Eye evolution - Misunderstood

Originally posted by C Hess
So, if I understand you correctly, your reason for not accepting common ancestry is not because the bible specifically states otherwise, but because you find it hard to believe that incremental changes could produce radically different results from the initial form? You don't believe that two cells can become a multibillion celled, grown, human being either? ...[text shortened]... o. It's got nothing to do with this text I've got here that says reality started moments ago. 🙄

I believe as I point out that earlier that life has bad things happen to it all the time and
gave a list of just a few of them. Today when bad things happen we can lose a lot of life,
but we are really never in danger of being completely wiped out, but there are some
events that could happen that could do even that! Staking the deck so your theory cannot
but help to get where you want it to go in my opinion is a rejection of reason.

If life were limited to just one form in one place that would not be the case, if anything
very nasty were to happen all of life's eggs so to speak would all be in one basket. Were
that basket get hit with something nasty it all goes up. The theory states something that
sounds good and if you were to run the numbers with your calculator believing you only
get to keep the good and nothing ever can kill off the whole well of course you can
overcome all things.

Originally posted by C Hess
You don't think that there are any beneficial mutations, like the mutations of the PSCK9 gene in some individuals, which is an observed beneficial mutation?

I think we can acquire good mutations and bad, we observe it, it is not a matter of faith.

Originally posted by C Hess
Why do you think the process of evolution must have been so sensitive to disruptions in the past, but not now? I don't understand. Are you talking about abiogenesis again? Why do you think abiogenesis would have been such a delicate process?

It is difficult to avoid the topic of abiogenesis if we go back to the start of the evolutionary
process. I think life springing up in a completely sterile environment, would run into some
difficulties sticking around if anything that life required was taken away, or anything that
it needed was removed. Since the whole off all life now depends on it always having all
the requirements to remain intake without out anything nasty happening to it, every
moment then has all life hanging in the balance, so I'd call that a delicate process yes.

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is difficult to avoid the topic of abiogenesis if we go back to the start of the evolutionary
process. I think life springing up in a completely sterile environment, would run into some
difficulties sticking around if anything that life required was taken away, or anything that
it needed was removed. Since the whole off all life now depends on it alwa ...[text shortened]... every
moment then has all life hanging in the balance, so I'd call that a delicate process yes.

BUMP FOR MR JAY - YOU 'MISSED' THIS TWICE NOW

Again, details. I'm after details Kelly.

I want you to offer a counter explanation of how the eye came into existence. Much information has been presented in this thread as to how the eye came about by slow incremental changes due to natural selection. What do you have to offer as an alternative?

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you accept the creation story of the Bible your views about primitive life have to be quite
different than what those who think they know in science too, since Adam from day one
was talking to God not running around the jungle as if he were a monkey. The whole of
mankind started off completely formed, not a few years removed form being ape like
creat ...[text shortened]... s, or however far back as if they were facts, I do not place
such demands on people's opinions.

I take the views of others (in your terms) to extend my imaginative scope beyond the 20 odd mile limit to my field of vision and beyond the limits of my own slight life span and beyond the limits of my own finite education. "We see further because we can stand on the shoulders of giants." Your refusal to consider the view of others is a sad reflection on your own bigotry.

As you say your private opinions are of little interest but your public opinions expressed in a forum are matters for debate.

What most people do with scriptures if by no means irrelevant, when you open with the strong assertion that "If you accept the creation story of the Bible your views about primitive life have to be quite different than what those who think they know in science too." The reality is that your views do not have to be different (etc). Many people (so this is relevant after all) accept both scripture and science, but they do not confuse scripture for science. You do not have to be stupid to be religious.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think we are done, you have twisted my point of view into something it is not, just to go
into this name calling rant. I've made up my mind that people who cannot talk without
jumping into the gutter like this are not worth the effort. Do not look for another exchange
with me, it isn't going to happen we are done.

Righteous indignation indeed. You may have run out of answers but I will stop commenting on your contributions when I run out of interest.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
BUMP FOR MR JAY - YOU 'MISSED' THIS TWICE NOW

Again, details. I'm after details Kelly.

I want you to offer a counter explanation of how the eye came into existence. Much information has been presented in this thread as to how the eye came about by slow incremental changes due to natural selection. What do you have to offer as an alternative?

I didn't miss this I answered it.
I'll do it again for you, it was designed along with the rest of the body and it was perfect
when it was done, then evolution got a hold of it and started introducing flaws. The
reason I think evolution introduced flaws is because evolution does not care what
direction its mutations take a life form, it can be good or bad and we see a lot more bad
than good.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree evolution is not dependent on a common ancestry for all life! I agree there could
be several trees of life! I just don't think there is a single life form that was alive years ago
I have to call grandpa!

Even though all evidence points to that conclusion?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't even think it is that with respect to where did everything come from. It makes for
good science fiction but it stops short of answering anything, people have no idea about
the details around it and cannot speak to much of the event without just saying we don't
know and therefore it doesn't matter.

We don't have to know the details to draw conclusions from whatever evidence we have. And the more evidence we have, the stronger the case. Yes?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe as I point out that earlier that life has bad things happen to it all the time and
gave a list of just a few of them. Today when bad things happen we can lose a lot of life,
but we are really never in danger of being completely wiped out, but there are some
events that could happen that could do even that! Staking the deck so your theory cannot ...[text shortened]... ep the good and nothing ever can kill off the whole well of course you can
overcome all things.

I see. So you're argument is that you think life began in small numbers, and therefore any bad mutation would have a devastating effect on the population and completely ruin its continued success, and because we know from observation that bad mutations are far more common than good ones, the odds that this first form of life could have survived long enough for speciation to kick in are astronomically low?

Originally posted by C Hess
Even though all evidence points to that conclusion?

So you say, you do seem to know what ALL the evidence points to.
Do you believe what your claims are about this are all facts or just things people believe
now?

Originally posted by C Hess
We don't have to know the details to draw conclusions from whatever evidence we have. And the more evidence we have, the stronger the case. Yes?

If you learn more about anything you have a stronger case, but tell me just a few things
about that event please. What was the big bang before the bang? Where was it, how long
was it in that state before the bang, and what changed? Was there anything else around
before the bang? Where are you getting your information to answer any of these questions?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I didn't miss this I answered it.
I'll do it again for you, it was designed along with the rest of the body and it was perfect
when it was done, then evolution got a hold of it and started introducing flaws. The
reason I think evolution introduced flaws is because evolution does not care what
direction its mutations take a life form, it can be good or bad and we see a lot more bad
than good.

Evolution or evilution is really degeneration when applied to biological systems. The eye and all the rest of the body degenerates over time. This is proved by what now happens with the copying errors of the DNA code over time. 😏

Originally posted by KellyJay
I didn't miss this I answered it.
I'll do it again for you, it was designed along with the rest of the body and it was perfect
when it was done, then evolution got a hold of it and started introducing flaws. The
reason I think evolution introduced flaws is because evolution does not care what
direction its mutations take a life form, it can be good or bad and we see a lot more bad
than good.

You are correct, it was me who missed your response.

What flaws has evolution introduced to the eye? Are you talking specifically of the human eye? And when did these flaws come about?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You are correct, it was me who missed your response.

What flaws has evolution introduced to the eye? Are you talking specifically of the human eye? And when did these flaws come about?

What he is referring to is actually degeneration, as I pointed out in my previous post. I have been saying for a long time that there is really no such thing as biological evolution, but when people keep talking about it so much, even creationist begin to accept the term.

We don't know exactly when so-called flaws were introduced into the eye, if that is what they are. We have learned from the Holy Bible that God made everything good and we assume that must mean as perfect as they could be for the type of system created. So any flaws must have been introduced after man sinned against God. Aging of man at a faster rate and eventual death of the body supports this conclusion.

Today, the discovery of DNA and the operation of the cell and errors introduced in the DNA code during copying in reproduction is more evidence of this degeneration that some today call evilution.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

(Isaiah 5:20 KJV)