68% Of Republicans Don't believe in Evolution !!!

[Jason]

[quote name='Nati Ice' post='502269' date='Jun 19 2007, 04:37 PM']wait a second... so a finch can change into a completely different kind of finch within a 6 year time frame and you see that as being completely feasible, but the suggestion that a prehistoric lizard could have changed into a bird over a period of billions of years sounds completely preposterous? even with the corresponding fossil record?

am i reading this right?[/quote]

No, I am saying that a bird adapting to it's surroundings is evidence sufficient to support the belief that a lizard can become a bird is preposterous.

If it did happen, it didn't happen in billions of years. Dinosaurs were here less than a billion years ago, birds less than that.

Where's the fossil evidence that supports a scale mutating into a feather? Finding fossils that are similar over millions or billions of years is not necessarily evidence that the species from those fossils are evolutionary evidence. And how would it be beneficial for a bone to lose significant mass? This would have had to happen and be complete before flight could begin. Low bone density for a land dwelling animal is not a biological advantage, so it would not make sense that that mutation would have survived long enough for flight to evolve.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]Sometimes I feel like most religious people in the world would rather have the world come to an end ... before science proves them all wrong. [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/23.gif[/img] [/b][/size][/font]

[Actium]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[color="#000080"][b][size=4][center]Lil' Bush learns about Evolution ...


[/center][/size][/b][/color]

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Actium' post='502288' date='Jun 19 2007, 03:19 PM'][/quote]
Ha. I knew that it was inevitable for that to be posted, and quite proper that you were the one that did it!

[Actium]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='502292' date='Jun 19 2007, 04:37 PM']Ha. I knew that it was inevitable for that to be posted, and quite proper that you were the one that did it![/quote]

I try to do what is expected of me.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[center][color="#006400"][size=4][b]Ali G on science, evolution, and creation

[/b][/size][/color][/center]

[Fanatical]

[quote name='Jason' post='502279' date='Jun 19 2007, 03:47 PM']No, I am saying that a bird adapting to it's surroundings is evidence sufficient to support the belief that a lizard can become a bird is preposterous.

If it did happen, it didn't happen in billions of years. Dinosaurs were here less than a billion years ago, birds less than that.

Where's the fossil evidence that supports a scale mutating into a feather? Finding fossils that are similar over millions or billions of years is not necessarily evidence that the species from those fossils are evolutionary evidence. And how would it be beneficial for a bone to lose significant mass? This would have had to happen and be complete before flight could begin. Low bone density for a land dwelling animal is not a biological advantage, so it would not make sense that that mutation would have survived long enough for flight to evolve.[/quote]
Lizards becoming birds happened over a few hundred million years. It took billions of years for life to evolve from a self replicating molecule to become something easily recognizable to the naked eye.

[url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_01.html"]overview of bird evolution[/url]
[quote]These small, two-legged dinosaurs called theropods scurried around something like today's roadrunners. Many characteristics that typify birds were present in the theropods before birds evolved, including hollow bones, a wishbone, a backward-pointing pelvis, and a three-toed foot.[/quote]
Hollow bone structure allowed for lighter predators and ease at catching prey, and may have also helped in respiration.

[Jason]

[quote name='Fanatical' post='502307' date='Jun 19 2007, 06:27 PM']Lizards becoming birds happened over a few hundred million years. It took billions of years for life to evolve from a self replicating molecule to become something easily recognizable to the naked eye.

[url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_01.html"]overview of bird evolution[/url]

Hollow bone structure allowed for lighter predators and ease at catching prey, and may have also helped in respiration.[/quote]

How did vision, and sexual reproduction evolve?

The eye is an extremely complex organ. Not to mention the optic nerve, and a brain capable of interpreting the signal. The eye would be useless without the other 2, so they would have to develop simultaneously.

And how did an organism that reproduces by cell division make the leap in one shot to sexual reproduction? The male and female would have to develop simultaneously, and in the same area. The reproductive systems are fairly different, and yet compatible.

Here's another question. When scientists did the experiments to simulate generation of amino acids, they generated the L and D isomers (chemically identical compounds with mirror image physical structures) in equal proportion. In proteins in living systems all amino acids are the L isomer. ALL OF THEM. If they formed randomly in equal proportion in L and D for a simple protein composed of 40 amino acids to form entirely of the L isomer the odds are 2 to the 40th power. Not to mention more complex proteins.

[Quaker]

[quote name='Jason' post='501786' date='Jun 18 2007, 01:26 PM']Start with a finch, end with a finch.

There is a difference between a species adapting to its surroundings, and one species becoming another species.

Now, if a lizard had become a finch, you'd have an arguement.[/quote]
...Sorry, but that is "evolution." You seem to clarify "evolution" as one species simply turning into something totally different and you are totally wrong. I didn't read that article, but if a species gains or loses some kind of sensory tool, THAT alone IS evolution. Why did such characteristics change within the animal? To make it better able to adapt and survive, it is evolution. The phrase of "survival of the fittest" is thrown around all the time, it's a lie. It's "survival of the best adapted."

...If all humans started to lose their pinky fingers, would you consider that "evolution"? From the way it sounds, to you it would not be when it clearly is. The human body has figured out the pinky is rather useless and has started to breed that part of our genetic makeup out of our bodies and eventually, in a very long time, humans will no longer have pinkys. Humans will not have become a totally different looking animal, but it's still evolution.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Quaker' post='502475' date='Jun 20 2007, 07:18 AM']...Sorry, but that is "evolution." You seem to clarify "evolution" as one species simply turning into something totally different and you are totally wrong. I didn't read that article, but if a species gains or loses some kind of sensory tool, THAT alone IS evolution. Why did such characteristics change within the animal? To make it better able to adapt and survive, it is evolution. The phrase of "survival of the fittest" is thrown around all the time, it's a lie. It's "survival of the best adapted."

...If all humans started to lose their pinky fingers, would you consider that "evolution"? From the way it sounds, to you it would not be when it clearly is. The human body has figured out the pinky is rather useless and has started to breed that part of our genetic makeup out of our bodies and eventually, in a very long time, humans will no longer have pinkys. Humans will not have become a totally different looking animal, but it's still evolution.[/quote]


I believe Jason is talking about Micro vs Macro Evolution. My understanding of his position is that he has zero issue with Micro, but its macro that he takes exception to.

[Jason]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='502482' date='Jun 20 2007, 08:04 AM']I believe Jason is talking about Micro vs Macro Evolution. My understanding of his position is that he has zero issue with Micro, but its macro that he takes exception to.[/quote]

Correct. And when someone does not state whether they are discussing micro or macro, I assume they mean macro.

[Fanatical]

[quote name='Jason' post='502474' date='Jun 20 2007, 06:05 AM']How did vision, and sexual reproduction evolve?

The eye is an extremely complex organ. Not to mention the optic nerve, and a brain capable of interpreting the signal. The eye would be useless without the other 2, so they would have to develop simultaneously.

And how did an organism that reproduces by cell division make the leap in one shot to sexual reproduction? The male and female would have to develop simultaneously, and in the same area. The reproductive systems are fairly different, and yet compatible.

Here's another question. When scientists did the experiments to simulate generation of amino acids, they generated the L and D isomers (chemically identical compounds with mirror image physical structures) in equal proportion. In proteins in living systems all amino acids are the L isomer. ALL OF THEM. If they formed randomly in equal proportion in L and D for a simple protein composed of 40 amino acids to form entirely of the L isomer the odds are 2 to the 40th power. Not to mention more complex proteins.[/quote]

My advice is to first read a book or google these subjects as they have been well studied. I don't feel like giving a biology lecture.
As for the eye, [url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html"]Check this out[/url].

When microbes reproduce sexually, there is no "male" or "female" distinction. Sexual reproduction was most likely an accident that had enormous benefits.

As for the isomers on proteins, protein construction is guided by enzymes that "proof-read" using only the desired isomers while rejecting the others.

[Lawman]

[quote]Fanataical
As for the eye, Check this out.[/quote]

[color="#000080"]Evolution of the Eye:

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?

If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?

Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, [b]could have gone [/b]through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

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

[i]Hint: I am a photographer[/i]

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. [b]It could have [/b]arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. [/color]

[i]A highly speculative piece.[/i]

[url="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp"]http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp[/url]

[color="#000080"]Simulation of eye evolution

PBS 1 goes to great lengths to convince us that the eye could easily have evolved. Dan Nilsson explained a simplistic computer simulation he published in a widely publicized paper.4 Taking his cue from Darwin, who started with a light-sensitive spot when ‘explaining’ the origin of the eye, Nilsson’s simulation starts with a light-sensitive layer, with a transparent coating in front and a light-absorbing layer behind.

Here is how the simulation proceeds. Firstly, the light-sensitive layer bends gradually into a cup, so it can tell the direction of light rays increasingly well. This continues until it is curved into a hemisphere filled with the transparent substance. Secondly, bringing the ends together, closing the aperture, gradually increases the sharpness of the image, as a pinhole camera does, because a smaller hole cuts out light. But because of the diffraction of light if the hole is too small, there is a limit to this process. So thirdly, the shape and refractive index gradient of the transparent cover change gradually to a finely focusing lens. Even if we were generous and presumed that such computer simulations really have anything to do with the real world of biochemistry, there are more serious problems.

However, the biochemist Michael Behe has shown that even a ‘simple’ light-sensitive spot requires a dazzling array of biochemicals in the right place and time to function. He states that each of its ‘cells makes the complexity of a motorcycle or television set look paltry in comparison’ and describes a small part of what’s involved:5

When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond [10-12 sec] is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but different from, GDP.)

GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to ‘cut’ a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.

A transparent layer is also far more difficult to obtain than the researchers think. The best explanation for the cornea’s transparency is diffraction theory, which shows that light is not scattered if the refractive index doesn’t vary over distances more than half the wavelength of light. This in turn requires a certain very finely organized structure of the corneal fibers, which in turn requires complicated chemical pumps to make sure there is exactly the right water content.6

Therefore, these simulations do not start from simple beginnings but presuppose vast complexity even to begin with. Also, in their original paper, the researchers admitted ‘an eye makes little sense on its own,’ because the ability to perceive light is meaningless unless the organism has sophisticated computational machinery to make use of this information. For example, it must have the ability to translate ‘attenuation of photon intensity’ to ‘a shadow of a predator is responsible’ to ‘I must take evasive measures,’ and be able to act on this information for it to have any selective value. Similarly, the first curving, with its slight ability to detect the direction of light, would only work if the creature had the appropriate ‘software’ to interpret this. Perceiving actual images is more complicated still. And having the right hardware and software may not be enough—people who have their sight restored after years of blindness take some time to learn to see properly. It should be noted that much information processing occurs in the retina before the signal reaches the brain.

[u]It is also fallacious to point to a series of more complex eyes in nature, and then argue that this presents an evolutionary sequence. This is like arranging a number of different types of aircraft in order of complexity, then claiming that the simple aircraft evolved into complex ones, as opposed to being designed.[/u] [b]For one thing, eyes can’t descend from other eyes per se; rather, organisms pass on genes for eyes to their descendants. This is important when considering the nautilus eye, a pinhole camera. This cannot possibly be an ancestor of the vertebrate lens/camera eye, because the nautilus as a whole is not an ancestor of the vertebrates, even according to the evolutionists[/b]![/color]

[Jason]

[quote name='Fanatical' post='502522' date='Jun 20 2007, 11:04 AM']My advice is to first read a book or google these subjects as they have been well studied. I don't feel like giving a biology lecture.
As for the eye, [url="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html"]Check this out[/url].

When microbes reproduce sexually, there is no "male" or "female" distinction. [b]Sexual reproduction was most likely an accident that had enormous benefits.[/b]

As for the isomers on proteins, protein construction is guided by enzymes that "proof-read" using only the desired isomers while rejecting the others.[/quote]

You are right, no male or female distinction. You are making my point.

Think about this for a second. Asexual reproduction is physiologically a simple process. One organism splits and replicates itself. For sexual reproduction to happen you need two different, but compatible organisms. And the physiology involved is far more complex. A female reproductive system would have to develop in very few, and possibly only 1 evolutionary leap. At the same time, a compatible male reproductive system would have to develop in few or 1 evolutionary leaps. That would be an extremely complicated mutation to develop ovaries, a womb, etc. That would be one hell of an "accident".

[Lawman]

[quote][color="#000080"]Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. [b]Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision[/b][/color][/quote]

I thought something didn't look right; so I did a litlle researching.

[url="http://www.tedmontgomery.com/the_eye/cnjnctva.html"]http://www.tedmontgomery.com/the_eye/cnjnctva.html[/url]

[color="#000080"]The conjunctiva is a mucous membrane that lines the inner surfaces of the eyelids and folds back to cover the front surface of the eyeball, except for the central clear portion of the outer eye (the cornea). The entire conjunctiva is transparent.

The conjunctiva is composed of 3 sections:

palpebral conjunctiva (covers the posterior surface of the eyelids)
[b]bulbar conjunctiva [/b](coats the anterior portion of the eyeball)
fornix (the transition portion forming the junction between the posterior eyelid and the eyeball)

Although the palpebral conjunctiva is moderately thick, the bulbar conjunctiva is very thin. The latter also is very movable, easily sliding back and forth over the front of the eyeball it covers. [u]Since it is clear, blood vessels are easily visible [b]underneath it[/b][/u]. Within the bulbar conjunctiva are “goblet cells” which secrete “mucin,” an important component of the pre-corneal tear layer that [b]protects and nourishes [/b]the cornea.[/color]

[color="#000080"]subconjunctival hemorrhage

A somewhat common condition, [u]caused by direct or indirect trauma to the eye[/u], is a “subconjunctival hemorrhage.” This shows as a spot or pool of blood underneath the clear conjunctiva, on top of the sclera or white part of the eye. The hemorrhage can be present on only one side or on both sides of the cornea, and it almost always is on only one eye.

The trauma causing the hemorrhage may be due to a blunt hit, hard coughing, pushing, straining, heavy lifting, or even hypertension. [u]Any of these things can cause a small blood vessel to break and to leak blood [b]underneath the conjunctiva[/b][/u]. A subconjunctival hemorrhage is one of the worst looking things [b]that is harmless and will not affect vision; no treatment is necessary[/b]. The blood should reabsorb and disappear in 1-2 weeks, depending on the extent of the bleeding.[/color]

[i]So, is there really a flaw in the design? I think not.[/i]

[Fanatical]

[quote name='Jason' post='502663' date='Jun 20 2007, 03:58 PM']You are right, no male or female distinction. You are making my point.

Think about this for a second. Asexual reproduction is physiologically a simple process. One organism splits and replicates itself. For sexual reproduction to happen you need two different, but compatible organisms. And the physiology involved is far more complex. A female reproductive system would have to develop in very few, and possibly only 1 evolutionary leap. At the same time, a compatible male reproductive system would have to develop in few or 1 evolutionary leaps. That would be an extremely complicated mutation to develop ovaries, a womb, etc. That would be one hell of an "accident".[/quote]

You're missing one of the major components of evolution. Time. And these are timescales almost beyond our simple comprehension. Our written history is less than 10,000 years, and we are talking of timescales of 10, 100 and even 1,000 times larger. I don't know why you think microbes would need a womb, or ovaries. The accident was probably two microbes trying to eat one another and one gains the other's genetic material and finds out it could combine them for offspring.

And Lawman, if you want to have a serious discussion on evolution then stick to reputable sources. I've been to Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis museum, and the crap that they make up to desperately hold onto their world view is appalling. And your eye article above is irrelevant to what I was quoted, since my quote deals with the retina of the eye and the conjunctiva covers the eye and has no direct connection to the retina.

The human eye has blood vessels on top of the retina:
[img]http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~vc/retina.jpg[/img]
This is why we have a "blind spot" in our vision. This is the area where the bloodvessels come through the retina and thus no photoreceptive cells.

[SINcinnati513]

[quote name='Fanatical' post='502838' date='Jun 20 2007, 11:48 PM']You're missing one of the major components of evolution. Time. And these are timescales almost beyond our simple comprehension. Our written history is less than 10,000 years, and we are talking of timescales of 10, 100 and even 1,000 times larger. I don't know why you think microbes would need a womb, or ovaries. The accident was probably two microbes trying to eat one another and one gains the other's genetic material and finds out it could combine them for offspring.

And Lawman, if you want to have a serious discussion on evolution then stick to reputable sources. I've been to Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis museum, and the crap that they make up to desperately hold onto their world view is appalling. And your eye article above is irrelevant to what I was quoted, since my quote deals with the retina of the eye and the conjunctiva covers the eye and has no direct connection to the retina.

The human eye has blood vessels on top of the retina:
[img]http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~vc/retina.jpg[/img]
This is why we have a "blind spot" in our vision. This is the area where the bloodvessels come through the retina and thus no photoreceptive cells.[/quote]


[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/41.gif[/img]

At least most of the creationists here don't buy into the Earth is 10,000 years old bullshit.

[Guest BengalBacker]

[quote name='Jason' post='502663' date='Jun 20 2007, 04:58 PM']You are right, no male or female distinction. You are making my point.

Think about this for a second. Asexual reproduction is physiologically a simple process. One organism splits and replicates itself. For sexual reproduction to happen you need two different, but compatible organisms. And the physiology involved is far more complex. A female reproductive system would have to develop in very few, and possibly only 1 evolutionary leap. At the same time, a compatible male reproductive system would have to develop in few or 1 evolutionary leaps. That would be an extremely complicated mutation to develop ovaries, a womb, etc. That would be one hell of an "accident".[/quote]


Perhaps something similar to this is how it started.

[url="http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/anphys/1999/Rice/Rice.htm"]http://www.bio.davidson.edu/Courses/anphys...9/Rice/Rice.htm[/url]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]Keep up the good work Fanatical ... [/b][/size][/font]

[Lawman]

[quote]And Lawman, if you want to have a serious discussion on evolution then stick to reputable sources. I've been to Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis museum, and the crap that they make up to desperately hold onto their world view is appalling. And your eye article above is irrelevant to what I was quoted, since my quote deals with the retina of the eye and the conjunctiva covers the eye and has no direct connection to the retina.[/quote]

[i]Again, the piece from PBS was highly speculative as I had pointed out (by the grammar used) and void of any true empirical data.

As implied, [/i]

[quote]-- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, [u]it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision[/u].[/quote]

[i]Again, this makes it sound that the nature of the eyes construction is flawed.[/i]

[i]What I presented to refute such claim...[/i]

[quote]The trauma causing the hemorrhage may be due to a blunt hit, hard coughing, pushing, straining, heavy lifting, or even hypertension. Any of these things can cause a small blood vessel to break and to leak blood underneath the conjunctiva. A subconjunctival hemorrhage is one of the worst looking things [b]that is harmless and will not affect vision; no treatment is necessary[/b]. The blood should reabsorb and disappear in 1-2 weeks, depending on the extent of the bleeding.[/quote]

[i]... and was not from Ken Ham (which I would disagree with your assessment of his qualifying status), but from Ted M. Montgomery, Optometric Physician.[/i]

[quote]And Lawman, if you want to have a serious discussion on evolution then stick to reputable sources.[/quote]

[i]What is the criteria requirement that qualifies one as a reputable source?[/i]

[color="#000080"]"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory, is it then a science or faith?" (Charles Darwin).[/color]

[i]Have you heard of Ashby Camp or Helen Fryman?[/i]

[i]What about French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé ?[/i]

[i]What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer's "Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, [b]these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform[/b]. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.[/i]

[i]from his book Evolution of Living Organisms , page 104[/i]

[quote]The human eye has blood vessels on top of the retina: This is why we have a "blind spot" in our vision. This is the area where the bloodvessels come through the retina and thus no photoreceptive cells.[/quote]

[i]Behold, we have mirrors to see behind us or we can simply turn-around.[/i]

[Jason]

[quote name='Fanatical' post='502838' date='Jun 21 2007, 12:48 AM']You're missing one of the major components of evolution. Time. And these are timescales almost beyond our simple comprehension. Our written history is less than 10,000 years, and we are talking of timescales of 10, 100 and even 1,000 times larger. I[b] don't know why you think microbes would need a womb, or ovaries.[/b] The accident was probably two microbes trying to eat one another and one gains the other's genetic material and finds out it could combine them for offspring.[/quote]

That's my point. Microbes don't. But organisms that reproduce sexually do. If the organism immediately preceeding the first organism to reproduce sexually didn't have at least some of the organs required for sexual reproduction, there is no way sexual reproduction could have evolved.

[Fanatical]

Jason, sexual reproduction is not the same across all life. Only mammals have used a womb for early development. Amphibians, reptiles, birds, marsupials, plants, fungi, insects, crustaceans, bacteria, etc. all reproduce sexually and do not have gestation in a womb. Not all life uses a male or female distinction, and still reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction is the combination of genetic material of two or more organisms to create the genetic material of the offspring.

And Lawman, the retina is [i]inside[/i] the eyeball, the conjunctiva covers the [i]outside[/i] of the eyeball. The two have no direct contact. The hemorrhaging your article is referring to occurs on the outside of the eyeball, not inside. Our eyes are not perfect, but they are what they are. Some animals have better eyes than ours.

And yes I provided an overview of eye development, from National Geographic. Obviously the best sources are from academic institutions and peer-reviewed journals. And Ken Ham is full of shit, and simply makes things up and dismissing observed data. Some of my personal favorites of his BS are gravitational shifting of light accelerating light beyond its constant speed so we can see objects 80,000 light years away, large "floating forests" which were destroyed by the great flood created all the fossil fuels and large rafts which allowed the animals to sail across the oceans without food or water for months to repopulate the world, and that the ancient super-continent Pangea formed under water, broke apart, and had all the continents shift to their current positions in 5 months.... anything that comes from his website is certainly suspect.

[bengals4ever]

As a question to all those mentioning "light-receptive dot" on a single cell organism, how did that dot come to be?


And also, Michael Behe, a biochemist a Lehigh University, found that evolution was mathematically impossible to create a bacterial flagellum, which depends on the coordinated movement of 30-40 parts. If one of these parts was not there, the flagellum would not work. They would all have to mutate at the exact same time, which would be an very very very very small probability of happening.

As Darwin himself put, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

It appears that the theory just broke down

[SINcinnati513]

Ever hear of Kenneth Miller or a mechanism known as the Type Three Secretory System?

The Type Three Secretory System is not used for rotary movement. It is one of several systems used by parasitic bacteria for pumping toxic substances through their cell walls to poison their host organism. Each molecule of secreted substance is a large protein with a definite three-dimensional structure which is more like a solid shape than a liquid. Each molecule is individually propelled through a carefully shaped mechanism, like an automate slot machine dispensing, say, toys or bottles, rather than a simple hole through which a substance might flow. The goods-dispenser itself is made of a rather small number of protein molecules, each one comparable in size and complexity to the molecules being dispensed through it. Interestingly, these bacterial slot machines are often similar across bacteria that are NOT closely related. The genes for making them have probably been copied and pasted from other bacteria: something that bacteria are remarkably adept at doing.

The protein molecules that form the structure of the TTSS are very similar to components of the flagellar motor. To the evolutionist it is clear that TTSS components were commandeered for a new, but not wholly unrelated, function when the flagellar motor evolved. Given that the TTSS is tugging molecules through itself, it is not surprising that it uses a rudimentary version of the principle used by the flagellar motor, which tugs the molecules of the axle round and round. Evidently, crucial components of the flagellar motor were already in place and working before the flagellar motor evolved. Commandeering existing mechanisms is an obvious way in which an apparently irreducibly complex piece of apparatus could evolve.


And as far as irreducible complexity goes, lets make an analogy using an arch. A free-standing arch of rough-hewn stones and no mortar can be a stable structure, but it is irreducibly complex: it collapses if any one stone is removed. How, then, was it built in the first place? One way is to pile a solid heap of stones, then carefully remove stones one by one. More generally, there are many structures that are irreducible in the sense that they cannot survive the subtraction of any part, but which were built with the aid of scaffolding that was subsequently subtracted and is no longer visible. Once the structure is completed, the scaffolding can be removed safely and the structure remains standing. In evolution, too, the organ or structure you are looking at may have had scaffolding in an ancestor which has been removed.