Posted on 10/22/2007 9:07:09 PM PDT by LibWhacker
You are reading these words right now because 600 million years ago, an aquatic animal called a Hydra developed light-receptive genes—the origin of animal vision.
It wasn't exactly 20-20 vision back then though.
Hydras, a genus of freshwater animals that are kin to corals and jellyfish, measure only a few millimeters in diameter and have been around for hundreds of millions of years.
Scientists at the University of California, Santa Barbara studied the genes associated with vision (called opsins) in these tiny creatures and found opsin proteins all over their bodies.
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
Do us a favor, then, and explain what your mathematician says, then how the "complexity issue" (which, apparently, has been done to death), was dealth with by Dawkins and E.O. Wilson. I'm not a kook, I'm open to seeing what you've got to offer. In case you're wondering, I'm a Christian who doesn't place God in the literal box of 6 24-hour days.
Yes but this is your entry, And that was not any sort of argument at all.Exactly, you don't dignify the kook with an argument.
Ha, even better. +1
Do us a favor, then, and explain what your mathematician says, then how the "complexity issue" (which, apparently, has been done to death), was dealth with by Dawkins and E.O. Wilson. I'm not a kook, I'm open to seeing what you've got to offer. In case you're wondering, I'm a Christian who doesn't place God in the literal box of 6 24-hour days.A mathematical refutation is here
The eyes have it, naturally.
It does indeed. Thanks for the link and the explanation.
So if I look back over those few million years I should see lots of transitional models and many more with inferior, or non-functioning imaging capabilities that were selected for discontinuation?
It does indeed. Thanks for the link and the explanation.Thanks for the open mind. Precious few of those around here. :)
Comes with the territory, I'm afraid. Better than DU, KOS, or HuffPost though. =). At least we're Conservative fuddy-duddies.
Ketsu is at it again. What is funny about lightweights like Ketsu is it arrogantly spews insults thinking it is taking intellectual positions, it attempts to use words it clearly doesn't understand, and it retorts to positions nobody has taken - this level of sophistication is usually relegated to the elementary school (no offense to six-year-olds) - still it thinks it is clever.
You might be lucky enough to see a dozen or so examples. The rest got recycled...
It's a story I know.
Same reason people accept the Biblical story, I guess.
Excellent!
Well, did you think we planned this?
*groan*
Not me. I want photographs!
The environment applies selective pressure. In regions where malaria is endemic there is selective pressure that maintains the sickle cell anemia gene within the population because having one copy of the gene confers resistance to malaria. Darwin spoke of both environmental selection and used as a parallel, human selection for desired traits among domesticated species. Far from being ‘absolutely contrary to Darwinian Orthodoxy’ it was expounded upon clearly and repeatedly throughout ‘Origin of Species’.
The environment does not apply anything - unless you are referring to a past tense abstraction created by man. The environment does not have the ability to do anything - the environment is an abstract concept created by man, not an entity capable of doing anything in the active tense
Far from being ‘absolutely contrary to Darwinian Orthodoxy’ it was expounded upon clearly and repeatedly throughout ‘Origin of Species’.
That makes absolutely no sense in the context of my statement. I am guessing you are replying to my comment about the possibility of a security camera reproducing - to claim this is impossible is to deny the foundational princple of evolution - something from nothing...over large amounts of time. (don't confuse possible with probable)
Because you're positing that evolution has a direction. It doesn't. Speciation happened to proceed the way it has partly by selection, but partly as well by chance, and it could have proceeded in a nearly infinite number of other directions as well. The odds of any one particular outcome occurring are small, but that's also irrelevant.
I was hoping that, without any others of it’s kind to mate with, it might evolve a form of asexual reproduction. Or would that be “de-evolve”,since we started with asexual reproduction before organisms figured out just how much fun sex was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.