I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Reflects off of what? Human cone cells? Light existed way before people or other animals so it's not the light that evolved, but the pigments that are sensitive to those wavelengths. Could you elaborate?[/QUOte] Of course it is. Which part are you referring to in your question? And what do you mean by randomness in this case? I'm not quite sure what your point is here, really. There are several species with tetrachromatic vision, you know - 4 cone types. Others with trichromatic vision have different cones than ours (bumblebees see more towards ultraviolet and can't see red, for example). The mechanism by which the opsin gene duplicates via copying (much like the subunits of hemoglobin) is fairly well understood. How do you explain the presence of tetrachomatic female humans? It's something similar to what happens in New World Monkeys where males are dichromates and around 60% of females of trichromates. The brain has no problem interpreting these "new" colors. Check out the research - it's fascinating stuff. What sort of chemical lab? I take it that it wasn't a research facility or that you weren't involved in that bit? I know plenty of chemists that experiment. Back when I was in research (plant physiological ecology) we most certainly did experiments. I can't quite understand what points you're trying to make here, really. As CometsWin
Light is just a continuous spectrum of varying wavelengths. It has no color. Light didnt not evolve, but our perception of light did. Primary colors are in fact a result of evolution. On a different planet, humans would have developed different primary colors.
No. It's generally good to find truth, but it is NOT an absolute good, and telling the truth is not always the right thing to do. I made my argument earlier. If truth really was an absolute good, then a world where no one could hide any secrets from anyone else would obviously be a perfect world. However, even a child can understand that that would be the complete opposite. Well, maybe not all children. As for your points, I'm going to respond by borrowing a passage from the Communist Manifesto. Marx describes this process of globalization which continues on even today, which is why the fall of the Soviet Union doesn't actually invalidate Marxism like people think it does. And of course, the rest of the Manifesto is a discussion about what happens next, which thus obviously means that contrary to what you think, a discussion about what happens after globalization is perfectly valid and a vapid assumption of increasing globalization, secularity, and material progress is reminiscient of the arrogance and complacency which Europe possessed at the beginning of the 20th century and was rudely shattered by the Great War. This is all the more so since the time will come when the Western world will no longer be able to exploit the resources of the rest of the developing world, whether due to environmental concerns or due to the developing world's rising standards as well. The time will come, as a result, when people will have to choose and unite to deal with the side effects of globalization. You may laugh at national identity, but my argument is that the current system needs more unity, something which most people on this board will agree with. However, that begs the question which you've completely ignored. If unity is not to come through religion, if unity is not to come through national identity, or common cultures, traditions, or beliefs.... then where the heck is unity supposed to come from at all? Marx answers that by his discussion about the proletariat, but while I accept Marx's concept of globalization, I reject that answer. Because what drives people is not loyalty to class, but loyalty to the country. Almost a 100 years ago, the German socialists, when their country was in peril, vowed to support the absolutely undemocratic Kaiser. That is what I talk about.
I just want to know if you or anyone else is certain as to why visible light has primary colors, is there a purpose? That's all. Why is my question.
Of course it is. Which part are you referring to in your question? And what do you mean by randomness in this case? I'm not quite sure what your point is here, really. There are several species with tetrachromatic vision, you know - 4 cone types. Others with trichromatic vision have different cones than ours (bumblebees see more towards ultraviolet and can't see red, for example). The mechanism by which the opsin gene duplicates via copying (much like the subunits of hemoglobin) is fairly well understood. How do you explain the presence of tetrachomatic female humans? It's something similar to what happens in New World Monkeys where males are dichromates and around 60% of females of trichromates. The brain has no problem interpreting these "new" colors. Check out the research - it's fascinating stuff. What sort of chemical lab? I take it that it wasn't a research facility or that you weren't involved in that bit? I know plenty of chemists that experiment. Back when I was in research (plant physiological ecology) we most certainly did experiments. I can't quite understand what points you're trying to make here, really. As CometsWin[/QUOTE] Forget the 'evolve' part, unless you know for certain the origin of light. Not pigments, but optics, do you know the origin of color optics specifically why optics see color, what caused this? What I mean by randomness is how did is happen by randomness? Has this been observed in random occurrence, or is this a theory arrived at by experimentation? (with regard to the origin of color optics) I understand how adaptation occurs in monkeys and other species, that has nothing to do with the origin of optics and color vision. I worked in a Chem Lab at Dow Chem, I was the tech to the Chemist, we tested using GC, titration, MS etc, analysis of various chemical products.
They are only the primary colors for trichromates. Most mammals only have 2 types of cones and therefore only 2 primary colors. Tetrachromates (many birds and marsupials and some human females) have 4. They're simply the colors that blend to make other colors, based on the number of types of cones you happen to have.
Color vision is a pretty well understood phenomenon. I have no idea what you're on about with respect to the origin of light. From a physics standpoint it's simply a form of electromagnetic radiation often caused by high energy electrons falling from a high-energy state back to the ground state, emitting a photon. So-called visible light just happens to be in a wavelength we can see, hence the name. Adaptation has everything to do with color vision. If you're an ape and all you see is green, then you miss out on all of that lovely, nutrient-rich fruit that's red and purple. It's fairly well understood that there are proteins called opsins that reside in the retina that are sensitive to different wavelengths of light (much like the various chlorophylls and other plant pigments are) that when excited (by their respected wavelengths) send electrical impulses to the brain. Even the basic mechanism of adaptation is fairly figured out. See this article for a summary, but here are some highlights: "One of the pigments (the short wavelength opsin) is encoded by an autosomal gene and the other two by similar opsin genes (the middle and long wavelength opsins) on the X chromosome. Primates with dichromatic vision (the ability to see shades of only two colors) have only two opsin genes-one on an autosome and only one on the X chromosome. Scientists have long believed that the prosimians, such as lemurs and bush babies, have dichromatic vision at best. In fact, some nocturnal prosimians have been shown to have only a single class of color photopigment in their retinas and thus lack color vision entirely, seeing only in black and white. The diurnal prosimians that have been previously investigated produce two classes of opsins and so have dichromatic color vision (similar to classical red/green human color blindness). Li and Tan discovered a polymorphism-a gene variation in several prosimians that codes for either a middle (M) or long (L) wavelength opsin. This polymorphism, found on the X chromosome, together with the autosomal short (S) wavelength opsin gene should enable females with an M on one X chromosome and a L on the other to produce three classes of opsin. These females should possess the ability to see in full color. Since the variation is X-linked, trichromatic vision is possible only in females who carry the M variant on one X and the L variant on the other X. Females with an M or L variant on both X chromosomes and males, who have one X and one Y chromosome, can see only dichromatically. "Nobody had discovered this polymorphism before," notes Li, "although a similar, more recent polymorphism allows the New World monkeys to see in full color vision."
I understand a little about light, magnetism and the type of energy light is, I understand what wavelengths are in the spectrum. A 475 nm in the light spectrum is blue- absolutely and always. Why? Forget about your perception, it is blue (or any other name you choose) Blue is a color (or whatever you want to call it) It is absolutely blue, not red or yellow. Always blue, why? How did this evolve if it is a part of evolution as you stated? Do you know how optics originated to perceive blue and why? That is my question. So many here seem so sure of origins as if they know it all. I don't and I am asking for some logical explanation. Not to defend God or my beliefs, but to try to see what I am missing with all these intelligent people posting like they are absolutely certain about these things. I find it illogical to even assume that this all happened by random occurrences. It seems more logical that intelligence was involved. Not the Intelligent Design that so many Christians run to as 'science'. I don't need Intelligent Design to believe a Supreme Being created things. But setting my faith in God aside, I am perplexed as to how many people rely on time and randomness to explain such very complex issues. I am asking honest questions, because I have googled and read Hawking and other scientists on the origin of everything and I call it ''Intelligent Guessing' Which is fine as long as you don't get so self righteous and dogmatic about it. No need for that. I wouldn't try to prove God created everything, nor would I try to prove anyone else has proof or evidence of how it happened. Too much for mere mortals. I believe it is more important to know God than to prove God. To understand why we are here than to know how we got here and to know where our spirit goes if anywhere after death. 10 out of 10 people die,that is an impressive and important statistic. As a pastor I deal with issues like this alot and they are more important to me than trying to prove God or dark matter and empty space. I am concerned more what is in the heart of a man than if I have a common ancestor with a monkey.
Are you asking about the evolution of light, or the evolution of our ability to perceive light? If you mean the latter, then our perception of light is not absolute. We all see the world a little differently. I'm probably just not understanding the point you're trying to make.
I have no idea what he is going on about either. The reason why we see the wavelength range we do is because the Sun's spectral energy distribution (i.e., energy as a function of wavelength) peaks in this range. It peaks in this range because of the Sun's surface temperature, which, in turn, is what it is because of its mass and age. As far as developing optical devices, the bare basics you need for evolution to take off is some sort of light-sensitive area on the body - just to tell if its light or dark. Hardly inconceivable. As for "evolution of light", yeah, I'm lost. Light, i.e., electromagnetic radiation is one of the four fundamental interactions. I have no idea what it would mean for it to evolve. Also, a minor point, it is not true that "blue (or whatever) is 475 nm". Blue can be whatever wavelength (theoretically). The eye is sensitive to the frequency and not the wavelength. Rereading rhester's last post... It's the genetic mutations that are random (in the sense that beforehand one cannot predict whether they will be beneficial), the survival of the mutated individual is not random - if the mutation offers survival advantages, which will be the case only for a minority of mutations, the individual is more likely to live long enough to produce offspring to which it can pass the mutated gene. This gene will then become more and more common in the gene pool because it offers a better chance of survival. There's nothing random here.
Relevant. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YY92TV4_Wc0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Based on "common sense" thinking of adaptation - we see color so we can better tell the differences between things. If we don't need color, we probably won't see color. If we don't need vision, we probably won't have vision (e.g. there are fish that live in total darkness and don't have vision, even though they have what looks like eye). Origins as in origin of life? I have seen claim that life is created by God and that's the absolute truth and nothing else will change my mind -- so, this claim fit what you just described - they know it all and are absolutely certain about this. There is also the claim that life is NOT created by God. But these same posters did not claims, i believe, that they KNOW for certain what created life or how life originated. Some might believe life came from nothing and others from something but "randomly" started than evolved. These are likely based on current hypothesis of the origin of life (not theory - I don't believe there isn't any scientific theory at this time on origin of life). There is another set of claims (which I fall under) which simply said, no idea. It could be some supreme being / event / thing / force or just randomness. Who knows. I don't think anyone rely (know) but are just guessing, as you said, at this time. But the guess doesn't at all seems illogical to me, however unlikely. There are good hypothesis based on current science out there on what could and might happen to start life - it will take times to see if they hold up or not. To me, at least they are not just pure guess, but are based on science. I accept that, even though I have little understanding of it. I don't accept (but don't completely rule it out either) Intelligent Design because that is currently not based on any Science - when it does, than I will accept that as a possibility. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't be as concern with the latter. Human are curious and it's natural to seek out how we all started. Science is a tool to answer our curiosity. For some, not important. For others, very important. If some Religion hold onto some dogmatic views that seem to be or will not be compatible with Science findings, then really, that just have to be acknowledged to move on (and Religion for the most part is doing quite a bit of this over the centuries - e.g. adapting to or explaining how the new finding is compatible or even using them as proof of their Religion). Faithful might choose to not accept or ignore - perfectly fine. With that said, the focus you mentioned (heart), I believe is a very good stance for Faith and Religion. .... A question - why do you have a concern of "all happened by random occurrences"? Why does that matter?
I actually like you as a poster, and I apologize for being "petulant." And it was a "smart ass comment," I get ticked off just like every one else. I grew up in a science community. My family and many of their friends "worshiped" science. They subscribed to science journals when I was very young. They would sit down with me and go through them. I have a background in biology, chemistry, geology and physics at a large university, but I am by no means an expert. I was trained in evolution almost like it was a religion. I have read extensively in the area. It has been so long since I read Darwin, I don't remember much of his "Origin" book (he had many others). I do remember reading Huxley. I thought it was odd that he resorted to the term "Mother Nature." Anyway, there truly are a thousand points and counter points on this subject. Process is not a issue for me. Natural selection, adaptation to environment, etc. make perfect sense to me. Beginnings or "origins" do not. I am an ardent advocate of the scientific method which as you know includes the demand for tangible, measurable, empirical evidence. I have tried to examine evidence pro and con and it is conflicting. I knew that some would make fun of the Martin book, but I found in interesting. A student challenged him to prove "evolution" and he discovered many problems that changed his mind. I have found counter points to most of his arguments on the net, but some are not very convincing. So, in regard to "process" I am undecided. As I said, I come to Clutch Fans for entertainment. When discussions get too detailed and laborious, they are no longer fun. Honestly, I don't want to pour over technical treatises for "comeback" points. I have frankly concluded that evolution can't be conclusively proven or disproven. As to rude posters (I don't consider you one) I won't engage them. Name calling and insults are against the rules here, and if I have stepped over the line, I apologize. I like intellectual stimulation and challenges, but when I come here I am escaping a very busy schedule and I want it to be pleasant. Next time I will more carefully pick my discussions.
Kind of funny tbh, I wasn't going to read it, but I always like a bit of controversy. Just ordered off of amazon. If anything, Fox helped him out with their ineptitude, which was cringe-wrothy bad even for their standards.
Just Curious, do you understand the theory of relativity and can you discuss the technical details about it with someone. I have no idea about how that theory works, but I trust the scientists who can understand it much better than I can. Same with evolution, I trust the majority of biologist and other life science specialist who say evolution as a theory is sound. I may not understand all the details, but I trust most of the scientists on the subject. If there are new discoveries found in that field, I am sure the theory will be adjusted accordingly. I do not just cast aside a theory just because a small minority in the field are doubting it even though I do not understand it fully. Of course that is just my view, so no one needs to agree with it.
The best explanation of E=mc2 is where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light, the mass-energy relation states that equivalent amounts of energy and mass are equal to the speed of light squared. This is the theory of relativity. Do I understand it fully. No, but I get the general idea. This is different from evolution which challenged and in the minds of the general population replaced the idea of creation. Instead of God creating the universe and all that is in it, life as we know it evolved into existence through natural processes. For many, evolution replaced religious belief. This makes it very different than most scientific theories. In some ways the story of the Fall seems allegorical, in other ways it doesn't since Adam is characterized as a historical person who lived and died. My tendency is to view God as the Creator and Evolution as the process, but there are also problems with that perspective. If belief has eternal consequences this is a significant issue. If evolution nullifies ones belief in Christianity and Christ is as He claims to be the only Way to God, then resolving the matter in some fashion is important.
LOL. He's heard of one consequence of special relativity and that is enough to claim general understanding. I bet.
It does take intelligence to experiment however nobody claims the Big Bang was an experiment. Events don't require intelligence. Events happen randomly all the time. I consider the Big Bang as much a natural event as a rainstorm or an eclipse or a black hole. There is no supernatural hand or intelligence behind natural events other than the innate intelligence of nature. I think you're using a common creationist tactic in that since origin or evolution aren't completely explained in every detail that people hone in one thing that is not wholly explained to derail the entire premise. Kind of the tactic of moon landing deniers or 9/11 conspiracy folks. It takes a high level of knowledge beyond the layman to debunk intricate conclusions that are made. So while I can't speak to your light argument I can speak to DNA. I can tell you for a fact that combining the exact correct chemicals in synthesizing DNA results in unwanted mutations a certain percentage of the time. Completely random and chance mutations. An experiment is a test to validate or invalidate a hypothesis so I don't know what you're trying to say really. We hypothesize a Big Bang and we experiment to test and validate or invalidate the hypothesis.
