Slashdot Mirror

The Evolution of Eyes

The "troll" ranking is another example, and it's sad because it's censorship, plain and simple.

I agree.

As to the point-by-point refutation, you can skip all that if you want and just direct me to a website that shows the intermediate fossil record for the transition between a primitive animal and the modern animal it was supposed to have evolved to, say, ape and man.

My favourite example is the whale:

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

All fossils are shown (click on the pictures for the fossils) and the step-by-step evolution is clear.

Does this help? I can provide other examples if you are interested.

I'd like to see at least two intermediate fossils, please.

Here are many:

http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm#whales

This illustrates the evolution of whales from land mammals.

By the way, has anyone "invested" in evolution asked themselves if they could possibly be wrong?

All the time.

This is why more than one dating method is often used to check the age of fossils (radioactive decay + position in rocks). There are frequent controversies about how different animal groups are related (such as dinosaurs and birds).

Questioning is at the core of science.

Evolution and Abiogenesis are two seperate concepts, it's no bloody wonder you seem to see two theories! The Theory of Evolution only deals with life after it begins, when Natural Selection can begin to have an effect. How that life came to be is certainly studied, but it isn't part of the theory of evolution.

If you have a problem with the Theory of Evolution itself, you'll let us know, won't you? All too often the problems that people claim to have with the theory are because they don't understand it.

Abiogenesis is the pet strawman of many of the detractors of the ToE, It's such a shame they can't ever seem to argue about the theory on its own merits.

I find it hilarious that anti-evolution folks want the pro-evolutionists to document every single step in the chain of life, from abiogenesis, through every single transitional form in the fossil record. (Wait till one tells you there are no transitional fossils of the evolution of whales, for instance!) Even every change (In proper order!) of gene or organelle that gave rise to specific functions within a creature or cell is demanded - But for themselves, the criteria is 'Gawd, that looks complicated. God musta dun it! See? Proof!' No one proposes a method or mechanism, you don't have to make any predictions that can be inconveniently falsified, You don't have to worry about peer review - No one has to do even a single test! All you have to do is admit that you don't understand something, so it MUST have been God hisself.

Guess what. Your ignorance is -anything- but proof of a loving, caring, all-powerful, and all-knowing god. I'd consider it far more telling evidence of the opposite conclusion.

What? Some all-powerful being made the entire universe, let it bake and cool for 13 billion years, just to watch a bunch of half-bald monkeys torture and kill each other over reasons as stupid as skin color or proper penis trimming? 'God is Love', and yet more people have been killed in His name than for any other reason in history, and He does nothing to stop it?

Somehow, I think the evolutionists have a hell of a lot more empirical data to support their theory than the creationists have ever had. The scientific data has been making predictions for over 100 years, and every one has proven right so far. Some may have returned unexpected data that caused minor changes in the theory, but that is merely fine-tuning, minor quibbles on exactly how this or that process interact. - The theory of Evolution by mutation and Natural Selection has withstood the slings and arrows of its detractors for all this time, and grown stronger and stronger with every study.

I do understand some of the reasons why evolution (and the Scientific Method in general) has seen so much hate directed at it by religion - Each new answer we discover, every secret that Science unlocks, pushes 'God' and the supernatural into a smaller and smaller box, the box of Unexplained Mysteries. Those whose power and authority comes from their religion would very much like to keep the status quo, their bastion of power over the minds and morals of the people they can control. As the mysteries dissolve, people see less and less reason to look to them for guidance or to blindly follow their orders 'from God'.

Actually, Darwin did - that, as we found more fossils, we would start to find the transition forms between species. That didn't happen.

in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."

Over 99% of Biologists agree that evolution is fact.

Secondly, they eye didn't suddenly evolve fully formed. you can read lots of links here if you are inclined: http://www.origins.tv/darwin/eyes.htm

About your comment about all the different limbs, have you ever noticed how all mammals are on the lowest level very similar? We all have 4 limbs, two eyes, etc? This was determined in our evolution over a billion years ago. The limbs mammals have evolved from fins/flippers. The four limb combination came around before we ever stepped on land. It has stayed this way as it is the minimum practical number of limbs you can get by with. Extra limbs waste a lot of energy and is only practical for insects. I heard a (fit) human can outrun any animal if given enough time. They may be faster but only using two legs is a lot more efficient.

About evolutionists being wrong at the end of your comment, the only way we could be wrong is if false evidence was planted by these aliens/god. There are millions of bones and fossils that all point to evolution. Sometimes fossils are found that change the exact timeframe, or introduce new extinct species but they all agree in their age and locations with evolution.

The existance of fossils and strata are simply fact. They exist. Various theories about how and when they formed are not necessarly fact. However they do exist, so any theory that does not provide a way for them to exist is wrong. Simple creationist theories of how the earth was formed rely on 'God is a big practical joker who likes to mess with your head' The God of the bible doesn't do stuff like that. (IMHO)

Dating methods are many, and they all agree too well that the earth is old for any reasonable person to question. (barring the practical joker of course) See here for specifics about the trees.

People who say evolution is not true are either ignorant* of the facts, (this can be fixed through study) or they think that an evolving world is incomaptible with the existance of God, (simply not true, but you do have to drop the medievial interpretations of genisis 1 and 2, and other parts of the bible)and they have personal evidence that he exists.

*I am using ignorant to mean 'don't know', not 'stupid' here!

Siviram replied more eloquently than I can, but I'd just like to point out the fallacy in the creationist argument you mentioned. As used by the public, a theory is little more than a reasonable guess. One might say "I have a theory that germans love david hasselhoff" In scientific discourse a theory is much more strictly defined. A theory is a falsifiable explanation that has stood up to rigorous testing and is generally accepted by the scientific community. Special relativity is "just a theory" too. Next time someone confuses the two definitions, you might want to refer them to this page.

Evolution is a fact

Obviously not a scientist - nothing is a fact - it's all just a theory.

Here are five links explaining why evolution is a fact.

And just in case you're too lazy to click the links and read the damn text - I know from experience that most of you fundie types are really that lazy - here is a sound-bite that even you can't ignore:

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them." [Stephen Jay Gould]

Clear enough? Or perhaps you'd like to claim that the late great Stephen Jay Gould was not a scientist?

When I did my Biology degree (10 years ago) one of the first statements made, when teaching Evolution, was that Chimps have DNA that is up to 98% the same as humans.

Amazing! They've been saying this for years. The problem is that the human genome was only mapped a couple of years ago, and I'd bet they haven't mapped the Chimps - so how did/do they know this?

I claim you are a liar. Even a first year biology student is taught how the similarity was determined. It's an estimate based on the rate of hybridization. It's simply impossible for you to have a biology degree and not know this.

"A quick method of measuring changes in DNA structure is to mix the DNA from two species, then measure by how many degrees of temperature the melting point of the mixed (hybrid) DNA is reduced below the melting point of pure DNA from a single species. The method is generally referred to as 'DNA hybridization.' As it turns out, a melting point lowered by one degree centigrade means that the DNAs of the two species differ by roughly 1 percent." [http://www.netherworld.com/~walkerk1/chap1.html]

And before you make the obvious (and incorrect) claim that hybridization isn't an accurate measure, you would do well to educate yourself on the topic. If you or anybody else could disprove hybridization you would be famous overnight.

Is there a point in debating this?

No, which is why I don't bother. Creationists purposefully ignore contrary evidence, overstep their area of expertise, fradulently claim skills and knowledge that they do not have, and repeat "arguments" that have already been shown to be false.

As I've said before, I don't debate with creationists. I treat them with the contempt I'd reserve for any religious nutcase who perverts science and attacks education. I ridicule them. I attack them. My purpose is not to enlighten you, but to make you stop talking.

In the end how can you say that evolution is a fact?

Because it is a fact. That you bring up the tired old argument of "evolution is just chance" is exactly why I don't bother with debate. You repeat this refuted argument as if it's still a matter for debate! It is not.