To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree. – Charles Darwin
I don't oppose to that quote, not at all. HOWEVER, to think that the all-mighty God would have created something as inefficient as the human eye (or "eye" as the redundant/useless visual receptor for cave and deep-sea animals) is equally, if not more, absurd.
but for one to call something inefficient would mean that one could do a better job? that would be EVEN more absurd with technology and science if mankind EVER creates something that truly rivals the human eye then we can call it inefficient, till then its the best this world has and that's mighty impressive in my books. Glory to God -worship
Bionic eyes are in fact in development, but often it is not the working mechanism which troubles the researcher, it's the non-rejection proves to be the biggest obstacle. Also, have you ever try changing ONE part of something? Like changing a chip on a motherboard? Unless there is convenient wiring to allow "plug and play", it is not fair ground to play for replacement parts. Not only do they have to be more efficient than the original parts, they need to work under the constraint of redundant and/or unmaintained framework. Ever wonder why sometimes people would rather tear down their house and rebuild it from ground up than to "repair" and "renovate" every little thing under the restraint of a crappy old house? Same logic.
upon reading this statement, first reaction is.. no way Darwin would have really meant that.. so this is what i found: http://www.aquaticape.org/darwin.html no offense, but believing in the face value of a quotation without understanding the context the statement was made, and using it without that understanding, is not what i will call intelligent..
And I was first to fall prey to :x All my science teachers must be rolling in their respective graves and beds >.<
^ ok imagine if i took his name away, the quote would still stand true... so..: "to suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest degree." there you go you got dead teachers -shock
lol.. never thought of that when i made that comment.. imagine taking away his name is as good as having no quote at all. the purpose of quoting someone's name behind a statement is to give credibility to the statement. without his name behind that statement, it will not mean the same to people who hears the quote. and the fact that the people who are arguing against natural selection choses to quote that statement in such a manner with Darwin's name behind it, speaks the obvious. it is intended for the statement to be misread. classic misquoting. so now.. with or without the maker of the statement in mind, i do accept the truth of he statement. it does seem absurd. lol.. whoever said that dead people are old people?
A quote holding true is quite subjective, and removing the actual quoting (or misquoting) makes it as credible as any other "niceties". And I am not aged 3, what is so surprising to have dead teachers? You don't have any teachers who died? Did you keep in touch with your primary school teacher to be sure of that? Nowadays, one doesn't need to be old to die, and one doesn't need to be old to know people who are dead.
Different species have different amounts of the set chromosomes. Can someone please explain to me how a species can gain or lose the amount of chromosomes in order for them to become a different species? im kinda at lost on how to explain it :S neways I do admit that the same kind of species can have a large variety of variation like different types of dogs however they still have the same amount of chromosomes that is required for their species, and they still work within the limitations of their genes. To my knowledge any recent proofs for evolution have only been based on these variations and i'd be quite careful in jumping onto any belief band wagon simply based on hypotheticals and faulty reasoning... Does anyone know any recent examples of species to species change that not only changed the outter characteristics of the animal but also added to the genetic material that that species had? i.e new genetic material that was previously absent in that species... if you can itd help me out alot ><
The amount of chromosome has nothing to do with development of a new species. For example, people with Down syndrome (extra chromosome 21) are not a new species. It is the expression of genes within the chromosome that affect the function and phenotype of an organism. Many factors influence the expression and silencing of genes and the selections of a new species. In addition, a lot of old school classification is not based on genetics.
yaa, when i was at primary school my mom was a teacher there :( she still is so im up to date with all things, ive also worked at my school a couple times, basically ive kept in touch with my teachers. i never call u aged though, that was fearless -innocent2 actually i remember one of my teachers dying from a serious illness, was terrible, healthy one day and bed ridden 3 weeks later. but it was surprising cus they are all science teachers for you???, thats how it seemed, eaither way i was just messing with you so don't take it to seriously
Yea I believe its true that alot of old school classifications are not based on genetics but shouldn't our recent developments in science which discovered the different ratios of chromosomes help us to further classify and show distinction between species? if we rely solely on old school classifications wouldn't it be naive to disregard new revelations within science? I'm aware of the addition of extra chromosomes in down syndrome but if anything all that it shows is that the addition or subtraction of set amount of chromosomes is impossible within species to species,i agree that it is the expressions of genes that affect function of types of organisms but as I said before these are only examples of species changing characteristics within the limits of their genetic information. It fails to consider how exactly does one species evolve into a distinctly new species which evolution purports to be true. Until their is proof of one species changing into a distinct new species through a increase and new addition of genetic material then all that can be said of evolution at this point is that it is a explanation of genetic variation not development of new species through adaptive processes.
The old school classification works right now because a lot of endanger animals species have similar genetic to nonendanger animals species of the same family. To protect these endanger animals, it is best to keep the current classification. Most genetic classification that I have seen is not based on the different ratios of chromosome, but variation within a conserve sequence. Potatoes and monkeys have the same chromosome number, yet the two are not related. The best example of addition is the endosymbiotic theory, which lead to the development of current eukaryote organism (plants and animals). The mitochondrial 16s DNA is the same in all mammals and prokaryaote. It is possible to track evolution of a species by checking the variation of the conserved mitochondrial ribosomal dna sequence to see have far the species have come from its one cell ancestors.
LOL now that goes beyond my understanding >< http://create.ab.ca/articles/eukary.html what dya think of this though?
