A really stupid non-deitific rock thought it would be a cool idea to mix it up.

So, as I have fulfilled all your challenge criteria; where is my prize?

(Now you might claim my answer was bad, but I'll counter by saying your question was worse).

Obviously PokerJunky forgot to mention that his short time span is 6000 years!
If it's in the Bible, it has to be true, right?

Who was it that put all those fake dinosaur fossils out for us to find? Could it be Satan?

Jib.........

I thought that Jibninjas's position was that the evidence we have is insufficient to explain where the eye came from. That what we would need to see is a whole bunch of intervening steps (presumably in fossilised ancestor-species) - he suggested six would be a good number from proto-eye to fully functioning eye. (I think he would say your example isn't sufficient evidence as we haven't seen this species evolve into something with a fully formed eye - I'm speculating though, so apologies Jibninjas if this is an incorrect inference).

Having said that, he's also denied denying that we have an explanation for how the eye arose, so I'm not sure of his actual position - they seem contradictory to me. Hopefully he'll answer the yes/no question above.

Evolution of the Eye

Jib............................................... ........................

Jib re-abandons, thread reaching comical levels

Grunch

This wouldn't matter, DUCY?

It would be probabilistic and unlikely events are merely unlikely but not impossible. So even if it predicts 20billion years, it wouldn't prove anything.

/Grunch

Why won't you answer the question Jib?

when i have time i will. don't get your panties all in a bunch, the interwebs isn't going anywhere

Panties wouldn't be in a bunch if I hadn't seen you visit RGT on at least 4 separate occasions since the last time you posted ITT.

It's obvious you had the time. What you seem not to have are answers or rebuttals to people's points.

I just don't get it. Are you like researching creationist websites for where to go from here?

Silly grunch here, but I have a question for you:

What makes you think the human brain is so complex? It's actually rather messy and inefficient. A microprocessor is an example of intelligent design. Discrete pathways from point A to B, measured out in exact increments, uniformly symmetric. The human brain is your box of christmas tree lights, just randomly scattered about with no "design" whatsoever.

The same can be said for the rest of our bodies. Exactly what part of us is intelligently designed? We are slow as hell, we cant fight other predators, we have random tufts of hair scattered around our bodies for no particular purpose whatsoever, we are easily killed and get sick, we require parental supervision for the first 13 years of our life before we can self-sustain, etc etc.

Intelligent design would be if I could shoot lazers out of my eyes, if I could hover using anti-gravity waves from my feet, if I could see 10 miles into the distance, and through things. Our design is actually rather ******, something a complete imbecile could only come up with. Is that your god? Is the human body the best he could do? Out of all the animals who can fly, breathe under water, run 60mph, climb trees, the best he could come up with for us was THIS? Ignoring all the obvious evidence of evolution, I would think merely looking at our physical form was enough to suggest that we simply formed by pure chance over generations.

nah. He already knows the meaning of 'yes' and 'no'.

The truly hilarious part of all this is I would bet a lot that Jib thinks he's had a good showing ITT.

I don't know.

I think we have a decent explanation for how the eye formed through evolution. It may not be correct, but it demonstrates one route it may have been possible through. I am fairly confident if you set up a genetic algorithm on the computer to model this you would come out with something similar, although the variables would have to be very specific.

Also genetic algorithms on computers go a long way in demonstrating evolution. They are fascinating. They produce intelligent solutions from a pool of seemingly useless data. The solutions they create in some instances would never/very unlikely to have been discovered by a human manually working on the problem.

An example I was offered by one of my lecturers when I was at University was that he was tasked to design a complicated network that reduced signal noise. The noise of a signal depended on it's proximity to various elements around it which had to be positioned strategically. He was pitted against a highly qualified engineer who specialised in network design.

The engineer to a week to come up with a network design that (I can't remember the exact measurements) was something like 70% efficient which was a good rate. My professor wrote a genetic algorithm within the day, and in 5 minutes of running it he had a solution that was 90% efficient. I really think that genetic algorithms are an excellent way to teach the theory of evolution to computer minded people. It's observable, it works and it has real life application.

So the computer scientist without any prior knowledge of the theory of network design (but he would have obviously had to program the environment in, what does what etc) managed to produce something that outperformed the expert in a fraction of the time.

This draws parallels with the eye. A seemingly random blob of cells somehow managed to turn into something incredibly sophisticated, and for our computer scientist a seemingly random blob of data managed to turn itself into something sophisticated, purely down to the rules of it's environment and nothing more.

We can't manufacture eyes without significant scientific progression. Neither can the computer scientist design a solution to fix the problem manually. The environment solved the problem in both instances.

Chernobyl is a good, recent example of rapid mutation in the real world. It also goes some way to explain why evolution happens in giant steps. When the radiation leaked, the animals either died, or survived within a very short period of time. Those that survived, thrived in an environment with an abundance of resources because most of their species was dead. That lead to a population explosion in these radiation resistant hybrids. Leave it a bit longer and you now have a population of species that have replaced the old with a significantly different attribute. The micro evolutionists who say that there are gaps in fossil records need to know about this point, because there wouldn't really be a fossil record for these animals between one deer that is completely radiation protected and another deer that has no radiation protection because that period only reflects a tiny percentage of the history of the evolution of that animal, even though it was such a huge change for it historically.

But you personally don't? You've never seen a satisfactory explanation?

Are there still Christians who classify life in

• Plant
• Animal
• Human

categories, despite the evidence? "We are not animals! We are humans, made in God's image."

What do Christians think when they see other vertebrates (or more generally Chordates)? Do they think that God was just reusing one of his "cleaver" ideas?

Do they recognize that we are more closely related to all mammals than to any reptile? Or are they all just "animals" to them?

When Christians see other primates, does the little light-bulb in their heads come on for even an instant?

If none of those enlighten them, do they see the overwhelming similarity to the "great apes"? Is it just another one of God's mysteries to them?

Do they see the unique species that have evolved over time on isolated islands and continents? Have they heard of places named Australia and Galapagos? What could they be thinking?

Do they know about the differences between New World Monkeys and Old World Monkeys?

Maybe they can see the obvious categories in plants easier.

What forms of denial are they forced to engage in?

Should we treat them with great patience and understanding? Or should we publicly point out the superstitions that they perpetuate?

No I have not. If I had seen satisfactory evidence then I would have answered the previous question with yes, instead of "I don't know".

Do you think maybe you're not capable of understanding the evidence? Since you're a car salesman and don't have a clue about evolution, if the experts in the field say the evidence is enough, shouldn't you maybe...not discuss this topic like you know something?

I mean, I'm sure you haven't seen a satisfactory explanation for why your car would come alive and everything starts working when you put a key in either. But you trust the experts there and risk your life everyday based on that trust you have for those experts.

A car salesman not seeing a satisfactory on the evolution of eye when the experts in the field of evolution see one could mean:
1)He wasn't able to comprehend it when he saw a satisfactory explanation.
2)He wasn't looking for the explanation in the right places.

This doesn't get you anywhere. Commonality of design is expected given a common environment under both the design hypothesis and the evolution hypothesis.

False dichotomy. The answer is yes to both. We are "related" to some animals more than others, just not by common descent.

Certainly, but not the puff of smoke necessary to fall for The Evolution Magic Show.

Apes and humans are themselves God's mysteries, as is the similarity between.

What can those be thinking who so uncritically buy the handwavy extrapolation from micro- to macro-evolution?

Pseudo-science denial.

You should try to construct an evidence-based case that is both logical and sufficient for the claims you are making.

Concerto, I've asked this a number of times. Perhaps you have an explanation. I assume that by micro-evolution, you mean changes within a species being caused by, for example, random mutations acted on by selection pressures. And by macro-evolution, you mean changes that result in a new species.

If you believe that the former is true, and the latter isn't, then what it is that prevents changes that result in a new species?

Do you have satisfactory evidence for the formation of Sol?

As an aside, I don't accept it uncritically, but that's not particularly important.

The reason I accept it is because it's the most useful hypothesis - the same criteria I use for any other scientific theory.