[continued from previous message]   
      
   and things move forward.  This never happens for the ID scam, nor for   
   scientific creationism that came before the ID scam.  The ID perps still   
   use the god-of-the-gaps arguments that the scientific creationists used   
   to use.  The ID perps Top Six best god-of-the-gaps evidence for ID were   
   all used by the scientific creationists.  For scientific creationists   
   woodpeckers were birds that could not have evolved, and for ID perps   
   woodpeckers are IC (could not have evolved).   
      
   >   
   > But what caught my on on this is the similarity of the tongue and what   
   > seems like an impossible thing to evolve naturally, to something in the   
   > human eye.  The Superior Oblique is something that to me just doesn't   
   > work with evolutionary processes.   
   >   
   > https://anatomysystem.com/diagram-of-eye-muscles-image/   
      
   You likely have to figure out the difference between fish eyes and   
   tetrapod eyes.  You would be talking about the evolution that occurred   
   as eyes were evolving into what jawed vertebrates have.  Vertebrate eyes   
   were evolving in the ancestors of extant jawless fish.   
      
   >   
   > The need for that lateral rotation, similar sized muscles for similar   
   > push/pull energy, and no room in the eye socket cavity to attach the   
   > necessary muscle has ended up with where we are now having the trochlea   
   > involved instead for this movement.  Somehow, we are supposed to believe   
   > that a genetic mutation somehow came up with the engineering solution of   
   > diagnosing and eventually using a tool, the trochlea pulley, and figured   
   > out how to get the superior oblique to thread itself through this tool,   
   > and attach itself to the eyeball all on its own, and by chance   
   > mutations.  That's all you get, chance.  Even if in the early stages of   
   > eye development the need for this rotation was desired, the eye still   
   > could not just simply grow it.  It just happened by accident, over a   
   > long period of time, and then selection won over and we all get one now.   
      
   Just because you can't imagine how something happened, doesn't mean much   
   in science.  Instead of retreating to god-did-it and stopping there   
   (that is all IC is good for) you need to figure out how god-did-it.  If   
   it happened like the "novel" structures that have a more clear   
   evolutionary path like the fingers of your hand.  You can see that the   
   designer built onto an existing wrist structure of lobefin fish.  The   
   individual fingers are duplications of extensions from that wrist.  The   
   designer repurposes existing structures by duplicating them and then   
   using the duplicate copy for something new.  You likely need to look for   
   the muscle that existed before the superior oblique existed.  You would   
   be looking for muscles and nerves that existed in the early head before   
   eyes evolved.  They would likely be cells derived from the neural   
   ectoderm that makes tissue inside the head.  The neural crest evolved in   
   ancestors of jawless fish and is responsible for forming the vertebrate   
   head around the brain (central nervous system).  That is what I have   
   figured out in the last few months as I have tried to understand when   
   melanocytes evolved (they are derived from the neural crest).   
      
   >   
   > Can I perform experiments proving it could not have been done this way?   
   > I don't think I would waste my time.  Someone else can, but to me the   
   > example is obvious.  It simply did not happen on it's own.  I really   
   > don't care how much time you would allow for it.  Evolution does not   
   > have the required tools.   
      
   That is the problem with god-of-the-gaps.  It is a science stopper, and   
   nothing more than that.  You were never interested in getting an actual   
   answer.  Jawless fish may have existed during the Cambrian explosion   
   over half a billion years ago.  Eyes would have been evolving (or being   
   designed) before and during this time.  The real issue for you should be   
   that this gap is not Biblical.  This god created eyes out of Biblical   
   order.  The Cambrian explosion started around 200 million years before   
   the first land plants evolved from fresh water algae, so there were sea   
   creatures existing before the third day or period of time, not only   
   that, but the ancestors of the crop plants described as being created on   
   the third day would not evolve until after dinos were walking around on   
   this planet.   
      
   MarkE can't deal with the fact that the god that fills his gaps is not   
   Biblical.  Just ask him for a straightforward statement on how filling   
   the origin of life gap with a non Biblical god affects his Biblical   
   religious beliefs.  None of the gaps support the Biblical creation   
   described in the Bible.  The Supreme court was correct in telling the   
   scientific creationists that gap denial was no support for their   
   Biblical alternative.  Even if you could fill the gap with some god the   
   Bible would just be demonstrated to be wrong.  Since your Biblical   
   beliefs are the basis for your gap denial, you are just shooting   
   yourself in the head.  Once this fact was made clear to the IDiots   
   posting on TO when the ID perps put out the Top Six god-of-the-gaps   
   denial arguments in the order in which they must have occurred in this   
   universe it was game over for most of the Biblical creationist IDiots.   
   They quit supporting the ID creationist scam.  They could no longer   
   support the ID scam because if the ID perps ever did produce any real   
   science supporting ID it would just be more science for them to deny.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   >   
   > Is this the thing that has convinced me that evolution is wrong and ID   
   > is correct?  Of course not.  It is simply evidence that intelligence was   
   > required, and that the superior oblique, much like the woodpecker tongue   
   > appear to have been designed as the evolutionary process does not have   
   > the tools to come up with these solutions for these two features.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)