Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"The directions of their tracks suggest that they had simple photoreceptor cells containing molecules sensitive to light, which could detect the shadow of another animal passing by OR guide them to brightly lit areas where their microbial food sources were more likely to be found. "
Basically what I said. Perceiving light and darkness, does not mean you know what to do with that information. Maybe avoid predators, maybe seek light. Maybe both. Regardless, these creatures used it for something, implying they had a system allowing them to do so.
I'm glad you are finally somewhat addressing the subject of this thread; but I want to nudge a little further and ask that you focus exclusively on the evolution of motion perception, or at least make it relevant to that.. I have four of these threads for a reason, and I intend to add a fifth. I want to discuss specific concepts in each one.
You want specific discussion on scientific facts from members of a forum that do not have the prerequisite expertise for that discussion. Sorry but that is as pointless now as it was when you started, and the number of threads is entirely moot. There are plenty of sites that could give such answers, books too. If you're genuinely interested in the answers that is, and I have grave doubts about that.
"The directions of their tracks suggest that they had simple photoreceptor cells containing molecules sensitive to light, which could detect the shadow of another animal passing by OR guide them to brightly lit areas where their microbial food sources were more likely to be found. "
Basically what I said. Perceiving light and darkness, does not mean you know what to do with that information. Maybe avoid predators, maybe seek light. Maybe both. Regardless, these creatures used it for something, implying they had a system allowing them to do so.
I'm glad you are finally somewhat addressing the subject of this thread; but I want to nudge a little further and ask that you focus exclusively on the evolution of motion perception, or at least make it relevant to that.. I have four of these threads for a reason, and I intend to add a fifth. I want to discuss specific concepts in each one.
"A half-functioning eye can get you killed."
Most species that ever lived have became extinct, the ones left have survived because they inherited those attributes most fit for their environment.
You know, god can do almost everything. He can create the universe and all the laws of physics, every element, every star... But he couldn't create a mechanism by which his creations evolve and change over time. That's too difficult for an omnipotent creator. It's one or the other, evolution or god. and, you know what? Just for fun he'll make it look like evolution occured, that'll be funny. He'll put ridiculous amounts of evidence in favor of evolution...
And they'll totally buy it but they'll be wrong. That's funny. Oh but I want them to worship me too if they don't I'll punish them. This is so funny. They'll never know... But I want them to. Haha, I'll make it look like they evolved from earlier apes, but really I created them from dust. Isn't that hillarious that I make them think the opposite of what's true and still demand that they know the truth? They'll never get it. What a perfect plan.
Fuck off.
Beautiful soliloquy. Completely irrelevant.
"Beautiful soliloquy. Completely irrelevant."
I disagree, he's nailed it, a god that hides is indistinguishable from a non-existent god. My favourite moronic creationist cliche is when they claimed the devil was falsifying scientific evidence to deceive people into doubting creationism, priceless.
He must have nailed an invisible nail then. Since I don't recall mentioning god on this thread.
"He must have nailed an invisible nail then. Since I don't recall mentioning god on this thread."
No one said you did, just because you started a thread does not mean you can dictate what people say on it in a public forum. His points were valid, and salient to the debate you are insisting is valid by implying creationism has some validity by attacking the scientific fact of species evolution through natural selection. You want to narrow the debate, for obvious reasons, but no one is obliged to play by your arbitrary and dishonest rules.
Though evolution is a scientific fact as well evidenced as any other scientist theory, like germ theory or gravity, if it were completely reversed tomorrow creationism would remain nothing more than a completely unevidenced religious belief.
I'm going to disagree with you on one point. You said evolution is as well documented as gravity. As far as I can recall, that's not true. We actually know more about, and have more evidence for, evolution than we do gravity.
I guess my point being that if someone is seriously questioning evolution, why are they not also questioning gravity?
"I'm going to disagree with you on one point. You said evolution is as well documented as gravity. As far as I can recall, that's not true. We actually know more about, and have more evidence for, evolution than we do gravity.
I guess my point being that if someone is seriously questioning evolution, why are they not also questioning gravity?"
Fair point, I had meant to say "at least as well evidenced", and of course your last sentence was precisely the point i was making about the way creationists cherry pick which scientific facts they will accept based on what contradicts their religious beliefs.
So John on what aspects of evolution do you not agree with? What is the issue that "even if you were an atheist you would have a problem with it"
On another thread you said you would ask for clarification of a verse from someone higher in knowledge than you... so who have you reached out to of higher knowledge on this issue? Why come to an atheist forum to ask specific questions then ignore all simple answers givin? It seems as if you feel like you have reached the pinnacle of knowledge on this subject. What fields of study are you a professor in? You ask a question and when you feel the answer doesn't match what you know you ignore it. Or you cast it away. I have said this before and I believe it was our first encounter.... you use your tv remote yet are not an expert, some atheists believe in evolution yet are not experts. We both rely on the expertise of professionals in their field of study. Science has been the most reliable source of knowledge. In science once a hypothesis is created every scientist wants to disprove it. You don't think their are scientists trying to come up with more answers right now?
Now I do say you bring up great questions
What came first skeleton or muscle?
How did the human eye evolve?
Yet you expect an expert answer, one that fits into your little box of what you know.
Do you really think your made of dust John?
Do you think that all life was created with a purpose?
Do you really think dinosaurs walked with people and every animal on earth that breathes got into a boat that was
300cubits*50cubits*30cubits?
What is it that you want out of this?
Right, but I'm not forcing anyone to take part in these conversations, that's the difference. You are free to ignore it if you have nothing to add to it. I ignore plenty of threads on here because I have nothing to add to them. It just doesn't make sense to me why someone would read my thread, and because they don't have anything to add, get mad at me for it, and basically tell me I'm not allowed to make such posts. I don't expect expert answers from anyone here. But I do expect relevant answers.
People discuss everything on here: politics, cosmology, philosophy, morality, Islam, mathematics. Why would evolution be disqualified, and reserved only for experts?
John reread my last post, I didn't say that you couldn't write what you wanted to( shit I wrote a thread about where is god and not one comment) I am criticizing you when it comes to your reaction to simple answers. If you wanted to know what others thought on this in order to expand your view, some of your responses would be....
Wow very interesting I never thought of that!
Ok sounds good but what about this...
I do agree but I feel this might be....
Instead you insult and reject any answer givin to you.
The key word for this thread is "motion" that's what I'm interested in, that's what I want to have discussions about. If you're on a PC, press Ctrl + F, and search for the word "motion" in the comments. You'll see almost no one mentions it. I'm not receiving simple answers, I'm receiving irrelevant answers.
Let me just quote a few of the responses I've gotten:
-"Personally, I have grown to find this series of Your OPs rather amusing."
-"You're not qualified to make such objections, if you were you could publish them and reverse or amend the current scientific theory of evolution."
-"I hope your university education is free, though I suspect you're still being over charged."
-"Four times the nonsense from this idiot. I gave up reading his posts a long time ago"
-"If you were actually interested in learning you would be reading, not posting."
-"Fuck off."
Why would I respond to these comments by saying "Wow very interesting I never thought of that!" When people try to respond instead of criticizing my questions, I respond back as I did with Jared Alesi.
I would have to edit my last response say sometimes....
Give an honest look back at every one of these posts maybe I am wrong (could be) maybe you left a bad taste in people's mouth when you had your few days of trolling.
As far as the examples you gave I believe a few were not in context or a direct first message. (The "fuck off" I saw who wrote that and I really have not seen him throw random insults at people) when you trolled you said you were using replies that atheists have given you and I asked you for reference to which one you used from me. You never responded. All I am saying is I do not post on your evolution threads based on your OP because I feel you are not looking for actual conversation. I feel you are looking for either:
A) a gotcha type scenario
B) a fight
C) others to confirm your bias
Now as I stated sometimes you do engage in conversation but and I mean but from my side I see a lack caring of what others think.
If it gives you any context, these threads have all been based on a Sensation & Perception class I am currently taking. My original intent was to have these conversations, so that I could practice and rehearse the topic before each exam. I followed a simple formula: take what I learned, and ask people how it evolved.
That's awesome and a great practice. Just be a little more open and a little less abrasive. ( only a suggestion)
I'll try.
//I only have two questions: How did our ancestors survive before the perception of motion evolved; and how did the perception of motion evolve in the first place?//
what I find troubling about this statement is it gives the impression that a recent hominid before ourselves went through this, when in actuality this is an incredibly slow process over an incredibly vast amount of time.
perhaps more context is required? at what point upon our historical lineage did what we consider the eye come to be?!
we go from essentially a sheet of light sensitive cells that can just tell the difference between light and dark,
then you could go to the shallow cup which enables the individual to detect the light is coming from.
this is where I think the motion comes in to play, we can assert that at this very early point and this is ridiculously long time ago.
so the process of mutations and adaptions has a long time to evolve at a slow rate.
I don't think slowing down the rate of evolution makes it any more plausible, that's why I don't care about it. You can slice the timeline into as many bits as you want, and stretch it out as long as you'd like. It doesn't change the outcome. In chemistry there's this notion of spontaneity, which is concerned with whether the outcome will occur naturally or not. Water freezing below 0 Celsius is considered a spontaneous reaction. But diamonds turning into graphite is also considered spontaneous, even though the process takes millions of years.
So, I'm not interested in how slow evolution is. I only care about its spontaneity, so to speak.
"I'm not interested in how slow evolution is. I only care about the outcomes."
Your interest or not in the timescales is entirely superfluous to those facts. The outcomes are what we see in all living things. This has taken billions of years. It seems often when creationists talk about evolution that they simply don't grasp the vast timescales involved, or the gradual nature of small changes adding up to big changes.
The simple fact is that species evolution is a scientific fact, and scientists have now managed to selectively breed fruit flies, which have an extremely fast reproductive rate, and produce an entirely new species of fruit fly in the laboratory.
"Studying mice, scientists have identified a neural circuit in the retina that carries signals enabling the eye to detect movement. The finding could help in efforts to build artificial retinas for people who have suffered vision loss."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150616190723.htm
I already talked about this circuitry in the OP. Also notice that your link says this: "This ability to detect motion is key for animals, allowing them to detect the presence of predators."
Given that information, can you answer my two questions?
Research it yourself, I'm not a scientist or an evolutionary biologist. As I keep trying to explain to you you've come to the wrong place to ask these questions, why would atheists have this information or have any interest in discussing it here, beyond answering your disingenuous claims that evolution has valid scientific flaws that you implied make it unsound?
You tell me, no one comments on my posts more that you, despite confessing over and over you don't know enough to answer.
I answer the things I know, and have tried to guide you to sites that explain the rest. Not being a religious apologist i have little interest in claiming to know what I do not. My main concern is to explode any creationist myths that are posted about evolution. It takes no time at all to find such sites, which again begs the question why you insist on asking such questions here, doggedly refusing to accept the folly of it, and implying a lack of expert knowledge of evolution implies things it does not about atheists?
Pages