Religion dooms you atheism saves you

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
If all the pieces of evidence shows that we evolved (which they do) then it doesn't matter in which order you look at the pieces evidence, they all point to the same conclusion so the final conclusion would always be the same regardless of the order you look at the pieces of evidence. There is only one way here to "join the dots"

So you say.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not accept the eye because of the amount of 'luck' involved, the fossil is just
time, pressure, and conditions. The eye the lenght of the nerve has be put into
the DNA coding, the type of nerve has to be put into the DNA coding, all things that
connect the light sensitive spot to the nerve has be put into the DNA coding, what
can translate the info ...[text shortened]... at have nothing to
do with each other. I think that is beyond possible at every level.
Kelly

There is a pretty good 4 minute video on the evolution of the eye at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Originally posted by JS357
There is a pretty good 4 minute video on the evolution of the eye at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

"The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator."

Sounds more like wishful thinking than scientific observation. The existence of some ancestral creature is also assumed. Did it ultimately 'evolve' from a rock or a chemical soup?

Originally posted by dj2becker
"The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator."

Sounds more like wishful thinking than scientific observation. The existence of some ancestral creature is also assumed. Did it ultimately 'evolve' from a rock or a chemical soup?

“...Sounds more like wishful thinking than scientific observation. ...”

its neither. It is a reasonable hypothesis. Actually, some animals that live today can be observed to have eyes consisting little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin so that is at least ONE observation to give credence to that hypothesis.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you say.
Kelly

read:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

here is a more direct link to JUST ONE of its other pages:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html

scroll about three-fiths down until you see in blue print:

"...Example 1: mammalian ear bones and reptile jaws
Example 2: pharyngeal pouches and branchial arches
Example 3: snake and whale embryos with legs
Example 4: embryonic human tail
Example 5: marsupial eggshell and caruncle ...”

read through each of the above AND the other pages and then tell me in what order or how you can look at these pieces of evidence so to NOT conclude that they are evidence for evolution?

Originally posted by JS357
There is a pretty good 4 minute video on the evolution of the eye at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

"Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. "

This is not good enough! A living system has several parts all working together
to do something. With this statement a light sensitive spot on the skin appears,
and my response to that is so what? Even if one did appear it would not at all give
any advantage unless the information was grabbed with that spot and transmitted
to another part of the creature in such a fashion it had meaning so that it could
give an advantage!

This is the simple junk that passes for possible proof you really do need to start
looking at this stuff much more critically than you are now. Can you buy a new
hard drive for your computer without running the setup software, or a new
video card without the drivers, no! This is no different than that, the issues are
the same, getting new information and being able to make sense of it are two
completely different things, and if you are going to attempt to pass off this as a
reason to think any living system could have within it a large portion of cells
siphoning off resources to do nothing useful that isn’t an advantage it is a huge
disadvantage.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the p resources to do nothing useful that isn’t an advantage it is a huge
disadvantage.
Kelly

“...With this statement a light sensitive spot on the skin appears,
and my response to that is so what? Even if one did appear it would not at all give
any advantage unless the information was grabbed with that spot and TRANSMITTED
to another part of the creature in such a fashion it had meaning so that it could
give an advantage! ...” (my emphasis)

I fail to see why you would think that is a problem -let me explain:
Suppose a mutation modified some of the touch-sensitive nerve cells in a patch of skin so to make them not only be just sensitive to touch but sensitive to light as well. Then the usual nerves that transmit info from touch-sensitive nerve cells to the brain would, of course, also transmit info from these now light sensitive cells to the brain. So there needn't be any problem with that info being “ TRANSMITTED” as you imply above. That info would be transmitted as if it was touch info and if that makes the creature respond in a way that helps it to survive (which it could do) then that would help it pass on its genes. The fact that that creature may not be able to distinguish a touch stimulus from a light stimulus from the same patch of skin at this stage of evolution would be irrelevant as long as it responds in a way that helps it survive.

Later, if the sensitivity to touch becomes redundant in those cells, those same cells could easily evolve to loose redundant sensitively to touch and so ONLY respond to light. Also, later, it can evolve to treat the info from those light sensitive cells differently from the info from the touch-sensitive cells thus it evolves to distinguish the two.

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
all that link makes interesting reading but it also says:
“...The earliest predecessors of the eye were photoreceptor proteins that sense light, found even in unicellular organisms, called "eyespots". Eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms. ...”

-so this is a living example of an eyespot that doesn't even require the transition of the info to a brain or another cell to have useful functionality.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...With this statement a light sensitive spot on the skin appears,
and my response to that is so what? Even if one did appear it would not at all give
any advantage unless the information was grabbed with that spot and TRANSMITTED
to another part of the creature in such a fashion it had meaning so that it could
give an advantage! ...” (my em ...[text shortened]... require the transition of the info to a brain or another cell to have useful functionality.

This is just more proof of God's plan and design
in creating all the different creatures.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is just more proof of God's plan and design
in creating all the different creatures.

no it isn't! You arbitrarily associating your god with it does not prove your god's supposed plan and design.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is just more proof of God's plan and design
in creating all the different creatures.

....Only if this “God” is strangely acting unintelligently when it comes to design.

All of the evidence is in favour of evolution.

If species didn't evolve but were created by an 'intelligent' designer instead (note that evolution doesn't require any divine intervention/intelligence to operate) then that 'intelligent' designer must have limited 'intelligence' to produce pointless design features such as vestige organs and also many design flaws -one of the most stupid ones being to put the nerve connections and the blood vessels for the human retinas in front of them instead of behind them and thus light is partly blocked and partly blurred by those connections/vessels before it reaches the rod and cone cells. How could an incredible all-knowing all-powerful god make such a stupid mistake? The only way that could be consistent with a god doing it is if that god either is capable of stupid mistakes or simply hasn't got the power to design things exactly how he wishes (or both ) .

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
....Only if this “God” is strangely acting unintelligently when it comes to design.

All of the evidence is in favour of evolution.

If species didn't evolve but were created by an 'intelligent' designer instead (note that evolution doesn't require any divine intervention/intelligence to operate) then that 'intelligent' designer must have limite ...[text shortened]... akes or simply hasn't got the power to design things exactly how he wishes (or both ) .

All the evidence does not support evolution. When God
finished creating all His creations he said it was good. That
means there was no mistakes. And He certainly was not
stupid to have created these things. Can you create a
living creature? I think I know who is really stupid.

Originally posted by Agerg
no it isn't! You arbitrarily associating your god with it does not prove your god's supposed plan and design.

Yes, it does.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...With this statement a light sensitive spot on the skin appears,
and my response to that is so what? Even if one did appear it would not at all give
any advantage unless the information was grabbed with that spot and TRANSMITTED
to another part of the creature in such a fashion it had meaning so that it could
give an advantage! ...” (my em ...[text shortened]... require the transition of the info to a brain or another cell to have useful functionality.

A light sensitive spot on a (patch of skin) appears caused by some unknown
number of mutations that deal directly with the skin, which were of course
generated randomly without any plan or purpose. Okay wait there was more, not
only was the skin going through random mutations, but along with the skin DNA
code was also being mutated at the same time or near to it, so that we also have
mutations occurring to touch sensitive nerves. The cool thing about this was too,
they are not just any ole touch sensitive nerves, but those that actually were near
to our light sensitive spot instead of any other location on the skin. You honestly
feel this is completely reasonable to except that type of thing to just happen,
because the mutations were done randomly?

Moving on in case you do, so we have some unknown number of mutations in DNA
mutating those nerves which were luckily touching our spot, that is currently or
about to be become light sensitive. During this time period another group of
mutations occur and a connection is made between our spot and nerves so that
information can be transmitted from one to the other. This also has to occur since
not everything that touches, actually allows this type of exchange from occurring,
but again the mutations that are responsible for this were just done randomly, so
what could go wrong?

After the nerves are changed to handle light information, our skin spot is light
sensitive, a connection occurs by unrelated random mutations, now an advantage
is almost ready to appear. Once (useful) information gets gathered by the spot on
the skin, its moved to the nerves by the connected so our once touch sensitive
nerves turned light information transmitters can now send this information
somewhere else! This somewhere else was being modified by random mutations
so it was set up to receive and translate that new information so that is can now be
useful! After all of those random mutations we now have a creature that can not
only grasp the light information, but makes useful choices or reactions that need to
be made to due to this information.

You think this is a simple process that a bunch of random mutation would just
throw together? Did I give an acturate description of what you think occured?
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
All the evidence does not support evolution. When God
finished creating all His creations he said it was good. That
means there was no mistakes. And He certainly was not
stupid to have created these things. Can you create a
living creature? I think I know who is really stupid.

“...That means there was no mistakes. ...”

I just pointed out a huge" mistake" ; didn't you read my post?
Tell us how putting the blood vessels for the retina in front of the retina where they partially block the light and reduce vision is NOT a design flaw?

“...And He certainly was not
stupid to have created these things. Can you create a
living creature? ...”

No. Evolution did that, hence the flaws.
Can I think that putting the blood vessels for the retina in front of the retina is a sensible design feature? -obviously not.

Can you personally create the space shuttle? -answer, no. Can you think that putting the wires for a space shuttle's navigation camera in front of its light sensors instead of behind is a sensible design feature? Only if you either make mistakes or are stupid.

“....I think I know who is really stupid. ...”

I know too, its you.

Originally posted by KellyJay
A light sensitive spot on a (patch of skin) appears caused by some unknown
number of mutations that deal directly with the skin, which were of course
generated randomly without any plan or purpose. Okay wait there was more, not
only was the skin going through random mutations, but along with the skin DNA
code was also being mutated at the same time or n ...[text shortened]... would just
throw together? Did I give an acturate description of what you think occured?
Kelly

“...A light sensitive spot on a (patch of skin) appears caused by some UNKNOWN
NUMBER of mutations that deal directly with the skin, ...” (my emphases)

no, just ONE mutation. That's because that's how evolution works; one credible step at a time generally means one mutation at a time.

“...Okay wait there was more, not
only was the skin going through random mutationS, ….” (my emphasis)

Again, only ONE mutation.

“....but along with the skin DNA
code WAS ALSO BEING MUTATED AT THE SAME TIME OR NEAR TO IT, so that we also have
mutations occurring to touch sensitive nerves. ...” (my emphases)

you appear to fail to understand basic biology here; When a living thing has a mutation, normally ALL of its cells have that mutation.
So there would be no “DNA code WAS ALSO BEING MUTATED AT THE SAME TIME OR NEAR TO IT” because ALL the cells would have had that mutation and that mutation would have been in the fertilised-egg stage BEFORE any cell division that eventually gave rise to skin, nerve etc. So OBVIOUSLY there would be absolutely no need for different cells of the body to independently mutate as you imply above.

“...The cool thing about this was too,
they are not just any ole touch sensitive nerves, but those that actually were near
to our light sensitive spot instead of any other location on the skin. ..”

didn’t you read the hypothetical but credible (albeit not the only credible one -there are others ) scenario in my post? Reminder: “Suppose a mutation modified some of the touch-sensitive NERVE cells in a patch of skin so to make them not only be just sensitive to touch but sensitive to light as well. ...” (my quote, my emphasis )
-so there would have been no coincidence that those touch sensitive nerves where in the light sensitive spot on the skin BECAUSE it is the very existence of those touch sensitive nerves that MAKES that spot on the skin a “ light sensitive spot”.

“...Moving on in case you do, so we have some UNKNOWN NUMBER of mutations in DNA
mutating ...”

WRONG AGAIN! The only mutation required is just ONE mutation in ONE cell that was in the fertilised egg BEFORE any cell decision.

“...those nerves which were luckily touching our spot, ...”

No luck; nerve cells are usually found in every patch of skin! -this would be true with or without that mutation.

“..that is currently or about to be become light sensitive. ...”

No, it is currently light sensitive.

“...During this time period another group of
mutations occur ...”

WRONG AGAIN! Just ONE mutation just as I explained above.

“...and a connection is made between our spot and nerves so that
information can be transmitted from one to the other. ...”

those connections would be there with or without that mutation. Nerves are normally connected to each other -that is just basic biology.

“...After the nerves are changed to handle light information, ...”

not by the first mutation. Those nerves initially could just treat that info as if it was touch info and only LATER evolve to treat that info differently.

The rest of your post is wrong because it doesn't get these above points.

“...Did I give an acturate description of what you think occured? ...”

NO; read my above points.