Another question for EVOLUTIONISTS????

Ok, some people have misunderstood my question about the eye, they use the argument that it is not perfect, lets leave that aside, the question is how did it even get there, because you cant have the eye without all its parts and it is not natural selection because to get the eyes parts, you need to add new information in the DNA and natural selection is not able to do so, let me quote from colin patterson

"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection.

No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism

is about this question.13"

And we know that mutation is not responsible because mutation does not add new stuff but rather replaces or breaks the DNA molecules, so far no good mutation has been experimented, it all leads to bad things, so how can mutation bring about the eye, or the feather of a bird from the scales of reptiles or the wings of bird from the dinosaurs that were trying to catch flies???

Update:

Ok, I just said natural selection, which is another name for adaptation, but like I told you adaptaion or natural selection does not have evolutionary powers, nor does add new information in DNA which is needed to bring about the eyes.

Update 2:

wow, these are just hypothesis, without any solid proof, natural selection does not explain the feathers, the diversities or animals, and think about how many fossils should be found?

lets see what Ali Demirsoy, an evolutionist himself has to say about cythochrome-c, an essential protein for survival:

he said that the possibility of this protein to come by chance is....

"as unlikely as the possibility

of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making

any mistakes".73

a single protein has so much of a narrow chance of coming into existing by chance that you can say it is zero, but you guys claim that all these millions and billions of them came by chance.

What about the fossil record, a 100 million year old turtle looks exactly the same and there are much more examples.

12 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Another creationist led astray by the "adding information" propaganda.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Well that was rambling.

    You can have the eye without all its parts. It started as just a light-sensitive patch on the skin, which would be very useful for finding shelter or working how close an organism is to the surface. These adapted and evolved until something resembling the eye appeared.

    Your argument about 'new information' is pretty nonsensical. When mutation occurs, a part of the genome is altered. It may not be beneficial, but it will be new. So I don't really understand what you're talking about.

    As for your quote from Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London, I can't find it anywhere other than on nutty Christian websites (where it is also attributed to a Dr. Luther D. Sutherland). But Patterson has been extensively misquoted by Creationists. Here is a link examing a similar misquotation of his: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html

  • 1 decade ago

    "you need to add new information in the DNA and natural selection is not able to do so"

    this is one of those statements that is true on its face, but misleading in general. selection can only remove variants from the gene pool. introduction of variants into the gene pool occurs by mutation, and you have completely ignored this. the process of mutation + selection adds information to the genome about the environment the organism inhabits. you are wrong.

    "And we know that mutation is not responsible because mutation does not add new stuff but rather replaces or breaks the DNA molecules, so far no good mutation has been experimented, it all leads to bad things, so how can mutation bring about the eye, or the feather of a bird from the scales of reptiles or the wings of bird from the dinosaurs that were trying to catch flies???"

    you're simply lying here, whether from ignorance or intent: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html

    so you're not just ignoring it... do you feel that it's necessary to lie to prove your point? doesn't that rather defeat the purpose of pretending to have a rational argument?

    you are all over the place. pick one topic and stick to it. stop changing the subject each time you are challenged. you are making no claims that cannot be easily refuted by consulting the index to creationist claims linked to above... perhaps if you learnt something about evolution, you might see why it is held to be a good scientific theory by the majority of informed rational people.

  • monzo
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    'Evolutionists: ''We Confess, Ida Is Not A Transitional Form, It Is A Complete And Perfect Living Being!''' This quote is, first of all, a pile of bilge, as you are implying that the notion of a transitional type is that of a man or women with a couple of ingredients lacking, like an airfix mannequin anybody forgot to attach the wheels directly to. That's creationist stupidity and has not anything to do with technological know-how. Secondly, the tale itself; anybody idea they'd observed an additional fossil ancestor of cutting-edge persons (observe the phrase ANOTHER) and extra research through SCIENTISTS confirmed this to be misguided. Aaaaaand your factor is? Since the speculation of evolution used to be on no account situated round 'Ida', and for the reason that clinical research is finished accurately for those causes, to make certain knowledge is proper, your implications are completely lacking the factor. The incontrovertible fact that errors and hoaxes ARE uncovered offers MORE credence to the proof that also stands, now not much less, because it suggests that study is continuously played to be certain present talents is honestly proper. So in different phrases, congratulations, you will have simply given an additional rationale why cutting-edge evolutionary concept has such a lot going for it. So you fail miserably. Buh-bye now.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Mutation is not a "breakdown" of the DNA molecules, it's a transposition of chemical markers. This change = new genetic information.

    Natural selection is the mechanism by which traits (from mutation of genes) are either favored due to environmental pressures, or sexual advantage, or are unfavorable and therefore do not survive to spread through the species.

    The eye evolved in many very tiny progressions from one very simple form (a photosensitive cell) to what we witness today in more complex structures. In fact, many of the eye's milestones can be observed in the mollusk family. For each of these organisms the evolutionary stage of their eye has been sufficient for their species survival. It's a living record of the evolution of the eye. In fact, the eye of the octopus is better than our own.

    Satisfied? And, were all those "?'s" really necessary?

  • 1 decade ago

    Look, you're just WRONG. Everthing you advance as an argument is simply incorrect, and until you learn something about the subject, you're just never going to get it.

    If you actually want to find out how evolution works, rather than just throw rocks at it, then you should give up on this idea that you can out-think everyone since Darwin, and READ.

    Start with this nonsense about 'mutation is always harmful'. It ISN'T. Even if one in a billion is beneficial, that's more than enough to keep supplying a range of new genomes for selection to work on. You're just missing the point.

    CD

  • 1 decade ago

    Mutations can produce new DNA, also virus can introduce new DNA too. As for the eye evolving it isn't really not that hard to believe if it happen over the span of hundreds of million years. So I don't agree with your statement.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    how many simple creatures do not have eyes but merely light sensitive cells and they cannot see but sense light, they can vaguely work out the direction the light comes from. not a simple adaption, place that light sensitive cell into a little depression. now if you make this pit a little deeper then you can guage the direction of the light even more clearly, it wastes less energy seeking out its food source and is more successful. the pit closes slightly and, voila, we have a camera obscura, (look it up), a pin hole camera, a picture of the world is projected on the back of the pit. instead of one light sensitive cell you now multiply them, it can make out patch works of light and dark, but you need a better brain to work this so only the brightest do well. now we have a creature who has an organ that can not only make out light and dark but also a picture of the world. so this little creature can go around and take advantage of this by gobbling up all of his unsighted brothers. there are creatures still around in all of these different stages of development, we don't even need fossils to trace the development of the eye. it's still here all around us. as for no beneficial mutations tell that to people who have suffered from MSRA, HIV/AIDS, FLU and all other bacterial, viral or parasitic diease. these little critters are constantly evolving to beat the immune systems of their hosts. we see this because they breed at such a fast rate, many generations in just a day, the overwhelming majority fail to produce a beneficial mutation but enough do so they can go on feasting on our flesh. why do you think plague is no longer much of a problem as it used to be? because in this case we out evolved the microbes. those who were not immune to it died out and they never left any descendants. wew are the descendants of people who's immune system had mutated in such a way that they survived.

    as for species, why do you think in such a black and white way. look at horses and donkeys, lions and tigers. they can breed so it shows they are in some way related, but they are not closely enough related to produce fertile offspring. they are drifting apart. in a few million years they will become totally seperated. darwins finches can still breed together but they don't as a rule because they have evolved in such a way that their breeding stratergies do not coincide.

    we have never produced a new species for the same reason that atilla the hun did not use abram tanks to beat the roman army, because we have not accumulated enough knowledge and we do not have the technology to do it.....yet. even your god took 6 days to create the universe and he had all that magic hocus pocus. please forgive us humble humans for not being omniscient and omnipotent, we're only flesh and blood, we need time.

    go and read some biology books, look at the berkely evolution website and think deeply and analytically about it.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The eyes parts evolved from much simpler versions of themselves. It's pretty well explained in this video.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_0...

    Also, it is possible for mutation to add information. This occurs when a DNA strand is imperfectly replicated, but the new strand codes for a set of enzymes in a previously uncoded order, thus leading to a new trait. It's explained here.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Not mutation, but adaptation. You should really read up about the progression of the eye from simple organisms like planaria to complex ones like humans. It makes perfect sense.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You are right

    they always say oh but sickle cell is evolution or virues getting immune is evolution

    sickle cell mutation results in a diminished capacity to carry oxygen, have a race over 100m with someone who is sickle cell and they will let you know in no uncertain terms of what they think of evolution

    when you get immune to chicken pox, or measles, is that evolution, have you now evolved

    of course not

    mutations take away DNA information, they do not add

    you can't mutate and get feathers if you have no feathers to begin with

    whats more

    with regards to abiogenesis they say amino acids came to rise over millions of years from the primordial soup

    amino acids which then combined to make RNA

    but you need RNA to make amino acids

    abiogenesis can not get past this

    therefore it can not take place

    even in a zillion years, adding more years does not change the problem

    you cant make proteins without RNA

    and RNA itself consists of proteins

    man can't repeat this

    nature can't blindly create this

    but obviously this is no problem for God,

    they prefer to live and die and go back to slime

    then submit to God and live in paradise....

    frightening isn't it

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.