Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[Nihilist_santa]

I mean the stomach and the eye should be enough to show the theory does not work. The eye only functions with all of its parts. You mean separately all of the parts formed over millions of years creating nothing but a useless place where an eye should be until one day a working eye? Never mind all of the neurological stuff that is related to sight which is merely a holographic representation of observed light replaying in your "mind".

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I mean the stomach and the eye should be enough to show the theory does not work. The eye only functions with all of its parts. You mean separately all of the parts formed over millions of years creating nothing but a useless place where an eye should be until one day a working eye? Never mind all of the neurological stuff that is related to sight which is merely a holographic representation of observed light replaying in your "mind".

The eye is not the example you want to use for this argument. We have a wealth of examples from the most primitive light sensing organs to the current human eye that show us exactly how our eye developed over the eons. Try again.

[Shamalam]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The eye is not the example you want to use for this argument. We have a wealth of examples from the most primitive light sensing organs to the current human eye that show us exactly how our eye developed over the eons. Try again.

Examples which he will conveniently choose to ignore, like so many others before him. I'm just about done with these trolls, as fun as it's been. They are barely even trying anymore. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Shamalam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Examples which he will conveniently choose to ignore, like so many others before him. I'm just about done with these trolls, as fun as it's been. They are barely even trying anymore. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am not in the group laying claim to "mountains of evidence and examples" in support of my position then choosing to post none.

You guys still haven't addressed the stomach or tings like the pleiotropy.

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

From Wiki. - Pleiotropy of genes impacts the evolutionary rate of genes and allele frequencies. Traditionally, it has been expected that evolutionary rate of genes is related negatively with pleiotropy; however, this has not been clearly found in empirical studies.[7][8] Contrary to this traditional expectation, it has been theoretically demonstrated that evolutionary rate should be positively related with pleiotropy by itself as the square root of gene pleiotropy;[9] however, other effects of pleiotropy may explain why a clear relationship between evolutionary rate and gene pleiotropy has not been found at the genomic scale.[9]

I love how the idea is pooed on by saying no emperical studies have "clearly "shown the negative effects but then provide how theoretically evolution demonstrates this being something positive.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Shamalam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Examples which he will conveniently choose to ignore, like so many others before him. I'm just about done with these trolls, as fun as it's been. They are barely even trying anymore. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not sure how providing valid counterpoints to an argument can be considered trolling. If you look at any of my posts I haven't tried to degrade or insult anyone who has disagreed with me. I've merely provided a counterargument. That's not trolling.

[Shamalam]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not sure how providing valid counterpoints to an argument can be considered trolling. If you look at any of my posts I haven't tried to degrade or insult anyone who has disagreed with me. I've merely provided a counterargument. That's not trolling.

Being willfully ignorant is still trolling. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The eye is not the example you want to use for this argument. We have a wealth of examples from the most primitive light sensing organs to the current human eye that show us exactly how our eye developed over the eons. Try again.

Wrong. Those are merely examples of less sophisticated eyes than our own. Observing that something is less sophisticated than something else is not the same as proving that the less sophisticated organism can turn into a more sophisticated organism through gradual means. Try again.

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by Nihilist_santa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I mean the stomach and the eye should be enough to show the theory does not work. The eye only functions with all of its parts. You mean separately all of the parts formed over millions of years creating nothing but a useless place where an eye should be until one day a working eye? Never mind all of the neurological stuff that is related to sight which is merely a holographic representation of observed light replaying in your "mind".

There are also many single celled organisms that have rudimentary photoreceptors.

Do you even science?

[Nihilist_santa]

I guess I will have to take your word for it huh? Perhaps a link or reference to what you are talking about would help solidify your position.

[Ahldagor]

if you're bringing in the fossil evidence claim, and not considering a force of geology like erosion then you're trying to stipulate a specific that won't hold up to basic scrutiny. it's hard to analyze a fossil that has been weathered into dirt particles that are spread hundreds if not thousands of miles by the wind.