Eye evolution - Misunderstood

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Details is what I'm after.

Details is what kellyJay and I are after from your kind too. But all we have is speculation and religious beliefs. We already have this in our own belief. The only difference is that we have a super intelligent designer on our side. 😏

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Let's for the moment say the eye didn't come about by evolution by the process of natural selection. Explain to us how it did. How did the eye and all it's various forms come into existence?

Can you answer this for me too?
I admit up front simply because we prove evolution didn't do it, that does not in any way
shape or form automatically mean creation is true, one is not tied to the other that way.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The only difference is that we have a super intelligent designer on our side. 😏[/b]

You have Sir Christopher Wren? 😲

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You have Sir Christopher Wren? 😲

Much better than him. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe KellyJay and I understand this type of speculation that you are describing. However, this type of speculative assumptions are so improbable that it is the same as believing in millions of accidental miracles.

Look up point mutations and mutation rates, then consider the fact that species are usually large in numbers, and that the only thing that makes a photoreceptor cell is a single protein. Now, ask yourself what the odds are that the code for a single protein could have formed by natural selection acting on random mutation over many generations on a large population, and I think we can both agree that miracles have nothing to do with it, nor do you need blind faith to accept evolution as true. The facts speak for themselves.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The reason I am asking for a conversation is to point out you have nothing other than
possible beliefs nothing solid in the form of evidence! "If the mutation survives...", as well
as "Other individuals may carry..." The fact is there are no facts, a lot of conjecture which
is was what I said, you have something you believe in.

Even touch isn't much ...[text shortened]... hey just
accept what was written. *I don't believe that, but I do think if is true it is lazy."

We know from observation that point mutations happen. We know that point mutations can sometimes result in new proteins forming. We know that the only thing needed to turn a neuron into a photoreceptor cell is a single protein that creates a membrane potential when struck by a photon. We know that gene flow happens.

Clearly, there's evidence to support the idea that photoreceptor cells evolved from neurons in tiny steps. There are a lot of details unknown, but that doesn't take away from what we do know.

Here's where we differ you and I. You think that any explanation using assumptions is as good or bad as any other. But every scientific theory ever proposed uses assumptions. What makes a scientific explanation good (useful), is when its' assumptions are supported by the evidence, and the predictions made from it pans out. I'm perfectly happy with science producing explanations without certainty, as long as the evidence backs it up. The simplest explanation that takes into account all the available evidence, is the best one. It doesn't matter to me if it turns out to be the wrong explanation in the end. I'll accept it as true until evidence tells us otherwise, and then I will accept the simplest explanation that takes that new evidence into account. This is a far cry from the blind faith you accuse me of having. And it's definitely not on the same level as creationist's beliefs, where the evidence stands in direct opposition. To say that my acceptance of evolutionary theory is on par with the kind of blind faith you have in the bible is insulting to me, and here I was thinking you didn't like to insult people. That's okay though, I can take it. 🙂

Originally posted by C Hess
We know from observation that point mutations happen. We know that point mutations can sometimes result in new proteins forming. We know that the only thing needed to turn a neuron into a photoreceptor cell is a single protein that creates a membrane potential when struck by a photon. We know that gene flow happens.

Clearly, there's evidence to support the ...[text shortened]... and here I was thinking you didn't like to insult people. That's okay though, I can take it. 🙂

I think it is funny I believe the universe as is from the largest to the smallest parts of it all
seem to be working together like a fine tuned watch, and we get on this planet life due to
it. So does this mean what I believe is based upon nothing or everything? You can pick
and choose what you want to support you views, nothing bad about that! I do not at all
think what I have is based upon blind faith, and I would ask you to go back and show me
where I said what you had was based upon blind faith!? Are you mind reading, or did I
actually use those words?

Originally posted by C Hess
We know from observation that point mutations happen. We know that point mutations can sometimes result in new proteins forming. We know that the only thing needed to turn a neuron into a photoreceptor cell is a single protein that creates a membrane potential when struck by a photon. We know that gene flow happens.

Clearly, there's evidence to support the ...[text shortened]... and here I was thinking you didn't like to insult people. That's okay though, I can take it. 🙂

You don't see that your accusations that we believe by blind faith is insulting to us? It is best to do unto others as you would like others to do unto you. However, I doubt if any of us actually live up to that.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't see that your accusations that we believe by blind faith is insulting to us? It is best to do unto others as you would like others to do unto you. However, I doubt if any of us actually live up to that.

Yes, believe in a non-existent god, then fight wars over that non existent entity. I don't see said god telling US it is an insult. We only hear such crap from humans.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Yes, believe in a non-existent god, then fight wars over that non existent entity. I don't see said god telling US it is an insult. We only hear such crap from humans.

The Holy Bible is the true source of knowledge about God. Forget the vedas, etc.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I would ask you to go back and show me where I said what you had was based upon blind faith!? Are you mind reading, or did I actually use those words?

Blind faith is when you have faith in a story being true even in the light of evidence to the contrary, or when evidence is completely lacking. You said that my "belief" in evolution was supported by no evidence whatsoever, which is to say that I have blind faith in its accuracy.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You don't see that your accusations that we believe by blind faith is insulting to us? It is best to do unto others as you would like others to do unto you. However, I doubt if any of us actually live up to that.

When it comes to believing the stories of the bible, I thought the whole point was to have blind faith. It seems to me that the more blind faith one has in the bible stories, the more revered one is among christian peers, and all the more blessed one is. How is it an insult to a christian then, to be told (s)he appears to have nothing but blind faith?

Originally posted by C Hess
When it comes to believing the stories of the bible, I thought the whole point was to have blind faith. It seems to me that the more blind faith one has in the bible stories, the more revered one is among christian peers, and all the more blessed one is. How is it an insult to a christian then, to be told (s)he appears to have nothing but blind faith?

Just as you consider being told you have blind faith as an insult, I have the free will to consider it an insult when applied to me. However, perhaps someone like Suzianne would consider it a badge of pride.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You can pick and choose what you want to support you views, nothing bad about that!

But that's where you're wrong. A scientific explanation must take into account all known evidence. We can't pick and choose, and it's considered a very bad thing when we do. If the explanation can't account for the evidence, it's discarded. If it can, it remains. This means that the explanation must be testable. If you put the explanation beyond what we can test, so that any claim can be considered evidence for it, then it requires blind faith to believe it, because you can't know if your belief has any support in reality.

An example would be to say I think the universe had a creator because it appears to me that everything is just a little too fine-tuned to have happened by accident.

How do we test that claim? What finding or observation could prove it wrong?

If an opponent points out that actually molecules because of their properties combined with observed natural laws, seems fully capable of self-organisation and stabilisation, so that stars and planets can form, and the sheer number of stars and planets that form makes the odds that life can form on at least one of them good, I can just put my explanation further back, into the realm of what we don't yet know: who created the natural laws and gave particles these properties that allows them to form atoms with certain properties that allows them to come together into self-organising molecules? When an explanation is consistently pushed backwards into untestable claims as new knowledge is gained, to believe that explanation requires blind faith, whether or not it seems more plausible to the believer.

Very often in science, what seems counter-intuitive turns out to be correct, and the only way to know this is through the evidence. Even if you stand on the highest mountain, the earth appears to be like a round disc, flattened, rather than a spherical planet. Common sense tells us that it should be flat. That would naïvely explain why everything falls to its surface. But evidence tells us otherwise, and so we abandon our old beliefs in favour of the harder to believe reality that the earth is a spherical planet orbiting the sun.

It's definitely a bad thing to pick and choose which evidence to accept, and which evidence to reject, just to maintain the appearance of a good story being true. The only way to successfully reject evidence is to demonstrate them wrong or mistaken. Ignoring them will not do.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Just as you consider being told you have blind faith as an insult, I have the free will to consider it an insult when applied to me. However, perhaps someone like Suzianne would consider it a badge of pride.

Fair enough, but what if I can demonstrate that you do operate on blind faith? Is it still an insult? Or could it be a friendly heads up?