Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Oct 18, 2019 1:37 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 3.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Some Notes on Evolution 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Discussion Leader
BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2077
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 79
Thanked: 777 times in 602 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

 Re: Some Notes on Evolution
DB Roy wrote:
If you get hiccups while playing one of the members of the violin family, that can ruin a recital.

I'm sure it would be much worse if you're playing a wind instrument! Although hiccups might make smooth jazz saxophonists a little more interesting.
:bananadance:



The following user would like to thank LanDroid for this post:
Harry Marks
Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:13 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genuinely Genius


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 824
Thanks: 36
Thanked: 467 times in 356 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Some Notes on Evolution
Litwitlou wrote:
From what I understand all life evolved from single cell organisms. To pick fish, from the vast array of life forms in the millions of years before the existence of hominids as the reason for hiccups, is far-fetched. Yes, hiccups can ruin a recital but so can a psychopath with an AR15. From what life form did we inherit sociopathy? There is no particular reason we should have sociopaths. They serve no purpose.

Hiccups are an overwhelmingly innocuous side effect of the evolution of our digestive and respiratory systems. Fish need not enter the equation as per Occam's Razor. I read your explanation of the fish/hiccups theory and remain spectacularly unconvinced.


As I stated, these are NOT my ideas. Take it up with Neil Shubin.

Quote:
I am very curious to know where you found the information on which you based that theory.



https://www.livescience.com/33688-hiccup-purpose.html

Why Do We Hiccup?
By John B. Snow January 27, 2012 Health

It’s safe to say you don’t remember your first hiccup, since it probably occurred before you were born. It is typical for developing human fetuses to have hiccups in the womb, and yet even though we experience them throughout our lifetimes, the cause of these involuntary actions has defied explanation.

To unravel the mystery of why we hiccup — which serve no obvious useful purpose — scientists are looking into our evolutionary past for clues among our distant relatives. One promising candidate: amphibians, in particular tadpoles.

The mechanics of what happens during a hiccup have fueled this theory. A hiccup, known in medical circles as a singultus, includes a sharp contraction of the muscles used for inhalation — the diaphragm, muscles in the chest wall and neck among others. This is counteracted, at the same time, by the inhibition of muscles used during exhalation.

Here, the back of the tongue and roof of the mouth move upward, followed by the clamping shut of the vocal chords, aka the glottis. This last bit, the closing of the glottis, is the source of the eponymous “hic” sound. And, as you no doubt know from first-hand experience, this process doesn’t just happen once but repeats in a rhythmic fashion.

RECOMMENDED VIDEOS FOR YOU...
Tadpoles seem to exhibit a similar physiological behavior.

“Halfway through its development a tadpole has both lungs that breathe air and gills for breathing water,” William A. Whitelaw, a professor at the University of Calgary, wrote in Scientific American. “To breathe water, it fills its mouth with water and then closes the glottis and forces the water out through the gills.” This hiccup-like action is seen in many primitive air-breathers, such as gar, lungfish and other amphibians that have gills.

Another clue linking hiccups in humans to these creatures is the electrical origin of the hiccup trigger in our brain, according to Neil Shubin, a professor of organismal biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago. As related by the Guardian: “Spasms in our diaphragms, hiccups are triggered by electric signals generated in the brain stem. Amphibian brain stems emit similar signals, which control the regular motion of their gills. Our brain stems, inherited from amphibian ancestors, still spurt out odd signals producing hiccups that are, according to Shubin, essentially the same phenomenon as gill breathing.”

If hiccups are a remnant of the genetic code passed down by our amphibian ancestors, can it be true that they perform no beneficial function in humans, despite persisting for the last 370 million years since our ancestors first stepped onto dry land?

Christian Straus, a scientist at Pitie-Saltpetriere Hospital in Paris, has put forth a theory that hiccupping might be a mechanism that helps mammals learn to suck, which involves a series of similar movements. While plausible, this theory will be difficult to prove, Allen Pack, an expert in neurobiology at the University of Pennsylvania, told the BBC.

Until Straus and his colleagues can demonstrate a correlation between the areas of the brain that control suckling and those that trigger hiccups, the purpose of the mysterious singultus will remain just that — a mystery.



The following user would like to thank DB Roy for this post:
Harry Marks
Thu Aug 29, 2019 10:14 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4375
Location: NC
Thanks: 1859
Thanked: 1925 times in 1442 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Some Notes on Evolution
Quote:
If hiccups are a remnant of the genetic code passed down by our amphibian ancestors, can it be true that they perform no beneficial function in humans, despite persisting for the last 370 million years since our ancestors first stepped onto dry land?

This is very interesting and it sounds plausible, but remains one of several possible explanations. Here's another one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3504071/

Excerpt:
Quote:
Rather than continuing as a vestigial reflex whose purpose has evolved away, I propose that the hiccup may be a surprisingly complex reflex to remove air from the stomachs of young suckling mammals.

"Complex" being the key word. If there's one overriding consistency in science, it is that things always end up being more complex than we first supposed!

So there's no need to take it up with Neil Shubin, author of Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body, since there is no consensus about why we hiccup, no dogma to overturn. Only many mysteries to explore!


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Harry Marks
Fri Aug 30, 2019 12:35 pm
Profile
Years of membership
Droppin' Knowledge

Silver Contributor

Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 385
Location: New Jersey
Thanks: 196
Thanked: 173 times in 139 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Some Notes on Evolution
DB Roy wrote:
As I stated, these are NOT my ideas. Take it up with Neil Shubin.



Neil Shubin didn't post that here. I know evolution is a fact. The point is we need to interject some common sense here. We hiccup because of something we inherited from fish? Stop it. Just because someone's put that crap in a book backed by a theory that makes little sense and can't be proven doesn't mean anyone needs to take it seriously.


_________________
You loved Fake News. You raved over Fake Weather. Coming soon... Fake Sports!
Any Competent Adult 2020


Wed Sep 04, 2019 8:02 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genuinely Genius


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 824
Thanks: 36
Thanked: 467 times in 356 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Some Notes on Evolution
I'm only going to respond to the hiccup thing one more time and then I am done. I need to move on with other ideas and processes of evolution.

Another thing that links hiccupping to the fish ancestor is that fetuses in the womb hiccup very frequently. So much so, that if a pregnant woman does not feel her fetus hiccupping virtually everyday, doctors would be concerned about its viability. Fetuses begin to hiccup at the earliest at around 8 weeks. That is the stage at which the ears begin to form. The inner ear cannot form if the fetus does not start losing its gill slits because those slits repurpose themselves into the bones of the inner ear. So as the slits begin transforming, the baby can, of course, no longer breathe through those slits. And at that same time, the baby starts to hiccup. It's trying to breathe through gills it doesn't have anymore.

While it still has gill slits, the fetus swallows the most disgusting crap you can think of--amniotic fluid, for example. You know what amniotic fluid is? Urine. Fetal urine. The fetus drinks the fluid, which is originally water taken in from the mother's body through the placenta. It drinks it, pisses it out, drinks it, pisses it out, etc. Ultrasounds will show the fetus's belly greatly distended because its full of this fluid.
It's also breathing it through its gill slits. Doesn't seem to bother it. Only at 8 weeks does it start to hiccup when its gill slits start disappearing.

As for the possibility of the fetus using the reflex to prepare for suckling, who says that too wasn't repurposed from the original reason for hiccupping?



The following user would like to thank DB Roy for this post:
geo
Thu Sep 05, 2019 7:14 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4375
Location: NC
Thanks: 1859
Thanked: 1925 times in 1442 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Some Notes on Evolution
Litwitlou wrote:
DB Roy wrote:
As I stated, these are NOT my ideas. Take it up with Neil Shubin.


Neil Shubin didn't post that here. I know evolution is a fact. The point is we need to interject some common sense here. We hiccup because of something we inherited from fish? Stop it. Just because someone's put that crap in a book backed by a theory that makes little sense and can't be proven doesn't mean anyone needs to take it seriously.

There's no question that life started in the oceans. As Dawkins has said—not facetiously—our "185 Millionth Great Grandfather" was a fish. As DB Roy mentions, look at the gills on a developing fetus. It really isn't much of a stretch to suppose that hiccups are a vestigial holdover from our aquatic heritage, and quite possibly repurposed during mammalian evolution. I'm not sure what all the hubbub is all about. Yes, it's still theoretical, but quite plausible. There are all kinds of vestigial artifacts in our evolutionary history. For example, that men are far more likely to develop inguinal hernias is something inherited from fish.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-13278255


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:31 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genuinely Genius


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 824
Thanks: 36
Thanked: 467 times in 356 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Some Notes on Evolution
geo wrote:
There's no question that life started in the oceans. As Dawkins has said—not facetiously—our "185 Millionth Great Grandfather" was a fish. As DB Roy mentions, look at the gills on a developing fetus. It really isn't much of a stretch to suppose that hiccups are a vestigial holdover from our aquatic heritage, and quite possibly repurposed during mammalian evolution. I'm not sure what all the hubbub is all about. Yes, it's still theoretical, but quite plausible. There are all kinds of vestigial artifacts in our evolutionary history. For example, that men are far more likely to develop inguinal hernias is something inherited from fish.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-13278255


I wonder what our innate fishness might have to do with the fact that male bodies float in water face down and female bodies float in water face up.



Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:51 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Reading Addict


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1360
Thanks: 1432
Thanked: 678 times in 550 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Some Notes on Evolution
Do fish get inguinal hernias from heavy lifting?



Sat Sep 07, 2019 11:08 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4375
Location: NC
Thanks: 1859
Thanked: 1925 times in 1442 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Some Notes on Evolution
Harry Marks wrote:
Do fish get inguinal hernias from heavy lifting?

I don't think this is a serious question, but the article explains it.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:44 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genuinely Genius


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 824
Thanks: 36
Thanked: 467 times in 356 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Some Notes on Evolution
geo wrote:
There's no question that life started in the oceans. As Dawkins has said—not facetiously—our "185 Millionth Great Grandfather" was a fish. As DB Roy mentions, look at the gills on a developing fetus. It really isn't much of a stretch to suppose that hiccups are a vestigial holdover from our aquatic heritage, and quite possibly repurposed during mammalian evolution. I'm not sure what all the hubbub is all about. Yes, it's still theoretical, but quite plausible. There are all kinds of vestigial artifacts in our evolutionary history. For example, that men are far more likely to develop inguinal hernias is something inherited from fish.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-13278255


This article also discusses the fishy origins of the hiccup. Good article!



Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:54 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genuinely Genius


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 824
Thanks: 36
Thanked: 467 times in 356 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Some Notes on Evolution
Not so hard to see where the human face came from:

Image

Image

This looks surprisingly like a cat:

Image

Is it any wonder where human teeth, lips and gums come from:

Image

Image

Image

After all these hundreds of millions of years, we still ARE fish!



Fri Sep 13, 2019 6:07 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genuinely Genius


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 824
Thanks: 36
Thanked: 467 times in 356 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Some Notes on Evolution
Before we go any further into evolution, we need to understand our genomic structure. The following is a very concise description of how the structure comes together but it's detailed enough to get us by as we encounter more complicated concepts of evolution. One reason creationists don't understand evolution is because they don't understand these basics so it is important to understand them.

Cells, Genes, DNA, RNA and Proteins
So what are genes made of? There are made of DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid. They form long strands composed of four molecules called bases because they are the basis of which DNA is composed. These bases are simply designated as A, C, G and T. Our genetic code is dependent upon the sequence of these bases that form into a double spiral or helix. These two helices are connected together with rung-like “steps” composed of attracted bases. A from one helix attracts to T of the other helix while C of one helix attracts to the G of the other.

Image
For this DNA to propagate, first the process of transcription must take place. Transcription occurs when the double helix unwinds and “mates” up with a strand of RNA or ribonucleic acid. Unlike DNA, RNA is short and only comes as a single helix. Transcription is facilitated by an enzyme called RNA polymerase or RNAP and this enzyme unwinds the DNA double helix and synthesizes the RNA strand to be coded. It oversees the process and then rewinds the DNA strand after transcription is complete. RNAP even has the capability to fix errors in the transcription process and even replaces part of the RNA strand that may prove problematic.

Image
The DNA’s code is then “transcribed” onto the RNA. While RNA is less stable than DNA, it is also far more mobile. After RNA copies the DNA genetic code, it separates from the DNA which then rewinds into the double helix configuration again. The RNA heads for the membrane of the cell’s nucleus within which the DNA is trapped. The membrane has tiny openings which the RNA can squeeze through but which the DNA cannot.

Different types of RNAs exit the nucleus. Some carry coded instructions from the DNA on how to form proteins. These are called messenger RNAs or mRNAs. These mRNAs pass these instructions on to the rest of the cell. The proteins are extremely important. There are thousands of types of proteins that do everything from unwind the DNA for transcription, some take nutrients from our food and distribute them throughout our bodies, some carry oxygen, some fight infection, some help breakdown food. The process of converting the sequences carried by mRNA into proteins is called translation. Other mRNAs send messages to our various organs. For example. mRNA tells our livers to make insulin.

Other types of RNA are transfer RNA or tRNA. mRNA is a strand that has a three-base connection point for each individual tRNA’s codons. This attachment point is called the anticodon loop. A codon is simply three bases. So the anticodon loop of the tRNA attach to the complementary codons on mRNA strand. At the other end of the tRNA is an amino acid. The codon combination on the tRNA determines the type of amino acid that can attach. These amino acids are the building blocks of protein. The sequence of amino acids attached to the tRNA lined up along the mRNA strand determines the type of amino acid.

Image
The agent responsible for translation is ribosomal RNA or rRNA. Ribosomes read the sequence of amino acids on the tRNA and group them together to make proteins.

Image
That, in a nutshell, is our genome, i.e. our complete DNA sequence. There are approximately 21,000 genes in our bodies coding protein. These are made up of about three billion A, C, G and T bases. That makes about 1.8 meters or five feet of DNA packed into each cell nucleus. Obviously, this DNA has to be folded and packed into the nucleus just right. To achieve this, the DNA strand has to wind around proteins called histones. Another protein binds the DNA strand to the histones. There are four types of histones (H2A, H2B, H3, H4) bound together in a double set by yet other proteins so that they form a tightly packed cube. The DNA wraps around this pack of histones to form a nucleosome bead. The nucleosomes are strung together by linker DNA something like a pearl necklace. Another type of protein, H1, then bind around the bead to form “scaffolds” that binds the beads together for packing purposes. Each nucleosome consists of 146 bases of DNA.

Image
All this packed protein, histones, DNA and RNA is called a chromatin. A chromatin is wound into a tight packed spiral demonstrating the fractal nature of the genome. Spirals of DNA wound into a bigger spiral.

Image
The chomatin coils are then coiled up into a chromosome. There are 23 chromosomes that divide the genome into sections. There is one double helix strand in a chromosome all coiled up. Humans get a chromosome from each parent. So there are 46 chromosomes per cell. Each cell then has 92 strands of DNA.

Image

We'll leave off here as we are about to enter into how cells divide and bodies are formed in the womb. That's a bit more complicated and we should be sure we understand these basics first. So go over all this stuff until you have in your head pretty good and then we'll continue on.



Sat Sep 21, 2019 4:57 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Almost Comfortable


Joined: Sep 2019
Posts: 16
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 1 time in 1 post
Gender: None specified

Post Re: Some Notes on Evolution
Science is a new age religion folks, and all religions are merely a form of social control to the masses.

So you want to talk about evolution, then lets talk about your boy Darwin. Even if you don't think he stole Alfred Russel Wallace's ideas and published them first then you must concede that even Darwin doubted his theory. The transitional fossils he assumed would be found to support his claims were never found and it's been over 150 years. Most of the supposed pre human bones are not human at all, but really they are primate bones being passed off as human.

Cell complexity, also known as "Irreducible Complexity" alone could disprove evolution here is what Darwin said about the human eye, " To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

The complicated biological structures in a cell exhibit irreducible complexity and simply cannot come about in a gradual manner evolving over time. With the invention of the electron microscope we can observe that all the components of the cell must be functioning or the cell will die. That means that all the component of the cell came into existence at the same time they did not slowly evolve over time.

Speaking about things coming into existence at the same time the Cambrian Explosion also disproves evolution because most plants and animals came into existence in a rapid burst inconsistent with slow gradual evolution.

You can also just look for yourself there has never been an animal that changed into another one... If evolution was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs, but instead there are none. You may be able to alter a breed's traits, but adaptation and natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. You can alter a dog breed with selective breeding, but you can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs.

Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”


_________________
Check out my book on Amazon titled: Tales of Magic: A Magical Passage by Arthur Rich and Susan


Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:46 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Book Discussion Leader
BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2077
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Thanks: 79
Thanked: 777 times in 602 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Some Notes on Evolution
The previous post strikes me as a Gish Gallop. Although mindful of the general admonition to ignore the bait, I'll bite on one just for fun.
Quote:
Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”

This is absurd for several reasons.
  1. That quote is incomplete. In several places I see him quoted as "it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed." Ah, Schwartz is already stating one exception.
  2. It is not necessary to physically observe the entire process of speciation to know that it exists. There is an alpine mountain range of evidence, do your own research. Schwartz recognizes that humans do no live for millions of years.
  3. The statement is false. Speciation has been observed in plants many times. Here are some examples of observed speciation of animals, note the summary.


_________________
When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you; even though you multiply your prayers, I will not listen. Your hands are covered with blood.
Isaiah 1:15

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Exodus 21: 23 - 25


Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:09 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genuinely Genius


Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 824
Thanks: 36
Thanked: 467 times in 356 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Some Notes on Evolution
Magus wrote:
Science is a new age religion folks, and all religions are merely a form of social control to the masses.

So you want to talk about evolution, then lets talk about your boy Darwin. Even if you don't think he stole Alfred Russel Wallace's ideas and published them first then you must concede that even Darwin doubted his theory. The transitional fossils he assumed would be found to support his claims were never found and it's been over 150 years. Most of the supposed pre human bones are not human at all, but really they are primate bones being passed off as human.


Human ARE primates! And yes there are transitional life-forms. I posted one earlier of the 100-million-year-old wasp-bee proving that bees once had wasp-like traits because they were a form of wasp because they evolved from a common ancestor of both bee and wasp.

Quote:
Cell complexity, also known as "Irreducible Complexity" alone could disprove evolution here is what Darwin said about the human eye, " To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."


Your reason for quoting Darwin is laughably non-comprehensive. He was not expressing any doubt of his theory. You just cut him off to make it look that way so allow me to finish what Darwin actually wrote:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

In other words, he was saying that trying to account for the evolution of eye seems hard to explain, it isn't. It's like doing mathematics. You look at a calculus problem takes up several lines on a page with all kinds of arcane symbols and you initial reaction is that it's too difficult to calculate but it is not. You break it down in stages, reducing the complexity until you finally have a few numbers and symbols that can be solved with simple algebra. So it is with something as complex as an eye. Understand that it formed in stages over a very long stretch of time--tested and verified by various creatures that survived, bred and spread those genes into the gene pool for future generation to absorb and it's actually easy to understand.

Darwin continues:

In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens-shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class.

Does that read like someone who doubted his own theory? No. There is nothing mysterious about the lens of the eye. It is simply skin. That's what it started off as--just a fold of transparent skin. Embedded in that fold was a nerve that responded to light. The light was good because it meant the sun was shining and the organism could warm up. But other creatures also drawn to the light might encounter the organism and eat it. Many will be eaten but many will live to breed and produce offspring. Due to random mutation, this transparent layer may differentiate into layers, the layers will vary in thickness and distance from one another. The light-sensitive nerve needs to sense light through these layers and by purely random means, a certain thickness and distance proves advantageous in focusing that light onto the nerve. Darwin explains:

Further we must suppose that there is a power always intently watching each slight accidental alteration in the transparent layers; and carefully selecting each alteration which, under varied circumstances, may in any way, or in any degree, tend to produce a distincter image. We must suppose each new state of the instrument to be multiplied by the million; and each to be preserved till a better be produced, and then the old ones to be destroyed. In living bodies, variation will cause the slight alterations, generation will multiply them almost infinitely, and natural selection will pick out with unerring skill each improvement. Let this process go on for millions on millions of years; and during each year on millions of individuals of many kinds; and may we not believe that a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass...

Oh, but Darwin doubted his own theory. Right.

Quote:
The complicated biological structures in a cell exhibit irreducible complexity and simply cannot come about in a gradual manner evolving over time. With the invention of the electron microscope we can observe that all the components of the cell must be functioning or the cell will die. That means that all the component of the cell came into existence at the same time they did not slowly evolve over time.


Garbage. If that were true, we wouldn't have prokaryotes and eukaryotes. If all cells must have a nucleus then prokaryotes cannot exist but they do and in tremendous abundance. Yet, the identical molecular mechanisms are observed to be at work in both types of cells. This couldn't have happened by chance nor would there be any reason for it to. It means both come from a common ancestor.

Quote:
Speaking about things coming into existence at the same time the Cambrian Explosion also disproves evolution because most plants and animals came into existence in a rapid burst inconsistent with slow gradual evolution.


Basically, there is NOTHING in the so-called Cambrian Explosion that disproves evolution. It wasn't a sudden change. It occurred over millions of years and that is plenty of time for evolution to take place. The only relevant question is why it occurred and that's where there are no ready answers. Could have been any number of perfectly explainable events. Some scientists aren't even convinced there was any real explosion of life at this time. For example, as life was evolving into animals with skeletons, it makes sense that these would leave fossils behind but prior to that, animals were soft and without skeletons and simply left no fossils. You need boney remains for fossils to form. Other things like like the movements of massive glaciers and continental drift and massive deluges and earthquakes mess around with the fossil record. Environmental conditions could have stabilized to make it very conducive for life-forms to begin proliferating which, in turn, increases the fossil record. There could have been any number of conditions to account for an "explosion" and this "explosion" has been observed to occur much later in the fossil record as well. In short, while we don't know a whole lot about what might have been all the causes of the Cambrian Explosion, there is no evidence that anything particularly unusual occurred and it had nothing to do with violating the Theory of Evolution.

Quote:
You can also just look for yourself there has never been an animal that changed into another one...


Ridiculous. Explain horses and donkeys then. Clearly came from a common ancestor and can even mate to produce mules. That right there is proof that they were once the same animal. EVERY animal came from an earlier animal.

Quote:
If evolution was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs, but instead there are none.


What do you mean by partially developed features and organs?

Quote:
You may be able to alter a breed's traits, but adaptation and natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit.


What is a DNA limit?

Quote:
You can alter a dog breed with selective breeding, but you can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs.


This demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of evolution and how it works. Of course, you can't develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs! What does that prove other than the toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube??

Quote:
Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”


Because it takes millions of years.



Wed Sep 25, 2019 9:32 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 1, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 3.00 on the average.Evaluations: 1, 3.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Announcements 

• Promote Your Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your Non-Fiction Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank