mjordan2nd said:
|
No. Their creation can certainly be outlined, but science can't really put together anything piece by piece.
|
So if the origin of species can be outlined... how come scientists cant piece anything together? Do they not have anything to back their theroies?
mjordan2nd said:
|
...you want to know how to build a computer. Sure, I could tell you how to build a working copmuter. But if you asked me to explain the electronics behind building a motherboard I wouldn't know what to tell you. Surely, however, since this is a man-made creation, someone knows. However, what happens when you get down to the elemental level. Nobody can actually tell you how to simply create an element. It can be outlined by top-of-the-notch physicists, but piece by piece is still a long way away. Similarly, scientists can synthetically create organisms. However, to describe piece by piece how they were built and evolved naturally is still a long way away. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe somebody does know, and I simply haven't heard of it. Unlikely, though.
|
Man made creations are very simple compared to an organism... a computer does not have the ability to replicate itself unless it is told how to do it... I dont think that animals accidentially learned how to survive....
The problem with evolution is probibilty... not everything happens perfectly.
Unlike a computer(which can be built by precision and in one day), evolution is a chance based system... evolution is completely based on chance... so by chance we happened to get the brain power that we have today... by chance we exist today.
Yes scientists can create some organisms synthetically, but they dont leave it up to chance for the organism to form.... they controll the process...
mjordan2nd said:
You can consider the following "transisional" in the sense that they do not have all the same features and abilities of similar creatures:
- The flying squirrel, which could be on its way to becoming more batlike
- The euglena, which appears well on its way to becoming a plant
- Aquatic snakes
- any animal with an "infrared eye"
- various fish that can survive on land for extended periods of time
|
Yet, these animals need these traits to survive... the flying squirrel uses it gliding ability to escape danger, the euglena is a single celled protist with a light sensitive eye and use light for energy(my skin uses light for some processes too), the lung fish and other short term land fish come on land come to feedwhen the tide is low(they get nutrients from the sand)...
mjordan2nd said:
|
2.) Photons are packets of energy. They can not simply turn into electrons.
|
Correction, photons are packets of electrons... when they hit the eye the electrons are released and I already explained the rest...
mjordan2nd said:
|
3.) You are incredulous. Again, simply because you believe something is too complex to occur naturally does not mean that it can not. Darwin wrote three and a half pages how the eye could have evolved. This shows how easily it is possible for the eye to have evolved. I have no intention of copying those pages and pasting them here. I suggest you read his work.
|
He wrote how the eye could have evolved... in a perfect world.
Just because it can dosen't mean it will... you just cant say that that probibility will turn out to help a species unless you can also say that probibility will also harm a species as well... It is almost like rolling a die with a trillion different sides and saying that you could roll the same number twice in a row, its not going to happen... the odds are completely against you...