+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 14410
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 20
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 18
Total: 18

Author Topic: Darwin  (Read 7930 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #165 on: July 23, 2018, 12:30:51 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Smileys added by yours truly.

.DarwinsPredictions

Evolutionary causes predictions

Mutations are not adaptive

In the twentieth century, the theory of evolution predicted that mutations are not adaptive or directed. In other words, mutations were believed to be random with respect to the needs of the individual. As Julian Huxley put it, “Mutation merely provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair, and takes place in all directions. … in all cases they are random in relation to evolution. Their effects are not related to the needs of the organisms.” (Huxley, 36) Or as Jacques Monod explained:

chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition—or the hope—that on this score our position is likely ever to be revised. (Monod, 112)

Ronald Fisher 😈 wrote that mutations are “random with respect to the organism’s need” (Orr). This fundamental prediction persisted for decades as a recent paper explained: “mutation is assumed to create heritable variation that is random and undirected.” (Chen, Lowenfeld and Cullis)

But that assumption is now known to be false. The first problem is that the mutation rate is adaptive. For instance, when a population of bacteria is subjected to harsh conditions it tends to increase its mutation rate. It is as though a signal has been sent saying, “It is time to adapt.” Also, a small fraction of the population increases its mutation rates even higher yet. These hypermutators ensure that an even greater variety of adaptive change is explored. (Foster) Experiments have also discovered that duplicated DNA segments may be subject to higher mutation rates. Since the segment is a duplicate it is less important to preserve and, like a test bed, appears to be used to experiment with new designs. (Wright)

The second problem is that organisms use strategies to direct the mutations according to the threat. Adaptive mutations have been extensively studied in bacteria. Experiments typically alter the bacteria food supply or apply some other environmental stress causing mutations that target the specific environmental stress. (Burkala, et. al.; Moxon, et. al; Wright) Adaptive mutations have also been observed in yeast (Fidalgo, et. al.; David, et. al.) and flax plants. (Johnson, Moss and Cullis) One experiment found repeatable mutations in flax in response to fertilizer levels. (Chen, Schneeberger and Cullis) Another exposed the flax to four different growth conditions and found that environmental stress can induce mutations that result in “sizeable, rapid, adaptive evolutionary responses.” (Chen, Lowenfeld and Cullis) In response to this failed prediction some evolutionists  now are saying that evolution somehow created the mechanisms that cause mutations to be adaptive.

References

Burkala, E., et. al. 2007. “Secondary structures as predictors of mutation potential in the lacZ gene of Escherichia coli.” Microbiology 153:2180-2189.

Chen, Y., R. Lowenfeld, C. Cullis. 2009. “An environmentally induced adaptive (?) insertion event in flax.” International Journal of Genetics and Molecular Biology 1:38-47.

Chen, Y., R. Schneeberger, C. Cullis. 2005. “A site-specific insertion sequence in flax genotrophs induced by environment.” New Phytologist 167:171-180.

David, L., et. al. 2010. “Inherited adaptation of genome-rewired cells in response to a challenging environment.” HFSP Journal 4:131–141.

Fidalgo, M., et. al. 2006. “Adaptive evolution by mutations in the FLO11 gene.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:11228-11233.

Foster, P. 2005. “Stress responses and genetic variation in bacteria.” Mutation Research / Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis 569:3-11.

Huxley, Julian. 1953. Evolution in Action. New York: Signet Science Library Book.

Johnson, C., T. Moss, C. Cullis. 2011. “Environmentally induced heritable changes in flax.” J Visualized Experiments 47:2332.

Monod, Jacques. 1971. Chance & Necessity. New York: Vintage Books.

Moxon, E., et. al. 1994. “Adaptive evolution of highly mutable loci in pathogenic bacteria.” Current Biology 4:24-33.

Orr, H. 2005. “The genetic theory of adaptation: a brief history.” Nature Review Genetics 6:119-127.
Wright, B. 2000. “A biochemical mechanism for nonrandom mutations and evolution.” J Bacteriology 182:2993-3001.


https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/mutations-are-not-adaptive
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #166 on: July 24, 2018, 01:07:56 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Smileys added by yours truly.


.DarwinsPredictions

Evolutionary causes predictions

Competition is greatest between neighbors

Darwin’s basic theory of evolution, by itself, did not account for the tree-like, hierarchical pattern the species were thought to form. Darwin was keenly aware of this shortcoming and wrestled with it for years. He finally conceived of a solution for why modified offspring would continue to evolve away and diverge from their parents. The principle of divergence, the last major theoretical addition before Darwin published his book, held that competition tends to be strongest between the more closely related organisms. This would cause a splitting and divergence, resulting in the traditional evolutionary tree pattern. (Desmond and Moore 1991, 419-420; Ridley, 378-379)

But no such trend has been observed. 🧐 In a major study of competition between freshwater green algae species, the level of competition between pairs of species was found to be uncorrelated with the evolutionary distance between the pair of species. As the researchers explained, Darwin “argued that closely related species should compete more strongly and be less likely to coexist. For much of the last century, Darwin’s hypothesis has been taken at face value […] Our results add to a growing body of literature that fails to support Darwin’s original competition-relatedness hypothesis.” (Venail, et. al., 2, 9) The team spent months trying to resolve the problem, but to no avail. As one of the researchers explained:

It was completely unexpected. When we saw the results, we said “this can’t be.” ::)  We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right? When we started coming up with numbers that showed he [Darwin] wasn’t right, we were completely baffled. … We should be able to look at the Tree of Life, and evolution should make it clear who will win in competition and who will lose. But the traits that regulate competition can’t be predicted from the Tree of Life. (Cimons) ;D

Why this long-standing prediction was not confirmed remains unknown. Apparently there are more complicating factors 🕵️ that influence competition in addition to evolutionary relatedness. 

References

Cimons, Marlene. 2014. “Old Idea About Ecology Questioned by New Findings.” National Science Foundation.

Desmond, Adrian, James Moore. 1991. Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist. New York: W. W. Norton.

Ridley, Mark. 1993. Evolution. Boston: Blackwell Scientific.
Venail , P.A., A. Narwani , K. Fritschie, M. A. Alexandrou, T. H. Oakley, B. J. Cardinale. 2014. “The influence of phylogenetic relatedness on competition and facilitation among freshwater algae in a mesocosm experiment.” Journal of Ecology, DOI: 10.1111/1365-2745.12271.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/competition-is-greatest-between-neighbors

Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #167 on: July 25, 2018, 07:44:38 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Smileys added by yours truly. 


.DarwinsPredictions

Molecular evolution predictions

Protein evolution

Protein coding genes make up only a small fraction of the genome in higher organisms but their protein products are crucial to the operation of the cell. They are the workers behind just about every task in the cell, including digesting food, synthesizing chemicals, structural support, energy conversion, cell reproduction and making new proteins. And like a finely tuned machine, proteins do their work very well. Proteins are ubiquitous in all of life and must date back to the very early stages of evolution. So evolution predicts that proteins evolved when life first appeared, or not long after. But despite enormous research efforts the science clearly shows that such protein evolution is astronomically unlikely.  ;D

One reason the evolution of proteins is so difficult is that most proteins are extremely specific designs in an otherwise rugged fitness landscape. This means it is difficult for natural selection to guide mutations toward the needed proteins. In fact, four different studies, done by different groups and using different methods, all report that roughly 1070 evolutionary experiments would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein before natural selection could take over to refine the protein design. For instance, one study concluded that 1063 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein. (Reidhaar-Olson) And a similar result (1065 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences. (Yockey) Another study found that from 1064 to 1077 attempts are required (Axe) and another study concluded that 1070 attempts would be required. (Hayashi) In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making for an easier search. Furthermore these estimates are optimistic because the experiments searched only for single-function proteins whereas real proteins perform many functions.

This conservative estimate of 1070 attempts required to evolve a simple protein is astronomically larger than the number of attempts that are feasible. 👀 ;D And explanations of how evolution could achieve a large number of searches, or somehow obviate this requirement, require the preexistence of proteins and so are circular*. For example, one paper estimated that evolution could have made 1043 such attempts. But the study assumed the entire history of the Earth is available, rather than the limited time window that evolution actually would have had. Even more importantly, it assumed the preexistence of a large population of bacteria (it assumed the earth was completely covered with bacteria). And of course, bacteria are full of proteins. Clearly such bacteria would not exist before the first proteins evolved. (Dryden) Even with these helpful and unrealistic assumptions the result was twenty seven orders of magnitude short of the requirement.   

Given these several significant problems, the chances of evolution finding proteins from a random start are, as one evolutionist explained, “highly unlikely.” (Tautz)

Or as another evolutionist put it, “Although the origin of the first, primordial genes may ultimately be traced back to some precursors in the so-called ‘RNA world’ billions of years ago, their origins remain enigmatic.” (Kaessmann)


 


Quote
* Circular reasoning

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning


References

Axe, D. 2004. “Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.” J Molecular Biology 341:1295-1315.

Dryden, David, Andrew Thomson, John White. 2008. “How much of protein sequence space has been explored by life on Earth?.” J. Royal Society Interface 5:953-956.

Hayashi, Y., T. Aita, H. Toyota, Y. Husimi, I. Urabe, T. Yomo. 2006. “Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space.” PLoS ONE 1:e96.

Kaessmann, H. 2010. “Origins, evolution, and phenotypic impact of new genes.” Genome Research 10:1313-26.

Reidhaar-Olson J., R. Sauer. 1990. “Functionally acceptable substitutions in two alpha-helical regions of lambda repressor.” Proteins 7:306-316.

Tautz, Diethard, Tomislav Domazet-Lošo. 2011. “The evolutionary origin of orphan genes.” Nature Reviews Genetics 12:692-702.

Yockey, Hubert. 1977. “A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory.” J Theoretical Biology 67:377–398.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/protein-evolution


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #168 on: July 26, 2018, 10:05:20 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: For those who are unfamilar with Histones, I am posting some info and a video to help make clear to you how absolutely essential they are to life. 

Quote
Histones are one of the specific proteins involved in cell division and cancer. Technically, the ball-like groups of histones are referred to as nucleosomes, but--for simplicity--the website will continue to refer to these groups as histones.

In more general terms, histones are the protein “balls” that DNA wraps around in order to help DNA coil itself and condense into a chromosome during interphase. In fact, the image of nucleosomes (groups of histones) strung along a strand of DNA is often referred to as the "Beads on a String" model.

In the image below, you can see the histones, drawn as gray spheres that attach to the DNA and each other as the DNA condenses into a chromosome that can be easily divided and transported during cell division.



We, however, are interested in just the histones, as pictured below:


The video below provides a good representation of what histones look like in the cell. The clip denotes the histones as groups of orange spheres wrapped in blue globular DNA. Courtesy of jccairs.


http://www.unc.edu/depts/our/hhmi/hhmi-ft_learning_modules/proteinsmodule/histones/index.html

You read that part about cell division, but, leaving the cancer issue aside for the moment, Histones have other vital functions. You all know what an anti-histamine spray is. Certain types of Histones cause the release of histamines (vasodilators - relax blood vessel smooth muscles and make them leaky) which give you a runny nose. It is an immune system response to get rid of something your body does not want. An anti-histamine spray counteracts that. You may not like that runny nose, but keeping it from running may not help in getting rid of some bacterial or viral agent attacking you, so please keep that in mind.

You also should know about the Histone that sends histamines to your H3 receptors when you eat sweets (they are located throughout your body). When those H3 receptors get hit too often, they become sensitized and more and more histamines are required to make the H3 receptors work. What work is that? It's calling for insulin to process the sugar. Eating too much sugar triggers a massive amount of histamines towards the H3 receptors. When the H3 receptors get overtaxed over a number of years, the person develops Diabetes.

I apologize for being so brief, but the point I wish to make is that we cannot function without Histones and that all of their functions are extremely fine tuned and targeted. Histones are an irreducibly complex part of the eukaryotic cell (Eukaryotic means true=Eu - karyot=nucleus versus Prokaryotic=bacterial cells - Pro=before) design.

They are either all there or they do not work. In the case of cancer, they work too much, which is also not part of their function. All biological functions work inside a life band of "not too little" and "not too much" activity. It is ludicrous to claim that any organism had a non-functioning partial group of all the histones that just randomly mutated to be an extremely precisely targeted tool of cell division and the immune system. Without Histones (and several other irreducibly complex parts of the celluar anatomy and physiology that work in precise harmony), there is no life because there is no cell division, period.  The fact thar Eukaryotic Histones can continue to function with several deleterious mutations, contrary to what evolutionary theory had predicted, strengthens the hypothesis of a robust original design, even though evolutionists are trying to talk their way around this.


Smileys added by yours truly.


.DarwinsPredictions

Molecular evolution predictions

Histone proteins cannot tolerate much change

Histones are proteins which serve as the hubs about which DNA is wrapped. They are highly similar across vastly different species which means they must have evolved early in evolutionary history. As one textbook explains, “The amino acid sequences of four histones are remarkably similar among distantly related species. … The similarity in sequence among histones from all eukaryotes indicates that they fold into very similar three-dimensional conformations, which were optimized for histone function early in evolution in a common ancestor of all modern eukaryotes.” (Lodish et. al., Section 9.5) And this high similarity among the histones also means they must not tolerate change very well, as another textbook explains: “Changes in amino acid sequence are evidently much more harmful for some proteins than for others. … virtually all amino acid changes are harmful in histone H4. We assume that individuals who carried such harmful mutations have been eliminated from the population by natural selection.” (Alberts et. al. 1994, 243)

So the evolutionary prediction is that in these histone proteins practically all changes are deleterious: “As might be expected from their fundamental role in DNA packaging, the histones are among the most highly conserved eucaryotic proteins. For example, the amino acid sequence of histone H4 from a pea and a cow differ at only at 2 of the 102 positions. This strong evolutionary conservation suggests that the functions of histones involve nearly all of their amino acids, so that a change in any position is deleterious to the cell.” (Alberts et. al. 2002, Chapter 4)

This prediction has also been given in popular presentations of the theory: “Virtually all mutations impair histone’s function, so almost none get through the filter of natural selection. The 103 amino acids in this protein are identical for nearly all plants and animals.” (Molecular Clocks: Proteins That Evolve at Different Rates)

But this prediction has turned out to be false. An early study suggested that one of the histone proteins could well tolerate many changes. (Agarwal and Behe) And later studies confirmed and expanded this finding: “despite the extremely well conserved nature of histone residues throughout different organisms, only a few mutations on the individual residues (including nonmodifiable sites) bring about prominent phenotypic defects.” (Kim et. al.)

Similarly another paper documented these contradictory results: “It is remarkable how many residues in these highly conserved proteins can be mutated and retain basic nucleosomal function. … The high level of sequence conservation of histone proteins across phyla suggests a fitness advantage of these particular amino acid sequences during evolution.  Yet comprehensive analysis indicates that many histone mutations have no recognized phenotype.” (Dai et. al.) In fact, even more surprising, many mutations actually raised the fitness level. (Dai et. al.)

References

Agarwal, S., M. Behe. 1996. “Non-conservative mutations are well tolerated in the globular region of yeast histone H4.” J Molecular Biology 255:401-411.

Alberts, Bruce., D. Bray, J. Lewis, M. Raff, K. Roberts, J. Watson. 1994. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 3d ed. New York: Garland Publishing.

Alberts, Bruce., A. Johnson, J. Lewis, et. al. 2002. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th ed. New York: Garland Publishing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26834/

Dai, J., E. Hyland, D. Yuan, H. Huang, J. Bader, J. Boeke. 2008. “Probing nucleosome function: a highly versatile library of synthetic histone H3 and H4 mutants.” Cell 134:1066-1078.

Kim, J., J. Hsu, M. Smith, C. Allis. 2012. “Mutagenesis of pairwise combinations of histone amino-terminal tails reveals functional redundancy in budding yeast.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:5779-5784.

Lodish H., A. Berk, S. Zipursky, et. al. 2000. Molecular Cell Biology. 4th ed. New York: W. H. Freeman. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21500/

“Molecular Clocks: Proteins That Evolve at Different Rates.” 2001. WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions.

https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/histone-proteins-cannot-tolerate-much-change


Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #169 on: June 08, 2019, 03:56:13 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Except for the obligatory (always dictated by the atheists 'R' US scientific community) bow to Darwin's God rejecting theory, this is a great documentary. It details the extraordinary multi-sensory powers of 🦉 owls, providing proof that said powers are essential to their ability to survive and thrive in so many habitats on this planet.


Owls have differential ear placement on their skulls (one ear is higher than the other).
It is absolutely laughable to claim that they "evolved" this simply because, without it, combined with some other special abilities only owls have among birds of prey, they would NOT be able to pinpoint prey not visible beneath snow or foliage, something they MUST be able to consistently do in order to survive (owls hunt in conditions, mostly nocturnal, that other birds of prey cannot hunt in).

Owl eyes are huge in relation to their skull for a very specific reason (to capture more light in the first place). But that large eye size works together with another light capturing ability unique to owl eyes among birds of prey. That is, they have a lot more rods (needed for night vision) than cones (needed for daylight color vision), so they lose color vision, but have extremely powerful night vision.

There is much more to the OBVIOUSLY INTELLIGENT DESIGN of owl anatomy and physiology, from the larger wings for vertical takeoffs (for nest defence) and slow, almost hovering, flight for hunting, to sound absorbing wing and body (owl feathers are NOT wax covered - not waterproof like noisy duck wing feathers -, which is the reason owl wings are, with the aid of a couple of other specialized feather features, nearly soundless in flight - no other bird can fly as quietly) quiet design to sound capturing and concentrating facial feathers to 270 degree pivoting head (including special vertebra that prevent blood flow from being cut off during extreme head pivots). 

It is laughably illogical AND unscientific to claim that owls "evolved" this set of sensory tools, one by one, at random, while the "small eyed", "low rod count", "symmetrical ear placement", "waterproof winged" and so on owls all "died off" as the "survival of the fittest happy mutations" all came together in some owls by good Darwinian luck to produce modern day owls.

WHY? Because, as the scientific evidence presented in this video proves, these abilities work successfully ONLY if they work in concert. In order for all these sensory abilities to work IN CONCERT, they had to have been SPECIFICALLY designed to work as a team. The owl is a night hunter that uses ALL of its specialized sensory equipment to survive and thrive. Take away any one of these sensory tools and its survival is in jeopardy.

It is a sad commentary on the willful denial of too many modern day scientists of God's incredibly complex and beautiful intelligent design of everything that lives in our biosphere in general, and owls in particular, that they cling to Darwinian nonsense. 

Too many modern scientists just do not want to hear the truth that NATURE was created by God.   


To a an objective person, this video provides irrefutable proof that God created owls to do what owls can do now, from the start, period. 
Quote
As an earring of gold, and an ornament of fine gold, so is a wise reprover upon an obedient ear. -- Proverbs 25:12

OWLS - Owl Documentary (HD) Amazing Film, Owl Power
962,061 views


Clifford Garrard
Published on Mar 4, 2017

Category People & Blogs

Show Nature : Owl Power
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Darwin
« Reply #170 on: June 10, 2019, 03:00:26 pm »

Here's more about the owl, a highly specialized night hunter, that evidences intelligent design. The shape of owl eyes is unique. As discussed above, owls can rotate their head 270 degrees. The owl eye anatomy and physiology is more evidence that the ability to rotate 270 degrees laterally and 90 degrees up and down could not have "evolved".

WHY? Because the owl head must rotate that much to work in concert with the owl eyes. They work ONLY as a unit. You see, the owl eyes are fixed in position. They cannot move.

They are also elongated to enhance night vision by concentrating the rods along the elongated tube design.

So, the head, the fixed eye position, the elongated eye shape that concentrates the rods for even more superior night vision than would be possible with the same rod count (if the eye was movable and rounded) that enables night vision AND the vertebra in the neck to avoid pinching off blood flow all work as a unit.

All the separate biological anatomical parts of this unit simply would not make sense in the absence of all the others. With eyes that are fixed in the head, the head HAD to be able to turn so many degrees. The vertebra HAD to be designed to allow normal blood flow during extreme head rotation or there would be no advantage to the fixed binocular eyes and 270 neck rotation.

What's more, the differential ear position, combined with the fixed position of the binocular eyes, though not discussed below, obviously aids the owl in postioning its body properly to strike at the prey as it swoops down after pinpointing the prey's location. You see, the strike of an owl has been measured at 12 times its body weight. It is essential for the owl to be in exactly the right position to avoid injuring itself when it strikes the prey and the ground. The video below shows some owls in action. Notice how the head and the talons are always in the same position relative to each other when the strike occurs.


Though not obvious to the casual observer, owls can only strike that hard in a narrowly defined body position in order to avoid injury to themselves. That is how they are able to kill their prey so quickly.   

To claim all this magnificent chorus of mutually reinforcing abilities "evolved" by chance, when they all had to be there at the same time to work properly, is pseudo-scientific Darwinian straw grasping baloney.

An owl friend of mine has a few words to say to the Darwinist true believers:

What’s Unique about an Owl’s Eyesight?

Owls can rotate their heads about 270 degrees in either direction, and up and down about 90 degrees, without moving their shoulders. This maneuverability is key to their ability to spot prey, especially when you consider that an owl doesn’t have eyeballs. Their eyes are shaped more like tubes, and are held rigidly in place by bones called sclerotic rings. Their eyes consist of densely packed retinal rods -- about a million rods per square millimeter -- which help them see in all kinds of light conditions.

The eyes have it:

Owls are farsighted, and they can’t focus on objects that are very close. Whisker-like bristles located near their beaks help them detect objects at close range.

Owls have binocular vision. Binocular vision is the ability to see an object with both eyes, at the same time. This visual acuity increases the owl’s depth perception.

Owls have three eyelids. The upper eyelid closes downward when the owl blinks, and the lower eyelid closes up when the owl sleeps. The third eyelid provides translucent protection, moving horizontally while still allowing the owl to see.

https://www.wisegeek.com/whats-unique-about-an-owls-eyesight.htm
« Last Edit: November 28, 2019, 01:52:31 pm by AGelbert »
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Stephen Meyer: The Return of the God Hypothesis
« Reply #171 on: August 22, 2019, 02:58:48 pm »
Stephen Meyer: The Return of the God Hypothesis
64,228 views


socratesinthecity
Published on Apr 16, 2019

Eric Metaxas interviews Stephen C. Meyer about the ultimate mystery of the universe as drawn from recent scientific discoveries in physics, cosmology, and biology.

The interview took place at the Dallas Conference on Science and Faith, sponsored by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, in January 2019.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31362
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
=

Signature in the Cell: Stephen Meyer 💫 Faces his 🙉 Critics, pt. 1: The Presentation
250,829 views


Stephen Meyer
Published on Feb 14, 2014

Stephen Meyer is the author of The New York Times best selling book Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, 2013). For more information on the book and to order your copy visit http://www.darwinsdoubt.com

Category Science & Technology
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life. Pr. 13:12

 

+-Recent Topics

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
December 09, 2019, 09:44:30 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
December 09, 2019, 09:30:02 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
December 09, 2019, 08:41:14 pm

911 > September 11 2001 > U.S. Fascist COUP? by AGelbert
December 09, 2019, 08:17:03 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
December 09, 2019, 06:35:48 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
December 09, 2019, 03:39:59 pm

You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Procrastination by AGelbert
December 09, 2019, 02:48:58 pm

Money by AGelbert
December 09, 2019, 12:27:48 pm

Corporate Mendacity and Duplicity by AGelbert
December 09, 2019, 12:02:57 pm

Comic Relief by Surly1
December 09, 2019, 09:58:17 am