The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Morbert

Wolfsbane, do you believe the work of Darwin is immoral, and in some way responsible for the holocaust?

It would be hypocritical for someone to object to people blaming religion for horrible acts, and then turn around and blame Darwinism for a horrible act.

Furthermore, the holocaust is built on the principle of artificial selection, which was around long before Darwinism. All Darwin did was investigate whether or not selective breeding can occur naturally.

Also, I notice the subject has changed. Please don't see this as an excuse to make the same mistakes (that have already been corrected) when the topic swings back to the scientific validity of Evolutionary biology. You're the only creationist left in this thread, and that's quite a responsibility.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

By smaller proteins forming first that performed different functions or the same function in a less efficient way and those proteins gradually becoming more complex through mutations, with each stage performing a slightly different function. These new mutations can be selected by natural selection because, while the simpler proteins do not perform exactly the same function as the specific 100 chain protein, they still perform a function which gives the organism an advantage over its fellow organisms.

...the only problem is that 'intermediates' lose all function and where a whole SERIES of specific proteins are required in a tightly defined specific sequence (like the sight cascade) the odds against such a system forming spontaneously is a statistical IMPOSSIBILITY!!!!

...indeed to allow materialistic evolution to go forward, it would need to be able to produce novel specific functional proteins continuously in BOTH the SAME time and space (i.e. when and where required) ... and the only known phenomenon that can do so on the scale required to produce a Human from Pondslime (irrespective of the time available) is intelligence.

wolfsbane

Morbert said:

Wolfsbane, do you believe the work of Darwin is immoral, and in some way responsible for the holocaust?

It was immoral in the sense that it denied the Biblical account. I'm sure Darwin didn't mean his nephew or any of the eugenics folk to bring out the logical conclusions, nor for Hitler to apply German organisational skills to it.

It would be hypocritical for someone to object to people blaming religion for horrible acts, and then turn around and blame Darwinism for a horrible act.

Indeed.

Furthermore, the holocaust is built on the principle of artificial selection, which was around long before Darwinism. All Darwin did was investigate whether or not selective breeding can occur naturally.

He gave scientific credence to the idea of artificial selection - if selection of the fittest was pure nature, then it seems moral and logical to protect own's own by artificial selection.

Also, I notice the subject has changed.

I was responding to Flamed Diving's post.

Please don't see this as an excuse to make the same mistakes (that have already been corrected) when the topic swings back to the scientific validity of Evolutionary biology. You're the only creationist left in this thread, and that's quite a responsibility.

I'm afraid the corrections were as flawed as the premises they were based on. But I'll try to offer one or two insights as I'm able. JC will do the real science.

wolfsbane

Flamed Diving wrote: »

This isn't even a rebuttal, and I don't accept Wiki articles as references. Just like university.

Whistling in the dark. You're afraid of even rationalist sites. Take of the blindfold and you'll see we don't mean to harm you.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...indeed to allow materialistic evolution to go forward, it would need to be able to produce novel specific functional proteins continuously in BOTH the SAME time and space (i.e. when and where required) ... and the only known phenomenon that can do so on the scale required to produce a Human from Pondslime (irrespective of the time available) is intelligence.

A pretty dumb intelligence it seems.
Boy, you sure do love abiogenesis don't ya?

...the only problem is that 'intermediates' lose all function and where a whole SERIES of specific proteins are required in a tightly defined specific sequence (like the sight cascade) the odds against such a system forming spontaneously is a statistical IMPOSSIBILITY!!!!

You understanding of probability and statistics is pretty darn poor JC, so I'm not taking your impossibility idea with any credibility.:p
I just pray you'll never be on a jury where statistics come into the equation.

Badboy1977

Im struggling with my catholic faith and Im a religion teacher! Was never strongly religious and only took on RE because I needed a second subject. Didnt find it too bad first few years as in fairness most of what the Church teaches makes sense for day to day life,though I find the prohibition on homosexuality to be complete and utter nonsense. Based from a time where the jews were a desert tribe trying to keep up numbers!

I have lately been reading Richard Dawkins and his argument that not only is intelligent design unlikely but a God Figure behind it all (creation ) is even more unlikely as quite convincing. God is often used to fill in the cracks rather than embracing the mystery and allowing ourselves time to fill in these gaps. We use God as the end point of regressing everything(first cause) without acknowledging that a God being in existence back along the line is highly improbable. Who created this God? Such an intelligent super natural being existing is stretching credulity-he claims.

He also quite rightly points out that the resurrection of Christ can be assessed as a Scientific fact-it either happened or didn't happen and thus trying to separate Religion from science(claiming science cant critique Religion as its not its territory) is not advisable. Religion he claims is about events or things that believers claim exist/occur? Is that not possible to assess scientifically? Eventually?

Anyway, I have yet to make up my mind but Dawkin's book is a must read for all of those interested in discussing this. (THE GOD DELUSION)

J C

Badboy1977 wrote: »

Im struggling with my catholic faith and Im a religion teacher! Was never strongly religious and only took on RE because I needed a second subject. Didnt find it too bad first few years as in fairness most of what the Church teaches makes sense for day to day life,though I find the prohibition on homosexuality to be complete and utter nonsense. Based from a time where the jews were a desert tribe trying to keep up numbers!

I have lately been reading Richard Dawkins and his argument that not only is intelligent design unlikely but a God Figure behind it all (creation ) is even more unlikely as quite convincing. God is often used to fill in the cracks rather than embracing the mystery and allowing ourselves time to fill in these gaps. We use God as the end point of regressing everything(first cause) without acknowledging that a God being in existence back along the line is highly improbable. Who created this God? Such an intelligent super natural being existing is stretching credulity-he claims.

He also quite rightly points out that the resurrection of Christ can be assessed as a Scientific fact-it either happened or didn't happen and thus trying to separate Religion from science(claiming science cant critique Religion as its not its territory) is not advisable. Religion he claims is about events or things that believers claim exist/occur? Is that not possible to assess scientifically? Eventually?

Anyway, I have yet to make up my mind but Dawkin's book is a must read for all of those interested in discussing this. (THE GOD DELUSION)

...I disagree that science can evaluate a supernatural phenomenon with no definitive observable residual evidence, like the resurrection.
However forensic science CAN evaluate the circumstantial evidence for the supernatural origin of life ... because we have the residual observable evidence for this action (in the form of living organisms themselves).

Creation Science is such a science ... and it PROVES that an intelligence of effectively infinite proportions was responsible for the 'origins' of life.

All complex specified information has an intelligent origin. If you doubt me, just think about how long and how much metal would be used to produce something like a functional nut and a bolt using random processes. Infinity is the answer ... because there is an effective infinity of ways of producing an un-matching nut and bolt and only one way of producing a matching nut and bolt!!!
Intelligence can do so repeatably and to order ... but non-intelligent processes can NEVER do so.
Now think how long something as highly integrated and complex as the Human Body would take to produce, without the appliance of intelligence!!!

....we CANNOT scientifically prove that this Infinite Intelligence was the God of the Bible
... but the God of the Bible matches all of the known aspects of the 'Intelligence' which we know created life.

Evolutionists are like some kind of 'stone-age' tribe, who come across a supersonic jet ... and conclude that it was an 'accident of natural forces' - and not a product of intelligence!!!!
Could I point out that a Human body is vastly more complex and tightly specified than a jet plane ... and yet Evolutionists conclude that it too was produced by an 'accident of natural forces' - and not a product of intelligence !!!

I would also draw a distinction between being a Christian and a member of a particular Church.
Being a Christian involves making a personal faith commitment to Jesus Christ ... because there is none other by which you may be saved ...
.... you may then choose to join a particular church or none ... as you see fit.

Theistic Evolution 'regresses' the involvement of God in the generation of life, to vanishing point - so it doesn't surprise me that individuals and organisations which hold to Theistic Evolution will experience a faith crisis in God. Ironically, if they thought about, they should actually have a faith crisis in Evolution!!!
However, Creation Science supports faith in the God of the Bible, by PROVING scientifically that an effectively infininte intelligence was the Creator of all life and ALL of the genetic information that it now possesses!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...I agree that forensic science CAN evaluate the circumstantial evidence for the origin of life ...

Creation Science is such a science ... and it PROVES that an intelligence of effectively infinite proportions was responsible.

All complex specified information has an intelligent origin. If you doubt me, just think how long and how much metal would be used to produce something complex and specified like a nut and a bolt using random processes. Infinity is the answer!!!
Now think how long something like the Human Body would talke to produce without the appliance of intelligence!!!

....so can we scientifically prove that this Infinite Intelligence was the God of the Bible ?
... the short answer is no ... but the God of the Bible matches all of the known aspects of the 'Intelliegnce' which created life.

I would also draw a distinction between being a Christian and a member of a particular Church.
Being a Christian involves making a personal faith commitment to Jesus Christ ... because there is none other by which you may be saved ...
.... you may then choose to join a particular church or none ... as you see fit.

JC, dude you have yet to give one coherent reason as to why creationism is not pseudo science.
Appealing to this users using false arguments isn't going to work.
The God of the bible in His wisdom created light and the earth before the stars!!
(Wonder who fixed His mess up after Him.)
Badboy if you have any queries don't hesitate to ask.:)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the only problem is that 'intermediates' lose all function

No, they don't, that is simply not true....but you already know that as it's been proven to you countless times. But if you stopped claiming something just because you'd been proven wrong you wouldn't be the JC we all know and love

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No, they don't, that is simply not true....but you already know that as it's been proven to you countless times. But if you stopped claiming something just because you'd been proven wrong you wouldn't be the JC we all know and love

....all functional proteins are observed to be made up of distinct specific amino acid chains ... and ANY alteration to critical amino acid sequences within these proteins result in a loss of functionality.
Equally, even if a fully functional protein is not fully integrated with other proteins, where it can function, it is also effectively non-functional.
..and therefore the appliance of Intelligence is the only known mechanism that can explain the origins of the specified complexity found in life.

Badboy1977

J C wrote: »

....all functional proteins are observed to be made up of distict specific amino acid chains ... and ANY alteration to critical amino acid sequences within these proteins result in a loss of functionality.
Equally, even if a fully functional protein is not fully integrated with other proteins, where it can function, it is also effectively non-functional.
..and therefore the appliance of Intelligence is the only known mechanism that can explain the origins of the specified complexity found in life.

Im not sure you have conclusively proven your case.You say origins of specified complexity. Life did not start as a complexity and secondly a complexity once formed in life can be said to be made up of very simple things combining to make a complexity.

J C

Badboy1977 wrote: »

Im not sure you have conclusively proven your case.You say origins of specified complexity. Life did not start as a complexity and secondly a complexity once formed in life can be said to be made up of very simple things combining to make a complexity.

...even relatively simple things that require the appliance of intelligence, like the manufacture of nuts and bolts exhibit complex specificity ... and are IMPOSSIBLE to produce using non-intelligently directed processes!!!

...equally, really complex things like the sight cascade and thousands of other tightly specified and massively complex systems found in living organisms completely defy a non-intelligently directed origin!!!!

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I follow the normal rules of hermeneutics in deciding what is literal and what is metaphorical. I assume you try to do the same. We all pick and choose - how valid our choice is depends on how clearly we think and how clear the issue is.

Seems odd though when faced with the mountain of evidence for evolution you choose to believe in your own infallibility?

Even if you play the card that there is a "debate" going on about evolution (as there is a "debate" about the flatness of the Earth), there are less than a hundred biologists vs millions of biologists on the evolution side. And that is before we get into the mountain of evidence on the evolution side vs the sketchy and grossly incomplete evidence on the Creationist side (if you pulled all the Creationist arguments together you get an incoherent mess of a grand theory)

The arrogance that you guys all believe yourselves infallible seems quite ridiculous. It is a classic case of everyone but me is wrong. Yet you claim to try your best to understand the Bible? Why bother when you are clearly never wrong?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

....all functional proteins are observed to be made up of distinct specific amino acid chains ... and ANY alteration to critical amino acid sequences within these proteins result in a loss of functionality.
Equally, even if a fully functional protein is not fully integrated with other proteins, where it can function, it is also effectively non-functional.
..and therefore the appliance of Intelligence is the only known mechanism that can explain the origins of the specified complexity found in life.

Right so

Badboy1977 wrote: »

Im not sure you have conclusively proven your case.You say origins of specified complexity. Life did not start as a complexity and secondly a complexity once formed in life can be said to be made up of very simple things combining to make a complexity.

I really wouldn't waste my time if I were you. This thread has been going for 4 years now with JC just repeating the same nonsense over and over again no matter how many times it's proven wrong. Many have tried to penetrate his wall of denial (or trolling possibly) and all have failed. Creationism was proven wrong 150 years ago but some people just haven't caught up yet and they're not going to as long as they think that accepting evolution means rejecting God

If you want a proper christian opinion of The God Delusion you should start a new thread or better yet pop over to the Atheism & Agnosticism forum where you'll be more than welcome

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right so


I really wouldn't waste my time if I were you. This thread has been going for 4 years now with JC just repeating the same nonsense over and over again no matter how many times it's proven wrong. Many have tried to penetrate his wall of denial (or trolling possibly) and all have failed. Creationism was proven wrong 150 years ago but some people just haven't caught up yet and they're not going to as long as they think that accepting evolution means rejecting God

If you want a proper christian opinion of The God Delusion you should start a new thread or better yet pop over to the Atheism & Agnosticism forum where you'll be more than welcome

...I wouldn't bother if I were you.

I debated this issue on the skeptics forum some years ago and I beat the pants off them and showed them up as NOT SKEPTICAL AT ALL ... when it comes to Evolution ... and they responded by summarily locking the thread to prevent any further embarassment to themselves.

These are great guys when they are 'winning' ... but they can't take it when they are losing!!!
...have a look at the thread here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=224944&page=3

.and here is how they ended the thread with the following priceless quote which shows that the 'Skeptics' can 'give it' ... but they can't 'take it' when they come up against their match on the 'origins' issue!!!


Quote Davros (as the thread was locked):-
"Right. Nothing will be served by any more back'n'forth among the participants on this thread.

I think the only sure way to draw a line under it is to close the thread. If anyone has anything new to say about Ken Ham's visit, please start a new thread."
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2483658&postcount=256

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Whistling in the dark. You're afraid of even rationalist sites. Take of the blindfold and you'll see we don't mean to harm you.

Provide a rebuttal which actually handles the topic directly, and I will play ball. I gave up playing your and JC's little game a lonnnnng time ago.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

However forensic science CAN evaluate the circumstantial evidence for the supernatural origin of life ... because we have the residual observable evidence for this action (in the form of living organisms themselves).

Sure, except we have truck fulls of evidence proving that life evolved from the very simple to the very complex.

Maybe a supernatural being created life originally and used evolution as his tool, but he either used evolution as his tool or he did nothing because Evolution is a fact.

Again JC, 4 years and you can't even learn the difference between Abiogenesis and Evolution ? You know we at least respond to you, you just parrot out the same crap over and over without responding to us.

Any chance of a change ?

Creation Science is such a science ... and it PROVES that an intelligence of effectively infinite proportions was responsible for the 'origins' of life.

Creation science proves just how dangerous religious fundamentalism can be to human education and improvement.

All complex specified information has an intelligent origin. If you doubt me, just think about how long and how much metal would be used to produce something like a functional nut and a bolt using random processes.

Absolutely amazing. 4 years here and you still come out with rubbish like that. I have to hand it to you, your the 'best' religious fundamentalist I have ever met.

Infinity is the answer ... because there is an effective infinity of ways of producing an un-matching nut and bolt and only one way of producing a matching nut and bolt!!!

Metal doesn't reproduce.

Intelligence can do so repeatably and to order ... but non-intelligent processes can NEVER do so.

If it was a creator it must be some kind of really stupid alien with a chemistry set and a bottle of whiskey when 99% of everything created is now dead.

Or is that in the masterplan ?

Now think how long something as highly integrated and complex as the Human Body would take to produce, without the appliance of intelligence!!!

A few billion years when we start from simple organisms.

....we CANNOT scientifically prove that this Infinite Intelligence was the God of the Bible

If you use Creationist science definitions of 'science' then you could prove something completely ridiculous like the earth been 6,000 years old. .... Oh wait thats right

Creation science is 100% certified nonsense. :rolleyes:

... but the God of the Bible matches all of the known aspects of the 'Intelligence' which we know created life.

So hes a very very bad designer then ? :pac:

monosharp

J C wrote: »

I debated this issue on the skeptics forum some years ago and I beat the pants off them and showed them up as NOT SKEPTICAL AT ALL ... when it comes to Evolution ... and they responded by summarily locking the thread to prevent any further embarassment to themselves.

:rolleyes:

JC your so cute, you actually keep repeating this stuff so much that you actually believe it don't you ?

Quote Davros (as the thread was locked):-
"Right. Nothing will be served by any more back'n'forth among the participants on this thread.

Would this have anything to do with the fact that you make a post about nonsense, someone shows you your wrong with scientific evidence and then you .... make the same post about the same nonsense again. Repeat.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...the only problem is that 'intermediates' lose all function

Here JC. I'm going to try my usual once a week, asking you a direct question only to be ignored.

So lets go.

Would you mind explaining then how the eye and its 'transitional forms' loose all function ?

Would you mind explaining why the eye could not have evolved ? Or are you going to quote the King James again as your scientific answer ? :pac:

Heres a link to help you out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#Stages_of_eye_evolution

And

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKyqIJkuDQ

And

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnQGUQvtaPg

And

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpaFVgKPw

And a diagram just because.

Sam Vimes

I see you made the same mistake I made the last time I posted that diagram for him :P
The svg link doesn't show up as an image

Turtwig

I thought I'd add some more eyes to the party.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

...when you can't demonstrate how even one specific biomolecule could arise spontaneously ... methinks it is all wishful thinking!!!

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...when you can't demonstrate how even one specific biomolecule could arise spontaneously ... methinks it is all wishful thinking!!!

Well it can be demonstrated that biomolecules can evolve but it's not really a simple matter to do it on an internet forum so let's just deal with the example given shall we? You say that intermediates lose all function yet you can see there several intermediate versions of the eye that have not lost all function. Explain please

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...when you can't demonstrate how even one specific biomolecule could arise spontaneously ... methinks it is all wishful thinking!!!

Ahh abiogenesis again, you're not disproving evolution though:p

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Ahh abiogenesis again, you're not disproving evolution though:p

....evolution ALSO requires the production of thousands of novel tightly specified biomolecules to develop any new structure ... and Evolution is therefore a Materialists 'pipe dream'!!!

monosharp

J C wrote: »

....evolution ALSO requires the production of thousands of novel tightly specified biomolecules to develop any new structure ... and Evolution is therefore a Materialists 'pipe dream'!!!

JC we have shown you detailed diagrams and examples of the intermediate stages of the human eye which is proof of evolution.

Because we are talking about evolution now ?

If you want to talk about examples for abiogenesis then please say so, but the above examples are for evolution which is a proven scientific fact.

The examples given above for evolution are what we are asking you to comment on. According to you the evolution of the eye is impossible because the intermediate stages lose all function. We have shown you that the intermediates do NOT lose all function.

Are you going to debate with us or ignore it and keep repeating your nonsense about the different subject, abiogenesis, or are you going to quote christian scripture.

For once try answering the question.

J C

monosharp wrote: »

JC we have shown you detailed diagrams and examples of the intermediate stages of the human eye which is proof of evolution.

Because we are talking about evolution now ?

If you want to talk about examples for abiogenesis then please say so, but the above examples are for evolution which is a proven scientific fact.

The examples given above for evolution are what we are asking you to comment on. According to you the evolution of the eye is impossible because the intermediate stages lose all function. We have shown you that the intermediates do NOT lose all function.

Are you going to debate with us or ignore it and keep repeating your nonsense about the different subject, abiogenesis, or are you going to quote christian scripture.

For once try answering the question.

...all you have shown are different types of eye CURRENTLY in animals ... which is NOT evolution !!!!!

...and a few Evolutionist 'pipe dreams'!!!!

...lads face the fact that the 'game is up' for 'muck to Man' evolution or even 'muck to slightly more sophisiticated muck' evolution!!!

... and 'mount improbable' is actually 'mount impossible'!!!!:D

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...all you have shown are different types of eye CURRENTLY in animals ... which is NOT evolution !!!!!

Your claim is that the eye cannot function at any intermediate stages. We don't have to prove the whole evolutionary process to prove you wrong, we simply have to show eyes functioning at intermediate stages, which we have done.

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

....all functional proteins are observed to be made up of distinct specific amino acid chains ... and ANY alteration to critical amino acid sequences within these proteins result in a loss of functionality.

Equally, even if a fully functional protein is not fully integrated with other proteins, where it can function, it is also effectively non-functional.
..and therefore the appliance of Intelligence is the only known mechanism that can explain the origins of the specified complexity found in life.

It is the shape in which a protein folds into determines its function not the specific amino acid sequence.

Because of this proteins can have a large number of different amino acid sequences, and as a result are free to mutate quite signifigantly. The result of this is that you can make interesting evolutionary trees like the following for Cytochrome c:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/cytows.r.pdf

Cytochrome c is an interesting little fellow that is an essential and ubiquitous protein found in all organisms, including eukaryotes and bacteria.

http://www.arn.org/docs/pbsevolution/camp4.pdf

Only about a third of the 100 amino acids in cytochrome c are necessary to specify its function. Most of the amino acids in cytochrome c are hypervariable (i.e. they can be replaced by a large number of functionally equivalent amino acids) (Dickerson and Timkovich 1975). Most importantly, Hubert Yockely has done a careful study in which he calculated that there are a minimum of 2.3 x 10^93 possible functional cytochrome c protein sequences, based on several exhaustive genetic mutational analyses (Hampsey 1986; Hampsey 1988; Yockey 1992, Ch. 6, p. 254) . . . Thus, functional cytochrome c sequences are virtually unlimited in number, and there is no a priori reason for two different species to have the same, or even mildly similar, cytochrome c protein sequences.

Apart from the fact that amino acids can be swapped for others without affecting functionality this is the other main reason why this number is so high:

Degeneracy of the genetic code

The genetic code has redundancy but no ambiguity (see the codon tables above for the full correlation). For example, although codons GAA and GAG both specify glutamic acid (redundancy), neither of them specifies any other amino acid (no ambiguity). The codons encoding one amino acid may differ in any of their three positions. For example the amino acid glutamic acid is specified by GAA and GAG codons (difference in the third position), the amino acid leucine is specified by UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG codons (difference in the first or third position), while the amino acid serine is specified by UCA, UCG, UCC, UCU, AGU, AGC (difference in the first, second or third position).

A position of a codon is said to be a fourfold degenerate site if any nucleotide at this position specifies the same amino acid. For example, the third position of the glycine codons (GGA, GGG, GGC, GGU) is a fourfold degenerate site, because all nucleotide substitutions at this site are synonymous; i.e., they do not change the amino acid. Only the third positions of some codons may be fourfold degenerate. A position of a codon is said to be a twofold degenerate site if only two of four possible nucleotides at this position specify the same amino acid.

Interestingly 2.3 x 10^93 is greater than the total number of atoms in the Universe, a number I know you are particularily fond of.

All proteins are made up of one or more domains which are functionally complete sub units that are free to have evolved seperately. Useful identical or near identical domains are shared by many different forms of proteins.

http://www.physorg.com/news155940241.html

All proteins contain domains that can be identified by their structural and functional similarities to one another. These domains are the gears and motors that allow the protein machinery to work. Every protein has one or more of them, and very different proteins can contain the same, or similar, domains.

Yet again protein domains are very handy for making even more evolutionary trees.

http://www.biochemsoctrans.org/bst/037/0751/0370751.pdf

For example, the immunoglobulin superfamily can be traced over 500
million years during its expansion into one of the largest families in the human genome. It can be shown that this protein family has its origins in basic animals such as the poriferan sponges where it is found in cell-surface-receptor proteins. We can trace how the structure and sequence of this family diverged during vertebrate evolution into constant and variable domains that are found in the antibodies of our immune system as well as in neural and muscle proteins.

You can even split proteins and put them back together in the lab yourself, if you don't believe the materialists.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-08/sri-srs080609.php

Proteins, including enzymes, are often divided into domains—parts of a protein that can evolve, function, and exist independently of the rest. One domain of AlaRS is responsible for aminoacylation, the chemical reaction that adds alanine to tRNA Ala. A second domain, the editing domain, removes amino acids other than alanine added to tRNA Ala by mistake.

Many cells also contain "free-standing" alanine editing enzymes, called AlaXps, that are separate from AlaRS. "The idea is that if the editing domain of AlaRS does not catch the error in aminoacylation then there is another chance," explains Schimmel. "The AlaXp can remove the wrong amino acid from mischarged tRNA Ala."

In AlaRS, the two domain are joined together. But there is third domain, C-Ala, attached to the end of this enzyme, present in AlaRS of every living species. C-Ala acts as a functional bridge between the aminoacylation and editing functions. This C-Ala domain is also present in some, but not all, free-standing AlaXps.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...all you have shown are different types of eye CURRENTLY in animals ... which is NOT evolution !!!!!

My and Sams diagram was about the evolution of the eye taking into account the current intermediate stages of the eye we can see today in living organisms.

You claim such intermediate stages cannot exist and function, we just showed that the nonsense you are sprouting is childish schoolyard rubbish that anyone should be ashamed to support.

Please deal with the evidence we have presented or just admit defeat.