is starting to sink in I've not been making the argument on irreducible complexity.
What the hell are you talking about? It's not just someone else's definition of irreducible complexity. It's the definition of irreducible complexity, as coined by Michael Behe. If you're not going to use accepted definitions, then how the hell are we supposed to have even a simple conversation? What's the point in me typing a lengthy post (and it woul ...[text shortened]... when we can't even use the same language? Seems like a complete waste of my time, to be honest.
My name is not Michael Behe, and do not plan on defending his views.
A simple conversation would be you looking at the things I say and me doing the same
for you and not assume I'm going to take another's views as my own. Otherwise I guess
you and I cannot communicate.
I actually wondered about your going on with me on a debate I was not apart of as if I had
to defend it. The same language would be nice, it could be even better if we limited out
discussion to what the other person asks and says and not bring up someone else' views
as if I was some how obligated to defend them.
Having said that, AGAIN: The first step of the eye's evolution, what was it? How did it
occur? Was it useful, and if so why? Can we start here, none of my questions are longer
than a few words, yet they have been ignored by you for a long time now.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
10 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySilly me. Here I was, thinking that if you respond to the OP of a thread I started, we'll be talking about the topic of the OP. I'm out.
I guess it is starting to sink in I've not been making the argument on irreducible complexity.
My name is not Michael Behe, and do not plan on defending his views.
A simple conversation would be you looking at the things I say and me doing the same
for you and not assume I'm going to take another's views as my own. Otherwise I guess
you and I cannot c ...[text shortened]... y questions are longer
than a few words, yet they have been ignored by you for a long time now.
Talk amongst your selfs.
10 May 15
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat is 'very sad', is that here we are in the 21st century, 2500 years in of scientific endeavour and we seem to be regressing. It is 'very sad' that people like your good self believe the world is only a few thousand years old with the added hilarity that humasn lived with dinosaurs. THAT is very sad.
I doubt your views and every other person who accepts that life evolved are the same as
what I'll find in scientific literature, unless you have turned your brain off and refuse to
think for yourself. I would find that surprising and very sad if that were true.
If you cannot answer least your views show up as different than what is published by
someon ...[text shortened]... own convictions that
they can have a give and take on the different questions that could arise.
10 May 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobNo, what is sad is that you turn your brain off just to agree with some teaching, I know that
What is 'very sad', is that here we are in the 21st century, 2500 years in of scientific endeavour and we seem to be regressing. It is 'very sad' that people like your good self believe the world is only a few thousand years old with the added hilarity that humasn lived with dinosaurs. THAT is very sad.
cults do that I'm sadden by you doing it too in the name of science no less.
10 May 15
Originally posted by KellyJayFrom what I read, that goes back many millions of years to the time when there were only light sensitive cells on the bodies back whatever 400 million years or more back. That gave the life forms at the time an advantage, they could see for instance, a darkness going over them when they were in the water and thus connect that with a possible predator and pull away from that threat if they had locomotive capability.
I guess it is starting to sink in I've not been making the argument on irreducible complexity.
My name is not Michael Behe, and do not plan on defending his views.
A simple conversation would be you looking at the things I say and me doing the same
for you and not assume I'm going to take another's views as my own. Otherwise I guess
you and I cannot c ...[text shortened]... y questions are longer
than a few words, yet they have been ignored by you for a long time now.
Originally posted by KellyJayI know you refuse to talk to me and maybe don't even read my posts, but I thought I should comment on your position in this thread.
No, what is sad is that you turn your brain off just to agree with some teaching, I know that cults do that I'm sadden by you doing it too in the name of science no less.
1. You appear to have claimed that you know enough about biology to conclude that anyone who thinks the evolution of the eye was possible, must be a 'true believer'.
2. You clearly do not know what theories have been put forward for the evolution of the eye or you wouldn't keep asking. This kind of contradicts your claim in 1.
3. You seem to be under the impression that every person who accepts that evolution took place knows in detail every step of eye evolution. This is not so. Nor is it a requirement for accepting the validity of the theory of evolution. You seem to think that any scientific understanding of the evolution of the eye is a religious creed. In reality, we base our theories on the evidence and if more evidence comes to light we may come up with new ideas about how the eye evolved. Most people here will not be particularly attached to any one theory about the evolution of the eye. We know it evolved because here we are with eyes. Until there is a very good reason to think it didn't evolve (confirmed irreducible complexity perhaps ? ) then we will continue to think it evolved.
10 May 15
Originally posted by sonhouseI have read that too, here and elsewhere, but if you think about that, does it make even a
From what I read, that goes back many millions of years to the time when there were only light sensitive cells on the bodies back whatever 400 million years or more back. That gave the life forms at the time an advantage, they could see for instance, a darkness going over them when they were in the water and thus connect that with a possible predator and pull away from that threat if they had locomotive capability.
little bit of sense? Thinking about how something that was never aware of light suddenly
became aware of it, so now it knows what to do with the new light information it is now
getting? That to me is a very large leap of faith that I assume just has to be accepted.
So out of now where a light sensitive spot appears, why and how no one knows! Then a
little later or maybe right away it is believed that the spot can transmit useful information
from that spot to the lifeform itself, to the point that it will alter behavior, why and how I
don’t know? So bottom line out of now where our once the previously blind lifeforms get
light spot mutations along with the ability to turn that light into useful information so now
we have the making of our first rudimentary eyes.
It is also believed that those with this new information from this mutation now have an
advantage over the still completely blind lifeforms around them! This is a dramatic leap of
faith in my opinion, getting the light sensitive spot, and having that actually matter are
two very different things!
Is this a doctrine or theory, it is hard to tell what it is if everyone must believe it the same
way as it is written, as some have suggested here.
If I'm wrong about any of this, could you point out my errors?
10 May 15
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat are you going on about Kelly?
No, what is sad is that you turn your brain off just to agree with some teaching, I know that
cults do that I'm sadden by you doing it too in the name of science no less.
You think me reading science books off my own back, evaluating that evidence with my own brain is me 'turning off my brain'? You think that process makes me a member of some sort of scientific cult? You've lost the plot.