We have two eyes! Why?
Nuggin

La Quinta, CA

#21 Aug 25, 2009
AKSamurai wrote:
I'm still convinced that one creature had only one... and I don't mean it has to be a complete eye organ as we know it. The very first formation or molecule of it, or that light skin patch. It was one! Then it divided into two, and started evolving.
You're assuming that the light sensing patch appeared prior to bilaterial symetry. Why? There's no reason to assume that.
Samurai

Palestinian Territory

#22 Aug 25, 2009
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence?
I'm convinced that you've got antlers growing from your head. I'm just convinced of it! I'm sure I'm right.
Damn, how did you know?

I gotta be more careful pickin' my expressions cause you guys seem good at using them against me.
(English isn't my first language! Have mercy!)

Ok. All I'm saying is that, it makes more sense to think that a cell with certain DNA's divided to make 2 daughter cells with the same DNA's, than for this cell to randomly appear twice! Why is it unlikely that it happened? If I had the time machine I'd prove ya'll that this is the way it happened. But for now ya'll just have to believe me! ;)

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#23 Aug 25, 2009
Samurai wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn, how did you know?
I gotta be more careful pickin' my expressions cause you guys seem good at using them against me.
(English isn't my first language! Have mercy!)
Ok. All I'm saying is that, it makes more sense to think that a cell with certain DNA's divided to make 2 daughter cells with the same DNA's, than for this cell to randomly appear twice! Why is it unlikely that it happened? If I had the time machine I'd prove ya'll that this is the way it happened. But for now ya'll just have to believe me! ;)
That's simply not how DNA works. I blame this on the popular press who insist on calling DNA the blueprint of life. It is not. A far better analogy would be a set of rough guidelines about how to construct an organism.

Your idea fails because a mutation that creates one or more light sensitive cells in an organisim that has already developed bi-lateral symetry (something our phylum - chordata - did very early on) will therefore necessarily produce the cells on both sides. The one instruction will be used in both places when building that part - that is how bilateral symetry works. That is why your idea does not work.

Level 1

Since: Nov 08

Boise, ID

#24 Aug 25, 2009
Samurai wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. All I'm saying is that, it makes more sense to think that a cell with certain DNA's divided to make 2 daughter cells with the same DNA's, than for this cell to randomly appear twice! Why is it unlikely that it happened? If I had the time machine I'd prove ya'll that this is the way it happened. But for now ya'll just have to believe me! ;)
Keep going, you were almost there. These cells continue to divide until you get a ball of cells. This ball then divides into three cell types known as a triploblastic organism. This triploblastic organism also develops bilateral symmetry. This is true of the majority of triploblastic organisms, EVEN THE SPECIES THAT DON'T HAVE EYES. Bilateral symmetry predates the emergence of eyes, so it makes much more sense that when eyes evolved there was one on each side just as appendages mirror each other on each side of the organism.

A good example is the planerian. It has bilateral eye pits and a bilateral, ladder like nervous system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art...

This demonstrates that the tissues from which eyes are derived are bilateral in nature.
Samurai

Palestinian Territory

#25 Aug 25, 2009
That was helpful and interesting. Thanks to you two!

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#26 Aug 25, 2009
Samurai wrote:
<quoted text>
Damn, how did you know?
I gotta be more careful pickin' my expressions cause you guys seem good at using them against me.
(English isn't my first language! Have mercy!)
Ok. All I'm saying is that, it makes more sense to think that a cell with certain DNA's divided to make 2 daughter cells with the same DNA's, than for this cell to randomly appear twice! Why is it unlikely that it happened? If I had the time machine I'd prove ya'll that this is the way it happened. But for now ya'll just have to believe me! ;)
And, yet, you have no reasonable scientific evidence for this belief. It's your own ignorance of biology that fosters this belief. If you understood biology better, you wouldn't be asking this question. It's already been answered, so I'll just give you the two-word explanation: BILATERAL SYMMETRY.
Samurai

Palestinian Territory

#27 Aug 26, 2009
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
And, yet, you have no reasonable scientific evidence for this belief. It's your own ignorance of biology that fosters this belief. If you understood biology better, you wouldn't be asking this question. It's already been answered, so I'll just give you the two-word explanation: BILATERAL SYMMETRY.
You have no evidence for evolution either. You believe in it cause it makes more sense than God.
The Dude

London, UK

#28 Aug 26, 2009
Samurai wrote:
<quoted text>
You have no evidence for evolution either. You believe in it cause it makes more sense than God.
Okay, that's a joke, right?
Samurai

Palestinian Territory

#29 Aug 26, 2009
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, that's a joke, right?
No. I'm afraid its not.
If you could give a plain evidence you would stop seeing so many creationists, wouldn't you?
The Dude

London, UK

#30 Aug 26, 2009
Samurai wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I'm afraid its not.
If you could give a plain evidence you would stop seeing so many creationists, wouldn't you?
No.(shrug)

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#31 Aug 26, 2009
Samurai wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I'm afraid its not.
If you could give a plain evidence you would stop seeing so many creationists, wouldn't you?
Completely wrong.

Creationists are extremely good at ignoring evidence. If it says something they don't like, it goes in one ear and right out the other. Their mental filters reject it.
Nuggin

La Quinta, CA

#33 Aug 26, 2009
Samurai wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I'm afraid its not.
If you could give a plain evidence you would stop seeing so many creationists, wouldn't you?
Creationists are creationists for RELIGIOUS reasons. Just like you and the Jews have been fighting each other over make believe "holy land" - facts play NO PART in the decision making process.

You can show a Creationist indisputable proof of evolution and they simply ignore it.

You can prove to them that their claims are factually incorrect AND don't stand up to even internal logic - and they simply ignore it.

There is no RATIONAL behavior which stands in the face of religion. It is crazy people believing crazy things based ENTIRELY on the premise that: "My mommy is always right."

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#34 Aug 26, 2009
Samurai wrote:
<quoted text>
it makes more sense to think that a cell with certain DNA's divided to make 2 daughter cells with the same DNA's, than for this cell to randomly appear twice!
What you meant to say is, "it makes more sense TO ME to think..." After all, anyone with any understanding of DNA would know why your bass-ackwards extrapolation of the development of complex systems applied to multicellular organisms is completely incorrect. Just because you're too uneducated to understand, and it makes more sense to you to think wrong things are true because of that, doesn't make reality bend to your dumbed-down version of how things work.

To put it more simply, doesn't it make sense to you to think that before humans had ten fingers, they had 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and, originally, one finger? Same with our toes! Do you think that's how a ten-fingered pair of hands developed?
Specks

Memphis, TN

#35 Jan 20, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Evidence?
I'm convinced that you've got antlers growing from your head. I'm just convinced of it! I'm sure I'm right.
I don't need to provide any evidence. Can't you see I just said I'm convinced?
You do realize, don't you, that you've convinced yourself that you're right by telling yourself you're right without having seen datum one that supports your hypothesis, right? I mean, only the stupidest person would just throw out ideas and claim them to be true without any understanding of the subject and without any evidence to back it up.
So, do you have antlers growing out of your head? Does my claim have ANY weight just because I said I was convinced? That's exactly as much weight as your argument carries, and that's exactly why.
I think you posted on the wrong topic, this comment looks like something that was meant for a "god vs evolution" debate.
LowellGuy

Lowell, MA

#36 Jan 21, 2012
Specks wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you posted on the wrong topic, this comment looks like something that was meant for a "god vs evolution" debate.
No, it belongs exactly where it is.
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#37 Jan 21, 2012
The funny thing about this thread (other than the bump it got) is the insistence by the pro-science guys that a person's theory shouldn't be considered because there's no evidence for it.

This betrays a deep misunderstanding of the philosophy of science and is a sad commentary on the pro-evolution crowd.

Theories are not and indeed cannot be supported by evidence. Scientific theories are theories that make predictions about what would be observed in the real world if the theory were true. However, simply because these things are observed does not confirm the theory in any way because it is a logical fallacy.

A simple illustration of this fallacy would be the theory: Bill Gates is a rock star. If he is a rock star, he will be rich. Bill Gates is rich therefore we know that he is a rock star. This is a false chain of logic.

What is required of scientific theories is that they be FALSIFIABLE - that is that you could observe something in the real world that would tend to disprove the theory. For example, the theory that heavier rocks fall faster is a scientific theory and one that has long been abandoned because repeated tests have shown that this is not true.

The theory that a creature evolved a single eye first is not strange at all nor does the person need evidence to back the theory up. Unfortunately the idea isn't scientific because no matter how many fossils are found previously there is always the possibility that just prior to that fossil there was another one-eyed creature that hasn't been found yet.

On the other hand, the same argument could be apply to the entire evolutionary belief system: It's great, but it's not falsifiable and therefore not science but rather a "metaphysical research programme."

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#38 Jan 21, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
The funny thing about this thread (other than the bump it got) is the insistence by the pro-science guys that a person's theory shouldn't be considered because there's no evidence for it.
This betrays a deep misunderstanding of the philosophy of science and is a sad commentary on the pro-evolution crowd.
Theories are not and indeed cannot be supported by evidence. Scientific theories are theories that make predictions about what would be observed in the real world if the theory were true. However, simply because these things are observed does not confirm the theory in any way because it is a logical fallacy.
Oh, so you don't know shit about science, and now you're going to tell us that we're doing it wrong. Thanks, jackass!
Peru_Serv wrote:
A simple illustration of this fallacy would be the theory: Bill Gates is a rock star.
That's not a theory. That's a claim. Theories are explanations with which accurate predictions about future evidence can be made. Tell us all how "Bill Gates is a rock star" is an explanation.
Peru_Serv wrote:
If he is a rock star, he will be rich. Bill Gates is rich therefore we know that he is a rock star. This is a false chain of logic.
Yes, it's a false chain of logic. But, it didn't start with a theory, it started with a claim. That claim was the foundation of the logic. Theories are not claims. They are rigorously tested, confirmed, and unrefuted explanations (hypotheses).
Peru_Serv wrote:
What is required of scientific theories is that they be FALSIFIABLE - that is that you could observe something in the real world that would tend to disprove the theory. For example, the theory that heavier rocks fall faster is a scientific theory and one that has long been abandoned because repeated tests have shown that this is not true.
That isn't a scientific theory, either. Jesus, do you know anything about science? You don't get to call absolutely anything a theory and suddenly it is. That's not how science works, even though it would help your ridiculous argument if it was.
Peru_Serv wrote:
The theory that a creature evolved a single eye first is not strange at all nor does the person need evidence to back the theory up.
It's not a theory. NOT A THEORY. NOT. A. THEORY.
Peru_Serv wrote:
Unfortunately the idea isn't scientific because no matter how many fossils are found previously there is always the possibility that just prior to that fossil there was another one-eyed creature that hasn't been found yet.
On the other hand, the same argument could be apply to the entire evolutionary belief system: It's great, but it's not falsifiable and therefore not science but rather a "metaphysical research programme."
Why do you hate science?
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#39 Jan 21, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so you don't know shit about science, and now you're going to tell us that we're doing it wrong. Thanks, jackass!
<quoted text>
That's not a theory. That's a claim. Theories are explanations with which accurate predictions about future evidence can be made. Tell us all how "Bill Gates is a rock star" is an explanation.
<quoted text>
Yes, it's a false chain of logic. But, it didn't start with a theory, it started with a claim. That claim was the foundation of the logic. Theories are not claims. They are rigorously tested, confirmed, and unrefuted explanations (hypotheses).
<quoted text>
That isn't a scientific theory, either. Jesus, do you know anything about science? You don't get to call absolutely anything a theory and suddenly it is. That's not how science works, even though it would help your ridiculous argument if it was.
<quoted text>
It's not a theory. NOT A THEORY. NOT. A. THEORY.
<quoted text>
Why do you hate science?
The funny thing about your post, aside from the gratuitious use of profanity, is that my quote from Karl Popper (regarded as one of the finest philosophers of science from the 20th century) resulted in your retort, "Why do you hate science?" Since you obviously don't know who he was, I refer you to http://www.friesian.com/popper.htm

To wit, I don't hate science, I simply understand it for what it is, know what it's limitations are, and don't necesarily subscribe to its founding assumptions. I have yet to hear an atheist explain to me in a satisfactory manner why I should have an a priori philosophical commitment to naturalism. But perhaps you'd like to try.

The idea that "Bill Gates is a rock star" is a claim is rather facetious considering that the word "claim" isn't often used in discussions of science and how it's done. I did a Google search for "scientific claim" and the online consensus seems to be that a scientific claim is, "something proven based by experiment/ tests and its result." So that we don't get bogged down in jargon, maybe you should explain what you meant by "claim" because I certainly don't think you meant the above.

To bring the discussion to point, let's examine the belief that all life descended from one common ancestor (which is a common theory advanced by atheistic evolutionists). If that theory is true, what might we see? Well, say the Darwin apologists, we would see that all life had a similar structure (DNA, RNA, right-handed proteins, etc.) and since we DO see that in nature, we know that all life has descended from a common ancestor.

Unfortunately, however, this line of reasoning is a classic logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent." Expressed in symbols we can say:

Let P = The Theory of Common Descent
Let Q = The observations regarding DNA, RNA, etc.

We can then break down the logical chain to:

If P, then Q
Q
therefore P.

This is no different a logic chain than the Bill Gates = Rock Star allegory stated previously.
The Dude

Ellesmere Port, UK

#40 Jan 21, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
To wit, I don't hate science, I simply understand it for what it is, know what it's limitations are, and don't necesarily subscribe to its founding assumptions. I have yet to hear an atheist explain to me in a satisfactory manner why I should have an a priori philosophical commitment to naturalism.
That was all that was needed.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#41 Jan 21, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
The funny thing about your post, aside from the gratuitious use of profanity, is that my quote from Karl Popper (regarded as one of the finest philosophers of science from the 20th century) resulted in your retort, "Why do you hate science?" Since you obviously don't know who he was, I refer you to http://www.friesian.com/popper.htm
To wit, I don't hate science, I simply understand it for what it is, know what it's limitations are, and don't necesarily subscribe to its founding assumptions.
That's why you use "theory" to cover absolutely anything you say. You're scientifically illiterate AND a liar. Congratulations, you're 2 for 2.
Peru_Serv wrote:
I have yet to hear an atheist explain to me in a satisfactory manner why I should have an a priori philosophical commitment to naturalism. But perhaps you'd like to try.
Easy. Why should we assume there is something other than what is natural? And, what is something other than what is natural capable/incapable of? Without answering those questions, you must necessarily begin your search with natural explanations for natural phenomena.
Peru_Serv wrote:
The idea that "Bill Gates is a rock star" is a claim is rather facetious considering that the word "claim" isn't often used in discussions of science and how it's done.
Exactly, which is why it's not science, nor a scientific theory.
Peru_Serv wrote:
I did a Google search for "scientific claim" and the online consensus seems to be that a scientific claim is, "something proven based by experiment/ tests and its result."
Listen: scientific theories are explanations. As soon as you can demonstrate how "X is (modifier)" qualifies as an explanation, you'll win. Thus far, you have not. You've merely used it as a foundational fact from which a chain of logic was run. That's not an explanation.
Peru_Serv wrote:
So that we don't get bogged down in jargon, maybe you should explain what you meant by "claim" because I certainly don't think you meant the above.
Claim: a declarative statement of fact that has yet to be verified with evidence.
Peru_Serv wrote:
To bring the discussion to point, let's examine the belief that all life descended from one common ancestor (which is a common theory advanced by atheistic evolutionists).
Do you care what theistic evolutionists have to say about it? Or, is this purely atheists vs. theists? You do know that the majority of scientists, and evolutionists in general, are theists, right? The theory of evolution by natural selection, or descent with modifications, is accepted by the vast majority of theists AND atheists.
Peru_Serv wrote:
If that theory is true, what might we see? Well, say the Darwin apologists, we would see that all life had a similar structure (DNA, RNA, right-handed proteins, etc.) and since we DO see that in nature, we know that all life has descended from a common ancestor.
They didn't start with "common ancestor." They started with "here's all the evidence we have. What is the most reasonable, parsimonious, consistent-with-the-evidence explanation we can devise for the evidence we have?" You're suggesting that they simply started with "common ancestor." You are wrong.
Peru_Serv wrote:
Unfortunately, however, this line of reasoning is a classic logical fallacy known as "affirming the consequent." Expressed in symbols we can say:
Let P = The Theory of Common Descent
Let Q = The observations regarding DNA, RNA, etc.
We can then break down the logical chain to:
If P, then Q
Q
therefore P.
This is no different a logic chain than the Bill Gates = Rock Star allegory stated previously.
There is, for the very reason I cited above. No matter how much you ignore how scientific theories come to be, it will not change how scientific theories come to be, nor why they are such powerful things. You are a liar.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 34 min karl44 20,649
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 56 min DanFromSmithville 142,666
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 172,002
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 4 hr GTID62 289
Dr. David Berlinski corrects himself on whale e... 4 hr Paul Porter1 52
Beware of Kamikaze Snakes. They Are Evolving in... 7 hr Paul Porter1 38
News Bobby Jindal: I'm fine with teaching creationis... (Apr '13) Sat Chimney1 248
More from around the web