I read it, it was wrong.
Nothing personal. You seem nice.
Thanks for engaging me in debate, maybe we can learn.
Science Disproves Evolution
- Thread starter Pahu
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I read it, it was wrong.
Nothing personal. You seem nice.
Thanks for engaging me in debate, maybe we can learn.
P
Phillipy
Guest
Eyes evolved first, then boney fish. Both were in the Cambrian. Eyes have also evolved independently around 20 times, because they are a good solution to common issues.
See my previous quotes for when genetic code is added, endogenous retroviral insertions into cells of a germ line is one way.
See my previous quotes for when genetic code is added, endogenous retroviral insertions into cells of a germ line is one way.
P
Phillipy
Guest
I'll certainly not stand by Wikipedia as an authority, it may be wrong. I'll read into it's references.
P
Phillipy
Guest
Can we specify more clearly what you'd claim is wrong?
Would you claim that retroviruses don't insert DNA increasing the size of the genome, they only change DNA that is already there?
Would you claim that retroviruses don't insert DNA increasing the size of the genome, they only change DNA that is already there?
Archaeopteryx is still hotly debated in its positioning because of a wide array of bizarre characteristics it has. The question on when something starts being a bird is a tad bit messy because some extinct animals that most people definitely don't want to say are birds, like Epidexipteryx, might be more closely related to modern birds than Archaeopteryx was.
P
Phillipy
Guest
Many
The first eyes were improvements upon improvements to light-sensitive cells, which could have started off as it's intrinsic feeling of heat. 'Feel heat, move towards heat, find light-loving algae food.' Eventually some light detection allowed them to better find where the food was, and this was very gradually improved upon over many generations.
The genome is separate altogether for all species.
For instance, humans have 22, ferns have 24.
- Those smart ferns!
- - We pulled off before we got really complex, (at least as genetically complex as a fern).
Many
The first eyes were improvements upon improvements to light-sensitive cells, which could have started off as it's intrinsic feeling of heat. 'Feel heat, move towards heat, find light-loving algae food.' Eventually some light detection allowed them to better find where the food was, and this was very gradually improved upon over many generations.
O.K. What formed first? The iris, cornea, retina, or the optic nerve?
Also, when was the upside down image corrected by an equally developing brain?
B
Batman007
Guest
Dude take a evolutionary biology class and ask these questions to the professor. You're going to get better answers than asking on a forum.
P
Phillipy
Guest
The retina, the first eyes were basically just retinal patches. The upside down image correction wasn't needed until we had developed very concaved retinas, getting towards the development of the iris.
That's for our eyes, a couple of lineages started differently. Trilobites have no iris and have almost stone eyes, made out of... calcium? Something hard and crystalline.
P
Phillipy
Guest
The genome is separate altogether for all species.
For instance, humans have 22, ferns have 24.
- Those smart ferns!
- - We pulled off before we got really complex, (at least as genetically complex as a fern).
Genome size doesn't exclusively correlate to a complex phenotype, it just allows for one. Some of the longest genomes belong to bacteria. (Nor does it correlate to smartness lol).
But, how about an answer to that question on specifically what you'd claim is wrong with the science of retroviral and transposon DNA insertions, lengthening the genome? We are really at a point there where I can present you with science that should change your mind.
P
Phillipy
Guest
With eyes having developed independently around 20 times, that's pretty much a guarantee, yep.
What Phillipy? I thought this was a thread about evolution: yea or nah.
Please further explain what you are promoting?
Gee wiz......It's awfully funny how those that could see waited for those that couldn't......(I mean to develop eyesight and all).
- - - I suppose they thought it in their best interest as playing fair; after all, no self respecting pack of wolves would attack a herd of blind sheep.
P
Phillipy
Guest
Would you claim that retroviruses don't insert DNA increasing the size of the genome?
P
Phillipy
Guest
What waiting are you referring to?
Are you suggesting that animals with eyes don't eat animals without eyes?