Human eye:
Birds' Eye
Posted on 07/03/2006 10:05:56 AM PDT by doc30
We humans customarily assume that our visual system sits atop a pinnacle of evolutionary success. It enables us to appreciate space in three dimensions, to detect objects from a distance and to move about safely. We are exquisitely able to recognize other individuals and to read their emotions from mere glimpses of their faces. In fact, we are such visual animals that we have difficulty imagining the sensory worlds of creatures whose capacities extend to other realms--a night-hunting bat, for example, that finds small insects by listening to the echoes of its own high-pitched call. Our knowledge of color vision is, quite naturally, based primarily on what humans see: researchers can easily perform experiments on cooperative human subjects to discover, say, what mixtures of colors look the same or different. Although scientists have obtained supporting information from a variety of other species by recording the firing of neurons, we remained unaware until the early 1970s that many vertebrates, mostly animals other than mammals, see colors in a part of the spectrum that is invisible to humans: the near ultraviolet. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
'Loss of function' means decline. A system that was previously functional has been lost. Defining evolution as 'change' merely made it consistent with a created biology that is in decline. It doesn't make 'goo to you' evolution true. I am constantly amazed at the lack of thinking ability of evos.
Losing existing function is not 'God making them that way'. Just the opposite. It is a 'loss of information' from a previously created state. Notice that snakes aren't said to be *growing* legs; no, they are *losing* them. Same w/ blind cave fish and other such 'examples' of evolution.
'Loss of function' examples simply do not support evolution except in the eyes of its most ardent supporters who turn evidence of decline into 'proof' of evolution.
Why do you think you have to do that? Because any real evidence to support evolution is missing? Hmmm?
Nothing wrong w/ cartoons, per se.
But, if you use cartoons as support for your theology, you deserve it.
1) I'm sure Windsong is perfectly capable of speaking for him- or herself.
2) Trudeau is a Leftist, that's true, but like a clock, even a Leftist can be right periodically. That particular cartoon was spot on. Like it or not, strains of bacteria and viruses have evolved to be resistant to some of our medications.
Human eye:
Birds' Eye
No thanks. I prefer threads that have something to do with conservatism.
Thanks, anyway.
OK Tokra. I can see that you don't even realize that a new 'species' doesn't uniquely support evolution. Just 'cause the evos say it does doesn't make it true. You would actually have to *think* about these things.
Speciation is the fragmentation of an existing genome. A new species will carry a sub-set of the existing genetic information of the founder population. If it carries the full complement of genetic information from the founding population, it *is* the same species. It can't be a different species if it carries the same information.
This means that any new species has *less* variety and *less* genetic informatin that the original population. This is not evidence of 'goo to you' evolution. This is decline. Less information.
You guys aren't even thinking. You're just swallowing what you're told. And you call yourselves conservatives. Sheesh.
Yep, and sometimes in unexpected ways.
Just offering an opinion.
Take it or leave, I really don't care.
Actually, it started at post #3....
That street runs both ways.
Get it?
LOL!
Oops. I meant take it or leave IT.
Sorry.
YEC INTREP
Understood, and I did take your opinion and response to it. I guess by saying "take it or leave it," you're really saying you don't want people to respond to your posts. OK by me.
You'll see by my post #113, which crossed with yours, I understood that too. :)
Not really. But, if being civil is not too much to ask, respond away.
I didn't think my #103 to you, which started this sidebar conversation, was at all uncivil, but whatever.
Upon a more careful re-reading of your post, I must agree with you. Sorry.
Really?
Ever read any of Peter Bagge's cartoons?
You might find them very good politically and pretty funny as well.
Here is my favorite, where he rips on Amtrak.
http://www.reason.com/0512/bagge.shtml
That's just a fancy way of redefining evolution so you can say you don't believe in it.
Evolution almost always involves some type of a duplication. A doubling of "information" according to your definition. All that extra information is able to go through the mutation process, good ones being retained and useless ones fading away without affecting the viability of the organism.
No problem. It takes a big person to admit a mistake when they don't really have to. I admire than and thank you for it.
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.