The human eye

[Brother Adam]

The scientific chance of a functioning human eye coming about through evolution is:

999,999,985:15

woah.



I just thought that was interesting.

[MichaelFilo]

Hey....... chance a scientist hits anything right on the mark.... well if history proves to be true much less than that. I take a no stance position on the creation issue, but let me just say, I've seen numbers like that. So even though many scientists maybe wrong, one of them has to be right. Of course, I'm not going to listen to scientists for a while, they can't even make up their mindsabout our nations food pyramid

God bless,
Mikey

Edit: BEfor eI feel real bad about throwing this info to the side. I think it's very interesting. The eye is complex, and I wonder if we can ever get figures in for a the neural system... or the nervous system.. If the eye's chance to be formed on it's own is that low, I'd lov eto see something more complicated's chance.

God bless,
Mikey

Edited February 11, 2005 by MichaelFilo

[Guest Aluigi]

[color=red]Advocatus diaboli[/color]
It is likely that there are 1,000,000,000,000 other planets out there with failed evolutions that produced eyless monstrosities of people

Edited February 11, 2005 by Aluigi

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Feb 10 2005, 11:21 PM'] The scientific chance of a functioning human eye coming about through evolution is:

999,999,985:15

woah.



I just thought that was interesting. [/quote]
Those odds look almost as bad as the proofs of intelligent design.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Feb 11 2005, 12:59 AM'] [color=red]Advocatus diaboli[/color]
It is likely that there are 1,000,000,000,000 other planets out there with failed evolutions that produced eyless monstrosities of people [/quote]
I'm sure they adapted and developed good hearing or something.

[Neal4Christ]

Yes, and now put together all the other chances for the rest of the body!

[Neal4Christ]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Feb 11 2005, 09:57 AM'] Those odds look almost as bad as the proofs of intelligent design. [/quote]
You are still putting your faith somewhere...either in science and man's knowledge, or in the claimed revelation of God. You have everything to lose one way, and nothing to lose the other. If there was an intelligent creator, the one who denies him has a lot to lose. If there wasn't, the one with faith in him has nothing to lose.

[jasJis]

[FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][quote name='Melchisedec' date='Feb 11 2005, 09:57 AM'] Those odds look almost as bad as the proofs of intelligent design. [/quote]
But the odds for 'intelligent design' or 'directed evolution' are tremendously more likely than the 'chaos theory' and strict environmental evolution. (Heck, even Darwin understood that and included that understanding ([i]though most people ignore that[/i]).)

Edited February 11, 2005 by jasJis

[Socrates]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Feb 11 2005, 10:59 AM'] [FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]
But the odds for 'intelligent design' or 'directed evolution' are tremendously more likely than the 'chaos theory' and strict environmental evolution. (Heck, even Darwin understood that and included that understanding ([i]though most people ignore that[/i]).) [/quote]
While I agree with you here, JasJis, you are misusing the term "chaos theory." This is the theory wcich shows there are complex mathematical patterns to seemingly random (or chaotic) patterns.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Neal4Christ' date='Feb 11 2005, 10:42 AM'] You are still putting your faith somewhere...either in science and man's knowledge, or in the claimed revelation of God. You have everything to lose one way, and nothing to lose the other. If there was an intelligent creator, the one who denies him has a lot to lose. If there wasn't, the one with faith in him has nothing to lose. [/quote]
Pascal's wager. I say this to that. If you believe in god because it was the safe bet, than you are not trully a servent and worshipper of god. But simply a gambler who decides that he wants to play it safe. Id think god would know that.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 11 2005, 11:01 AM'] While I agree with you here, JasJis, you are misusing the term "chaos theory." This is the theory wcich shows there are complex mathematical patterns to seemingly random (or chaotic) patterns. [/quote]
Help me out please. I thought the 'Chaos Theory' was the idea that order can come from randomness if given a big enough sample. For example, 12 billion monkeys typing for 2 million years can type out the movie script for 'Gone With the Wind'. It seems close to what you are saying.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Feb 11 2005, 10:59 AM'] [FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial]
But the odds for 'intelligent design' or 'directed evolution' are tremendously more likely than the 'chaos theory' and strict environmental evolution. (Heck, even Darwin understood that and included that understanding ([i]though most people ignore that[/i]).) [/quote]
How can you determine the odds of directed evolution or intelligent design? Im curious.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Feb 11 2005, 11:11 AM'] How can you determine the odds of directed evolution or intelligent design? Im curious. [/quote]
It's basic. Extropolate the odds of the multitude of complex DNA constructions that result in the varied living organisms resulting from random acts of mutation (basing the rate of mutation from studies of short lived organisms such as fruitflies) and one can than identify that the odds of this many 'good results' with no 'bad results' happening are impossible without outside influences.

People often look at logic and knowledge one way.

ie: Where there is smoke, there is fire or something burning or going through a physical/chemical change via combustion. Absence of smoke does not necessarily mean there is no fire as some things can undergo a physical/chemical change via combustion without emitting the visible by-product (smoke). BUT, where there is no physical/chemical change via combustion, there is not smoke [u]or[/u] fire.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Feb 11 2005, 11:21 AM'] It's basic. Extropolate the odds of the multitude of complex DNA constructions that result in the varied living organisms resulting from random acts of mutation (basing the rate of mutation from studies of short lived organisms such as fruitflies) and one can than identify that the odds of this many 'good results' with no 'bad results' happening are impossible without outside influences.

People often look at logic and knowledge one way.

ie: Where there is smoke, there is fire or something burning or going through a physical/chemical change via combustion. Absence of smoke does not necessarily mean there is no fire as some things can undergo a physical/chemical change via combustion without emitting the visible by-product (smoke). BUT, where there is no physical/chemical change via combustion, there is not smoke [u]or[/u] fire. [/quote]
I appreciate your explanation, but forgive me if I do not see how that proves intelligent design.

[Socrates]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Feb 11 2005, 11:09 AM'] Help me out please. I thought the 'Chaos Theory' was the idea that order can come from randomness if given a big enough sample. For example, 12 billion monkeys typing for 2 million years can type out the movie script for 'Gone With the Wind'. It seems close to what you are saying. [/quote]
No, that is not at all what "chaos theory" refers to. You are confusing it with something else. I myself am not an expert on chaos theory, and do not really understand it, but I do know you are misusing this term. Perhaps some scientifically oriented person can straighten you out on this. Chaos theory is the mathematics concerning extremely complex and seemingly "chaotic" systems.