Quote:

And also, while natural selectiopn is debated, and exact relationships betwen organism, that evolution occured is indeed a scientific fact.



I think you have that backwards. Natural selection is a fact. You can debate it all you want, but its observable. What we don't observe is a creature gaining new data, we simply have to assume it happened based on evidence of the past. Which is fine and dandy, but it definately doesn't push evolution into the realm of fact.

That you think its fact just goes to show how horribly misrepresented the guesswork of evolution is. But then again, to you, that I don't think its fact just goes to show how loony I am so I guess we're at a stalemate here.

Oh well.

Just one other thing you got wrong. If the evolutionary timeline is true, then the exact relationships between organisms aren't as exact as you say they are. According to the timeline, the eye would have had to evolve on its own at least (according to evolutionists) 36 times. There was a theory that it was a shared gene in the primitive form of the eye, but that was just one zoologist, and now most evolutionists agree it would have had to have happened near to forty or more times.

Its easy enough to draw a diagram of half-eyes step-by-stepping the construction of the eye, but the eye is much more complex than a simple step-by-step children's diagram that evolutionists would show someone.

Quote:

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 to the -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.

And the eye-cup sounds simple enough when Dawkins describes it, but dozens of proteins control the structure of cells and their arrangement, and needs molecular supports to hold the structure in place.

A major objection to the Dawkins scenario is that 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.



The idea that this happened 40 times, or probably more is scoffable. But you can keep believing it, because you have old bones and we all know fossils can explain what observable science cannot.

JCL once said, if it can happen, it probably has. But how many hundreds of thousands of times can this statement apply within the finite amount of time allowed for evolution?

Evolutionists like to dumb things down to little preschooler diagrams whenever the evidence makes things look shady for them. Which I find hilarious. Their dumbed down version (a simple lense with a simple receptor in the background) already requires an almost unfathomable complexity that would have arisen by chance, without the ability for the animal to even use it yet. But we're the quack ones.


I'm going to regret posting this, though. I really shouldn't get back into this.


Here's where I got Dawkin's preschooler diagram and some of the info on the evolutionary history of the eye.

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/eyes.htm

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/13/06 03:52.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."