• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Vision, Did it Evolve or was it Created?

VanceMack said:
SO this is your refuge. With all your bull**** and snarky comments THIS is your refuge. The simple fact is that you can regurgitate other peoples theories like no ones business just like all the rest of them.

I offered a simple question...one that should be EASY for you and others. My comments are straightforward. Definitively...factually...how did the human eye develop from a simple cell animal with NO capability to see or even sense light to the eye that we have today. In the challenge of that question there are legitimate evolutionary questions. Where X alone has no evolutionary advantage without Y and Z and where Y and Z do not exist, why does X 'become'? But you have the answers.

Right?

Go ahead. Confer with the others. Oh...wait...why am I saying confer with the others...you KNOW.

So...begin.
Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming my original thought on you Vance. My mistake. Goodbye.
 
Mach said:
I just claimed your argument wasn't related to science (or reason) above.
I also tried to identify one of your root arguments, as skepticism. You mentioned you were employing skepticism before, and you wrote something like this:
You guys keep acting like you're certain but science isn't certain.

If that's the case, I can certainly address it.

This all starts with your claims, like this one:


Notice:
1. you appear to claim certainty(!) about what this "light sensing system" WOULD REQUIRE. <- how can you have such certainty, if you're simultaneously angry that others are exhibiting certainty?

2. You have posted no science, no theory, no data, no reasoning at all why your claim should be believed.

3. You appear to ridicule that people refer to science, to talk about science. Don't you think that's strange? We're asking you to show evidence of your claim, and you're ridiculing people when they include evidence of their claim?
Click to expand...
SO...thats a no to providing your oh so informed definitive response...right? Whats the matter Mach...no one out there has given you an answer you can quote and pretend you know what the **** you are on about? Cant find a better source than your last one full of maybes ifs and could haves? Come on man...you KNOW this stuff...right?
 
William Rea said:
Thank you for confirming my original thought on you Vance. My mistake. Goodbye.
Click to expand...
Thanks for running like a bitch when called out on your own ****. You confirmed plenty.
 
VanceMack said:
SO...thats a no to providing your oh so informed definitive response...right? Whats the matter Mach...no one out there has given you an answer you can quote and pretend you know what the **** you are on about? Cant find a better source than your last one full of maybes ifs and could haves? Come on man...you KNOW this stuff...right?
Click to expand...

I just took to the time to give you a detailed response, and you ignore it?
- You still haven't provided evidence to back your original claim
- You still haven't refuted by rebuttal of your claim (I included sources and quotes from those sources for easy reading)
- You still haven't acknowledged you aren't communicating about science correctly when you continue to use words like absolute, undeniable, proof, etc.

You made some claims, i rebutted them, and you've now "challenged" anyone with some absurd non-scientific research project....all to demonstrate your claim is correct? Shifting the burden on me not just to prove a claim, but you've drafted the claim itself?

Stick to politics Vance, the ranting and surreal language and abuse of reasoning fits right in with the Trump crowd.
 
Mach said:
I just took to the time to give you a detailed response, and you ignore it?
- You still haven't provided evidence to back your original claim
- You still haven't refuted by rebuttal of your claim (I included sources and quotes from those sources for easy reading)
- You still haven't acknowledged you aren't communicating about science correctly when you continue to use words like absolute, undeniable, proof, etc.

You made some claims, i rebutted them, and you've now "challenged" anyone with some absurd non-scientific research project....all to demonstrate your claim is correct? Shifting the burden on me not just to prove a claim, but you've drafted the claim itself?

Stick to politics Vance, the ranting and surreal language and abuse of reasoning fits right in with the Trump crowd.
Click to expand...
You waded into this thread like a douchebag and continued. Your blather doesnt impress or interest me. BUT...I am very much willing to read your fact based and definitive response to the question posed. Beyond that, I really dont have the inclination to engage in a dialogue with someone that doesnt know how to not act like a douchebag.
 
VanceMack said:
You waded into this thread like a douchebag and continued. Your blather doesnt impress or interest me. BUT...I am very much willing to read your fact based and definitive response to the question posed. Beyond that, I really dont have the inclination to engage in a dialogue with someone that doesnt know how to not act like a douchebag.
Click to expand...

Can't stand competition? That too, is Trump-like.
 
VanceMack said:
You waded into this thread like a douchebag and continued. Your blather doesnt impress or interest me. BUT...I am very much willing to read your fact based and definitive response to the question posed. Beyond that, I really dont have the inclination to engage in a dialogue with someone that doesnt know how to not act like a douchebag.
Click to expand...

A few times to get it of your system is fine, but I'd not like to see you continue the personal attacks.

I responded, clearly, multiple times, and you just continue to insult without actually engaging. William knew enough to to avoid you once you showed your colors, I guess I needed a little more convincing...
 
Mach said:
A few times to get it of your system is fine, but I'd not like to see you continue the personal attacks.
Click to expand...
:lamo

Says the guy that came into this discussion insulting the intellectual capacity of several others.

**** or get off the pot. Your douchebagey attitude bores the **** out of me and so far your 'intellect' has consisted of posting a few links to articles full of maybes and could haves. So give me that definitive fact based answer. Im still waiting to be wowed.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

Says the guy that came into this discussion insulting the intellectual capacity of several others.
**** or get off the pot. Your douchebagey attitude bores the **** out of me and so far your 'intellect' has consisted of posting a few links to articles full of maybes and could haves. So give me that definitive fact based answer. Im still waiting to be wowed.
Click to expand...

You're still doing the personal attacks Vance, and I asked you not to. Are you saying you refuse to control your behavior? Or that you just can't control it.
It's already evident you refuse to debate reasonably, there's no need to go up in flames just because you're all alone in the thread with everyone showing the errors in your arguments.
 
Mach said:
You're still doing the personal attacks Vance, and I asked you not to. Are you saying you refuse to control your behavior? Or that you just can't control it.
It's already evident you refuse to debate reasonably, there's no need to go up in flames just because you're all alone in the thread with everyone showing the errors in your arguments.
Click to expand...
:lamo

Still nothing, huh? I have to be honest...Im NOT surprised.




No...instead...
 
Gee, a reasonable thread with so much heady potential goes down the drain of stupidity. Shame.
 
calamity said:
Gee, a reasonable thread with so much heady potential goes down the drain of stupidity. Shame.
Click to expand...
You get that Mach said that you were a passenger on the short bus...right?
 
VanceMack said:
You get that Mach said that you were a passenger on the short bus...right?
Click to expand...

Is that what you think he's saying in this response to you?


VanceMack said:
:lamo

Says the guy that came into this discussion insulting the intellectual capacity of several others.

**** or get off the pot. Your douchebagey attitude bores the **** out of me and so far your 'intellect' has consisted of posting a few links to articles full of maybes and could haves. So give me that definitive fact based answer. Im still waiting to be wowed.
Click to expand...

I believe I see the problem.
 
VanceMack said:
Awesome. Explain how a simple celled animal with no photsynthetic capabilities develops them. Describe the components the simple celled animals would use to use sunlight as energy and the evolutionary order and development of the components.
Click to expand...

Do I look like an evolutionary biologist to you? However, from my limited understanding, I would suggest you're phrasing the question wrong. Using photons to free electrons in order to perpetuate complex chemical reactions would probably predate life as we know it. We know life originated from complex chemical reactions that were then able to regulate their own immediate environment, so it stands to reason some of these reactions would have used photons as a source of energy, given they were readily available wherever the sun shone. It takes little imagination to see a photosynthetic organism that evolved from these basic cells would extend their photosensitivity to be able to tell how much light they were receiving, and then as these single celled organisms evolved motility and heterotrophy, the photosensitive genes would have remained as an advantageous adaptation, evolving into ocelli and eyes.
 
spud_meister said:
Do I look like an evolutionary biologist to you? However, from my limited understanding, I would suggest you're phrasing the question wrong. Using photons to free electrons in order to perpetuate complex chemical reactions would probably predate life as we know it. We know life originated from complex chemical reactions that were then able to regulate their own immediate environment, so it stands to reason some of these reactions would have used photons as a source of energy, given they were readily available wherever the sun shone. It takes little imagination to see a photosynthetic organism that evolved from these basic cells would extend their photosensitivity to be able to tell how much light they were receiving, and then as these single celled organisms evolved motility and heterotrophy, the photosensitive genes would have remained as an advantageous adaptation, evolving into ocelli and eyes.
Click to expand...

Sure. It makes perfect sense.

The first photosensitive adaptations were, as William mentioned, probably beneficial for finding the light (energy) source. Later, in future adaptations, it was probably beneficial for avoiding light, mostly to hide from predators. Eventually, when the adaptation evolved to binocular vision and depth perception, it probably gave an advantage to catch branches as a creature flew through the air, and eventually it was used by humans to be better hunters, who could now kill prey from a distance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom